Jib 0 #26 July 21, 2004 Quote> The UN can go and FUCK themselves. Down with the UN. Unless they say something we agree with, then we are so pro-UN that we invade countries that defy them. Almost seems like a hypocritical position. Almost. Huh? I think we just ask first. Unless you mean Bubba going into Somalia... we were all for that one. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #27 July 21, 2004 I seem to remember an incident where we attacked a country for "violating UN sanctions". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #28 July 21, 2004 QuoteI seem to remember an incident where we attacked a country for "violating UN sanctions". I was referring to the so pro-UN part -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #29 July 21, 2004 >I was referring to the so pro-UN part Yep. We get so pro-UN that war proponents say things like "what part of 'violating UN resolutions' do you not understand?" Clearly UN resolutions are cause for war when we agree with them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #30 July 21, 2004 QuoteIn Iraq's last presidential election the UN didn't sit in on that.... But they want to sit in on ours??? Are you fucking kidding me? EXCELLENT point. It reminds me of the way the U.N. removed the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission, while leaving countries like Cuba and Syria and China or something on there (don't quote me on exact countries, but I read a criticism of that move that listed some real human rights abusers who remained on the list). What's further funny about that decision is that when people circulate that email "Bush's Resume," they glory in mentioning that removal (which happened not long after he took office) as though it counts against him, but they neglect to mention that while he's been president the U.S. was restored to the Human Rights Commission (or is it Council..?) Selective criticism is not valid. Not when you fail to criticize even worse offenders. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #31 July 21, 2004 QuoteSure, why not? We advocate sending monitors to other countries. Why should we be exempt? Typical Washington mindset of imposing their will on others but exempting themselves. WE don't have a history of having polls controlled by the minions of warlords, with voters casting their ballots at the muzzle of a gun, or terrorized into voting for the dictator. Who are you kidding? That's exactly the reason why we are exempt. In other countries, the U.N. goes in to "monitor" because everyone knows the powers in those countries are not just corrupt, but violent, and everyone knows that the elections are utter FARCES. There is a HUGE difference between the countries that need such intervention by the U.N., and those that don't. Is anyone suggesting that we have the U.N. monitor elections in England, France, Spain, Australia, Germany...? No fuckin' way should we accede to oversight if they're not. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,112 #32 July 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteSure, why not? We advocate sending monitors to other countries. Why should we be exempt? Typical Washington mindset of imposing their will on others but exempting themselves. WE don't have a history of having polls controlled by the minions of warlords, with voters casting their ballots at the muzzle of a gun, or terrorized into voting for the dictator. Who are you kidding? That's exactly the reason why we are exempt. In other countries, the U.N. goes in to "monitor" because everyone knows the powers in those countries are not just corrupt, but violent, and everyone knows that the elections are utter FARCES. There is a HUGE difference between the countries that need such intervention by the U.N., and those that don't. Is anyone suggesting that we have the U.N. monitor elections in England, France, Spain, Australia, Germany...? No fuckin' way should we accede to oversight if they're not. - Last I heard, the dead still vote in Chicago. Never heard of than happening in England, France, Spain...... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #33 July 21, 2004 QuoteQuotemost sacred act of American democracy There is no such thing. Democracy runs on the concept of a majority rule. When the majority of the people can vote for one candidate, yet another candidate wins the election, with less votes......it is impossible to call that a democracy. Are you implying that this is what happened in the U.S. in 2000? A couple of points: - The U.S. has never been properly called a "democracy." Remember the quote by Ben Franklin after the Constitutional Convention: they asked him what had been created, and he said, "A Republic, if you can keep it." - You are asserting impropriety when a candidate got more of the popular vote and did not win the election, but if you know anything about our system you know that we never said that the popular vote WAS the basis of winning the election -- the electoral college is. - You aren't even making a clear and proper distinction between "majority" and "plurality." We hardly ever see a candidate for public office win with a MAJORITY -- which means more than 50% of the votes -- unless there are only two people running in the race. Most presidents win with what, 30something or 40something percent? That's because there's at least one other person people are voting for. Get it straight. The word you're looking for is "PLURALITY." It means the greatest share of the percentages. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #34 July 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteIs anyone suggesting that we have the U.N. monitor elections in England, France, Spain, Australia, Germany...? No fuckin' way should we accede to oversight if they're not. - Last I heard, the dead still vote in Chicago. Never heard of than happening in England, France, Spain... LOL! Who runs Chicago, and has for decades? DEMOCRATS Maybe it's the DEMOCRATIC PARTY you think the U.N. should monitor! Why did you have to surreptitiously switch from talking about national presidential elections to local Chicago elections, anyway. Did you think we're all just too thick to notice your deception? Uh uh. You don't live in the U.K. and read U.K. papers, do you? So how do you know that just because you're not aware of electoral shenanigans in the U.K. that that means there never are any? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Don'tcha know? You use it as though it's irrefutable proof sometimes. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #35 July 21, 2004 QuoteLast I heard, the dead still vote in Chicago. Never heard of than happening in England, France, Spain... So that explains why Gore won the popular vote! -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #36 July 22, 2004 Quote>2. And Gore did not receive a majority. The only thing more tiring than listening to democrats go on and on about how Bush really didn't win is listening to republicans who can't acknowledge that Gore won the popular vote. Gore won the popular vote by half a million votes. Bush won the electoral vote and hence became president under our current laws. Actually what's really tiring is watching you defeat strawmen, Bill. I wrote that Gore did not receive a majority. I said nothing about his winning the popular vote. And you knew that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #37 July 22, 2004 QuoteLOL! Who runs Chicago, and has for decades? DEMOCRATS Maybe it's the DEMOCRATIC PARTY you think the U.N. should monitor! Actually, to be even more specific, the Daley's. - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #38 July 22, 2004 >I wrote that Gore did not receive a majority. Gore received a majority of the vote. ma·jor·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-jôr-t, -jr-) n. pl. ma·jor·i·ties 2. The amount by which the greater number of votes cast, as in an election, exceeds the total number of remaining votes. Nov 2 2000 totals: Total Bush votes: 50,456,002 Total Gore votes: 50,999,897 Gore majority: 543,895 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #39 July 22, 2004 QuoteIs anyone suggesting that we have the U.N. monitor elections in England, France, Spain, Australia, Germany...? No fuckin' way should we accede to oversight if they're not. If the UN wanted to, again, no biggie. If there's nothing to be concerned about (and actually there IS if any districts use the electronic voting terminals) then why is it such a big deal if they come over and monitor? What's there to be afraid of if we're on the up & up? - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #40 July 22, 2004 Quote>I wrote that Gore did not receive a majority. Gore received a majority of the vote. ma·jor·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-jôr-t, -jr-) n. pl. ma·jor·i·ties 2. The amount by which the greater number of votes cast, as in an election, exceeds the total number of remaining votes. Nov 2 2000 totals: Total Bush votes: 50,456,002 Total Gore votes: 50,999,897 Gore majority: 543,895 Um, what about the votes that went to other candidates in other parties? You said, "The amount by which the greater number of votes cast, as in an election, exceeds the total number of remaining votes." The total number of remaining votes would include the votes cast for Bush and any other candidate. Again, you and others are confusing "majority" with "plurality." Most presidents do not win the presidency with anything like more than 50% of all votes cast. If you think they do, please post which presidents have. I am not aware of any but can't say that none ever have, either. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #41 July 22, 2004 Quote Gore received a majority of the vote. ma·jor·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-jôr-t, -jr-) n. pl. ma·jor·i·ties 2. The amount by which the greater number of votes cast, as in an election, exceeds the total number of remaining votes. Nov 2 2000 totals: Total Bush votes: 50,456,002 Total Gore votes: 50,999,897 Gore majority: 543,895 Cute, but horseshit. Have you no shame? http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm All can see the 48.38% next to Gore's 50,999,897. That left him 1,702,653 votes short. Even if you removed the Nader voters from the equation Gore would fall short of 50%. Browne and Buchanon pulled in .78% on their own. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #42 July 22, 2004 Quote Again, you and others are confusing "majority" with "plurality." Most presidents do not win the presidency with anything like more than 50% of all votes cast. If you think they do, please post which presidents have. I am not aware of any but can't say that none ever have, either. He's not confused about it, Jeffrey. He's trying to read a definition in a manner which suits his argument. But what he hopes to gain by such absurd reasoning boggles the mind. Both Bush Sr and Reagan won with more than 50%. Nixon (72), LBJ, Ike , ... it's not that uncommon. Even Carter squeaked one out. It's only in a very tight race, or one with a significant third candidate that it doesn't happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #43 July 22, 2004 Like I said, the only thing more tiring than arguing with a democrat who thinks Bush "stole" the election is arguing with a republican who simply cannot accept that more people voted for Gore. Good luck with the argument, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #44 July 22, 2004 QuoteLike I said, the only thing more tiring than arguing with a democrat who thinks Bush "stole" the election is arguing with a republican who simply cannot accept that more people voted for Gore. Good luck with the argument, though. We've come full circle - you're again attempting to change the question from majority to who got more votes. Very tiresome. Everyone knows that Gore scored more votes. No one has stated otherwise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,112 #45 July 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteIs anyone suggesting that we have the U.N. monitor elections in England, France, Spain, Australia, Germany...? No fuckin' way should we accede to oversight if they're not. - Last I heard, the dead still vote in Chicago. Never heard of than happening in England, France, Spain... LOL! Who runs Chicago, and has for decades? DEMOCRATS Maybe it's the DEMOCRATIC PARTY you think the U.N. should monitor! So why are the Republican members of this discussion most adamnatly against it? Quote Why did you have to surreptitiously switch from talking about national presidential elections to local Chicago elections, anyway. Did you think we're all just too thick to notice your deception? Uh uh. - What makes you think it's only local elections? PS King Richard Daley may run on the Democratic ticket, but in every other sense he's a true conservative.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #46 July 22, 2004 I’m more surprised people are still arguing over this than that it’s even still something people care about. More [I]people[/I] voted for Gore… but the rules of the election require the incoming president to win more electoral collages (is that the correct term?)… Bush won more of those. What’s not to understand? The same thing happened in the UK twice in the last century – both times completely legally. If you don’t like it try to change the rules, but don’t claim the presidency was “stolen” – it was won fair and square according to the rules. Sure the rules may suck, but thems the rules - live by them. It’s like bitching that basketball team A won by shooting 10 x 3 point baskets when team B shot 25 x 1 point baskets. Sure team B got more baskets, but team A won according to the rules. If you don’t like those rules either don’t play, or petition to change them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #47 July 22, 2004 Not only no, but HELL no. Some moron Eddie Bernice Whateverthefuck congresswoman decided to ask the UN to monitor the elections. Fidiot. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,112 #48 July 22, 2004 QuoteI’m more surprised people are still arguing over this than that it’s even still something people care about. More [I]people[/I] voted for Gore… but the rules of the election require the incoming president to win more electoral collages (is that the correct term?)… Bush won more of those. What’s not to understand? The same thing happened in the UK twice in the last century – both times completely legally. If you don’t like it try to change the rules, but don’t claim the presidency was “stolen” – it was won fair and square according to the rules. Sure the rules may suck, but thems the rules - live by them. It’s like bitching that basketball team A won by shooting 10 x 3 point baskets when team B shot 25 x 1 point baskets. Sure team B got more baskets, but team A won according to the rules. If you don’t like those rules either don’t play, or petition to change them. Eh? Did you intend to reply to me? I haven't bitched about the electoral college.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #49 July 22, 2004 Sorry no, that was a general comment. I just hit reply on the last post. I usually remove the name. My bad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #50 July 22, 2004 QuoteWE don't have a history of having polls controlled by the minions of warlords, with voters casting their ballots at the muzzle of a gun, or terrorized into voting for the dictator. You weren't here for the Philly mayoral election last year Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
