Emulating Napoleon, George W. Bush Arrogantly Crowns Himself Emperor

Almost as funny as Al Gore not knowing when to quit. I find it funny that during the debates he always had to have the last word and now he will not give up until the bitter end. Can I repsond to that? No Al pack your backs move in with Willy and live off Hillary for awhile.
My point is simple let Gore slip away quietly and if his lawyers work a miracle that is fine, but there is no use of him staying in the national light crying foul.
Gore lost his own home state, how can he ever want to run our country?

 

4chuckie, Mr. Bush lost the popular vote of the entire country. Your argument is completely and utterly moot.

I find the Republican arrogance in this election absolutely hilarious.

Bush Jr. has surrounded himself with his Daddy's clown posse, the same jokers we voted out in 1992.

Why did we vote them out?

Because they felt that fighting a war for the oil companies and shoving morality down the collective throat of the country was more important than creating jobs, paying down the deficit and growing the economy!

If Junior ever becomes President (and ultimately I believe he will), his "holier than thou" behavior since election day and his inevitable ineptitude at getting anything done in Washington will more than guarantee a Democratic landslide in 2004.

I feel sorry for the stumblebum. I really do!

------------------
I am the b*stard son of LHutz.

Huh?

Right!

 

How is the guys point "completely and utterly moot." Just because Algore won the Big City vote?

Do you not find it somewhat strange that a native son of Tennessee can't even garner his own states vote? Kind of tells you what the people whom know him the best think of him.

And save the popular vote crap, when in the history of our country did the popular vote elect the president? Talk about a point that is REALLY “completely and utterly moot,” your moronic “popular vote” takes the cake.

Read the constitution you might learn something. The popular vote doesn’t matter, if the election was solely based on total number of votes (which is a horrible idea) don’t you think both candidates would have campaigned a little different? The overall popular vote means nothing.

If Algore and you really want someone to blame for LOSING, look no further than your beloved Billy Boy. Economy is great, no national crises, no foreign conflicts, and the Incumbent loses. That is all but unheard of. ROTFLMAO!


------------------

 

I think we need another civil war. This party line nonsense has got to go. I GUARANTEE you that if Gore would have won and Bush would have been the one down by 500+ popular votes in Florida, that it would be the exact same thing we see going on now....but the sides reversed. It just goes to show what Democrats and Republicans agree on...practically nothing. I think the longer this drags out, the more likely it is for Gore to ruin his reputation and his name. If he plans on re-running in 2004, this could spell disaster for him. I could see this thing dragging on forever given the pace of the courts. It might be a good time for the rest of the world to launch an attack at the US...about January. Maybe Saddam can finish his a-bomb and ram it into the statue of liberty in a mooring boat. LOL

Surf

------------------

 

Ty...time for your 50,000 mile checkup. Your brainpan is dripping again!

Do you think your beloved Dubya would be contesting the election if he were 500 votes behind in Florida instead of Gore?

You bet he would be!

If you think Bush would concede and walk away if he were in Gore's shoes, then I have swampland in Arizona to sell you!

You're right, the popular vote does not elect the President. Never has. It just shows where the people of the United States stand in an election. And, after all, the opinion of the people of the United States means absolutely nothing, right? No biggie, eh?

I do believe Bush will become our next President. And I feel sorry for the schmuck. His glorious Presidency will be tainted, and he will be gone in four years.

PS: Don't blame me...I didn't vote for either of these losers!!!

------------------
I am the b*stard son of LHutz.

Huh?

Right!

 

Not that I really give a rat's ass, but...

to hell with the constitution. Yes, it's a wonderful document and it's meaning and purpose is almost...but not quite...timeless.

But it's not always right, and it's not always relevant.

The electoral college is moronic, and if we live in a democracy, the popular vote is what should count.

Nevertheless, for one to say that they find the "Republican arrogance in this election absolutely hilarious" is equally absurd.

One need look no further than this BBS to know that both sides are acting equally pompous and arrogant.

Don't you people realize that this is nothing but a big game? You might as well be arguing about who will win the next WWF tournament.

------------------
stop posting my damn signature

 

Aren't you the "maybe maybe no" guy?



------------------
My dream job is to be a Houston Rockets towel boy.

 

RM,

Please point out where I complained about Gore contesting the election?

*chirp*chirp*chirp*chirp*

Well, find it yet, I am still waiting?

Actually I have never had a problem with him wanting a recount, I was all for it. I think the way the recount was done was a little unfair, but it is over and Al lost.....again. And Yes if Bush was in the same situation, I would hope he wouldn’t quit either. I do think Al is going overboard, now though.

"It just shows where the people of the United States stand in an election."

It shows where the people who VOTED stand.

Going to the "popular vote" is like saying well the Knicks REALLY beat the Rockets in game 7 since they had a higher field goal percentage. Too bad Field Goal% (or in the case of a United States presidential election, the popular vote) is not what is used to decide the winner. Is that really hard to comprehend?

“And, after all, the opinion of the people of the United States means absolutely nothing, right? No biggie, eh?”

And that is the Republicans fault? ROTFLMAO, go b!tch at the Constitution and quit taking your hate out on the Republicans.

POLE:

You can NOT decide a National election on popular votes only, for the same reasons that we have a SENATE as well as a House of Representatives. You go straight to the national vote and you completely strip any influence that every state in the Nation has outside of Texas, Florida, California, New York and a couple of the other more populated states.

Candidates wouldn’t have to worry about rural America and the places of less dense population and instead would solely concentrate on getting the votes of the BIG cities.

Maybe the EC is antiquated but it is still 100 times better than a straight popular vote.


------------------


[This message has been edited by Ty_Webb (edited November 28, 2000).]

 

Yes, RMT, the Iraqi war was fought for the oil companies. Because hey, they ordinary common man can afford 3.50 dollar a gallon for gas. ANd because hey, if we get into any war w/ anyone, we could just dip into our emergency reserve oil and then the common man could pay 8.50 dollars a gallon.

THE IRAQI WAR WAS FOUGHT SO THAT AMERICA WOULD HAVE OUR OIL!!!!


Al Gore is so freakin retarted.

And yes, your right. We should have another Civil War. IM sick and tired of seing the entire country RED, and then the North East corner of the electoral Map BLUE. In terms of area, BUsh won the nation. Gore won New England.

------------------
The next time I have meat and mashed potatoes, I think I'll put a very large blob of potatoes on my plate with just a little piece of meat. And if someone asks me why i didn't get more meat, ill just say, "Oh, you mean this?" and pull out a big piece of meat from inside the blob of potatoes, where ive hidden it. Good magic trick, huh?

 

Interesting analogy, but not really accurate (or a-cur-ut if you want to sound like Dubya ).

Total number of points wins the game, just like total number of votes should win the election. A better analogy for the electoral college would be if each quarter was given to the team that got the most points in that quarter. The team with the largest number of quarters win.

For example, in a close game, Team A outscores team B, by 1 point in each of the first 3 quarters. Team B rallies in the 4th and routs team A by a total of twenty points for the game. Nevertheless, Team A wins, because they got credit for winning 3 of the 4 quarters.

You do realize exactly how weak this argument is, right?

First, candidates don't spend a lot of time or money campaigning in small states ("Alaska, I need your vote.").

Second, why should states with a clear, but not huge majority of voters for one candidate be ignored by the other, because they don't have a chance of winning it ("Gee, Mr. Gore, you only have 35% of the vote in Texas, so don't waste your time and money there."

Third, the Senate more than makes up the balance of power for small states ("You mean my state of 500,000 people gets the same 2 votes that a state of 6 million gets?").

Fourth, states are not entities that have rights. People are. So why should the state have more power than the people in it ("51% of the population believes that bacon grease should be mandatory in all recipes, so that must mean that's what the entire state should believe.")?

Finally, how many political rallies does the average person attend? How many did you go to? Have you heard of television? The newspaper? The internet? It doesn't matter if the candidates visit every state, as long as every person in the country has the opportunity to know where they stand ("Ah didn' watch tha dee-bates or read the newspaper, buht, ah'm shore dat George Dubya will come tuh muh door any day now tuh tell me how tuh vote.").

A bold statement made without a strong argument to back it. The electoral college was created, because the founding fathers wanted the country run by the elite. An oligarchy. It made sense then, because farmers and rural people didn't have access to the knowledge necessary to effectively choose their candidate.

We do now. We are at least "100 times" more capable of making an educated decision than they were back then.

------------------


[This message has been edited by Launch Pad (edited November 28, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Launch Pad (edited November 28, 2000).]

 

Launch pad it's not the total number of votes it's the total number of electoral votes.
You knew the rules of the election before it began, just like the democrats knew Broward County threw out alot of ballots in the '96 election for the same reason tehy were thrown out now.
Cry all you want but George won with the system we have now.
If you want change be proactive, don't cry over spilled milk!

------------------

 

Just think, if there were no electoral college AND the popular vote was as close as it is (< 300,000 out of ~100,000,000), then we would be seeing recounts in most every county of every state.

------------------

 

Interesting stuff LP.

first on the analogy...

You got the gist of it but not the point I was trying to make.

The point is that EVERYONE knew the rules going into the election, just like EVERYONE knows the rules of a basketball game. In the election the electoral VOTES are what matters nothing else in Basketball it is the amount of points you score.

b****ing about winning the popular vote NOW, is equivalent to a basketball team b****ing about being ROBBED of a game because they shot a much higher field goal percentage than their opponent.

Also in regards to the “popular vote” would you not concede that IF the election was based on the popular vote, than the campaign strategies would have been somewhat different. People in states whom thought there votes didn’t matter would have turned out…..like voters in texas sitting at home because they knew Texas would be carried by Bush same goes in California and NY.

If there was a straight popular vote NO WAY is it any sort of given that Gore wins.

As for the switching from the current process for electing president….

I am not against change by any means, if someone has a better way of doing it I am all for it. I do not believe that the popular vote is the way though. It guarantees that the only areas that will be paid attention to will be the big cities.

While they candidates under the current rules spend more times in the “battleground” states, they still have to come up with a platform that will work for ALL of America not just the people who live in the population centers.

Look at the county by county map in this years election. The entire thing is RED with Bush carried counties, except for the North East and Western California and because those TWO places are so highly populated they could have won the election and dictated policy to the rest of the nation. The current system gives weight to the larger states without completely ignoring the smaller areas and middle America, a straight Popular Vote would not do that.


------------------

 

Pole,

We do not "live in a democracy". We live in a Republic. A country governed by a document, The Constitution.

So, even by your standards, then, the popular vote is not what should count.



------------------
"I have a DREAM.........his name's Hakeem."
DREAMer's Rocket Page

 

</style>
</head>

<body lang=EN-US link=red vlink=purple style='tab-interval:.5in'>

<div class=Section1>

<p class=MsoNormal>DREAMer, you are NOT a human being, you ARE a Homo Sapien…or
is it the other way around?</p>

<p class=MsoNormal>…or are they the same damn thing?</p>

<p class=MsoNormal>Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy

Pronunciation: <tt><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>di-'mä-kr&-sE</span></tt>

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural -cies

Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from
Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy

Date: 1576

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule
of the majority b : <span style='color:red'>a government in which
the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or
indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically
held free elections

</span>2 : a political unit that has a democratic government

3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the
Democratic party in the U.S.

4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of
political authority

5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or
privileges</p>


<p class=MsoNormal>Main Entry: re·pub·lic

Pronunciation: <tt><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>ri-'p&-blik</span></tt>

Function: noun

Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from
Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine
of publicus public -- more at <a
href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=real"><span
style='mso-fareast-font-family:"Courier New"'>REAL</span></a>, <a
href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=public"><span
style='mso-fareast-font-family:"Courier New"'>PUBLIC</span></a>

Date: 1604

1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a
monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political
unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : <span style='color:red'>a government in which supreme power resides in a body of
citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and
representatives responsible to them and governing according to law</span> (2) :
a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c :
a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French
Fourth Republic>

2 : a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity
<the republic of letters>

3 : a constituent political and territorial unit of the former
nations of Czechoslovakia, the U.S.S.R., or Yugoslavia</p>

</div>

</body>

</html>


------------------
stop posting my damn signature

[This message has been edited by Pole (edited November 28, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Pole (edited November 28, 2000).]

 

4chuckie,

Re-read my post. I was not making a pro-Gore argument "cry[ing] over spilled milk".

I was only addressing why the Electoral College is no longer necessary. So your rant is somewhat meaningless in reference to my original post.

Ty_Webb,

I now understand the changing the rules argument that you're making. And it is a valid point.

In fact, at this point I think Gore should concede regardless of whether or not the count was fair.

His efforts so far has already cast doubt about whether Bush's Presidency is legitimate, and pretty much ensures that the Democrats will take the White House 4 years from now. Either candidate is going to enter office with a really crappy approval rating and the opposition party aligned against them now.

With that said, the entire point of my last post was to refute your statement that:

"Maybe the EC is antiquated but it is still 100 times better than a straight popular vote."

I presented you with many reasons that it wasn't. Since your last reply merely reitterated the same defenses of the Electoral College, I'll just refer you to my previous post.

I will add one thing though. There was a time when African Americans (the men anyway) were give the right to vote, but they're vote only counted a fraction as much as a white man's (I think it was 1/3).

Can you justify this arbitrary difference in the weight of each vote?

If you can't (I hope you can't anyway), then how can you justify an equally arbitrary weighting of votes based on something as asinine as geography?

Pole,

The difference between a democracy and a republic is that in a democracy, the people make every law by popular vote. In a republic, the people elect leaders to make laws for them. Look closely at the definitions that you posted; the distinction is there. DREAMer's right (and I don't say that often ). We live in a republic.

------------------

 

The election is broken up into 50 SPEREATE elections, so EVERY single persons vote counts just as much as everyone else’s in their state. Larger States get more Electoral votes so their population is weighed into the decision.

All a candidate would have to do is carry Western California and the North East, and they would win the popular vote. Do you think that since they are more densely populated that they deserve the right to decide and shape the policy for the ENTIRE country? A candidate could design a platform around pampering those TWO areas, 1/10 of the US and they could run the country.

Take away Algores 1.2 million votes in California and the other 49 states elected in Bush by over a million votes. Bush carried 85% of the land mass in the country, based on county by County elections. Bush carried a many more States

If you go to popular vote should a candidate still be allowed without a majority vote?


------------------

 

No Launch Pad; perhaps you should read the definitions again. They describe the same thing.

Not that merriam-webster knows anything.

Would it make you feel better if I qualified democracy by calling it a "Representative Democracy."

somebody_who_knows_a_lot_more_about_democracy_than_we_do.com



------------------
stop posting my damn signature

 

Again, Ty_Webb, you're just repeating the same argument that you've already presented twice.

I have already given you six counter-points in my last 2 posts and you haven't directly addressed even one of them.

I'll will add a 7th courtesy of another thread by Danilo.

He basically calculated the weight of one electoral vote in Alaska vs. one electoral vote in Florida.

He came up with:

1 Alaskan electoral vote=206,500.
1 Floridian electoral vote=604,449.

Ergo, 1 Alaskan electoral vote=3 Floridian electoral votes. Sound fair? Not really when you consider that one Senate vote for Alaska counts for 302,224 people to 1 Senate vote in Florida representing 7,555,622 people. That means that Alaska's Senate vote is 25 times more powerful than Florida's per capita.

Pole,

Summing up a system of government in one sentence is tough and hence, the dictionary definition doesn't fully explain each form of government. Merriam-Webster may "know" more words than I do, but I'd wager that they no less about government than all the PhDs in history and Political Science who have taught me that the US is a republic.

Here's another link to "somebody [else] who knows a lot more about democracy [and republics] than we do.com"

"Representative democracy" still isn't completely accurate, but I'd settle for "democratic republic"

------------------


[This message has been edited by Launch Pad (edited November 29, 2000).]