Clinton's Interview/"Meltdown"

[ienjoybeer]

I did not have the pleasure of seeing this interview, but I have heard many interesting things.
I think it's sad that the GOP has nowhere else to turn for the mid-term elections...that they had to bring Clinton onto a pro-GOP news station and try to lambast him to get some support. It was a cheap, cheap move. It makes me think that the GOP is running out of moves...and I think Slick Willy totally ripped them a new asshole.
It's refreshing to see confrontational, passionate debates...instead of PC, formal, dressed up garbage.
Many of you will not agree...but, I liked it. And...I think that if Bush and Clinton were put in a boxing ring...Slick Willy would take Bang Job Bush the fuck out..

Here's the link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215445,00.html from Fox News itself.

enjoy

[Hostilesouthern]

You know, I really, REALLY dislike Clinton. But I am fucking sick of us blaming each other, no one in this country is at fault for what these Islamic "warriors" have done. The blame lies squarely on them, the enemy.

Side note, Clinton is aging rapidly.

[Gentle Jones]

that shit was great television i love how billy dropped rupert murdocks name. classic footage, maybe the first time an ex president got on camera saying he tried to kill some dude.

[ienjoybeer]

You know, I really, REALLY dislike Clinton. But I am fucking sick of us blaming each other, no one in this country is at fault for what these Islamic "warriors" have done. The blame lies squarely on them, the enemy.

Side note, Clinton is aging rapidly.

Badly...I must say.
I agree. I just thought this was fresh as fuck... You never get to see this shit. And plus, the whole thing is a political move for the midterm elections...so it's worth noting...

[weknowhowtolive]

You know, I really, REALLY dislike Clinton. But I am fucking sick of us blaming each other, no one in this country is at fault for what these Islamic "warriors" have done. The blame lies squarely on them, the enemy.

Side note, Clinton is aging rapidly.Clinton really doesnt bother me much. He's kinda funny and a good speaker. If there is one thing our president now lacks, above all else, is his lack of excitement when he talks. I dont care about the dumb jabs at how he talks or the mistakes he makes...im talking about ... hoozah. We ahvent had that in a long time. I want to see that movie with Sean Penn that just came out...THATS the kind of speaker we need.

[Bound Fo' Glory]

You know, I really, REALLY dislike Clinton. But I am fucking sick of us blaming each other, no one in this country is at fault for what these Islamic "warriors" have done. The blame lies squarely on them, the enemy.

Side note, Clinton is aging rapidly.
Exactly, they were bound and determined to attack us, it was going to happen eventually. The key is to lessen the opportunity for it to happen again.



As for Clinton aging, I just remembered that it's been ten years since Clinton came to my high school. I just felt old myself all of a sudden.

[Gut Check]

Wow, you're all really drinking the kool aid aren't you...

[militarymite]

I thought it was great, that's what american politics needs once in a while, a smackdown. Enough of this pussy footing back and forth.

[CptnSpaulding]

He was mad about how the documentry wasnt completely true...all the profesors at my school are freaking out about how its a documentry and not actual facts...and how nobody should believe in documentries.

this reminds me of something so similar that happened a few years back with a certain movie called Fahrenheih 9/11.....but nowhere near as bad

[jeffer]

I havent seen Clinton act like that since Monica...It just reminds me of what a lousey president he was!

[jeffer]

I thought it was great, that's what american politics needs once in a while, a smackdown. Enough of this pussy footing back and forth.
I can't believe you gave me neg rep for speaking my opinion:mad:

[biglippedbruiser]

I thought it was great, that's what american politics needs once in a while, a smackdown. Enough of this pussy footing back and forth.

Agreeeeed.

[weknowhowtolive]

I can't believe you gave me neg rep for speaking my opinion:mad:Maybe it was because you basicly said he was a bad president because of the Monica thing? Might try explaining why a little bit more.

[Loathe]

I didn't care for Clinton while he was president. I will admit that witht he current administration I almost miss him.

[weknowhowtolive]

I didn't care for Clinton while he was president. I will admit that witht he current administration I almost miss him.Haha isnt that sad? I feel pretty much the same way. Id still rather have Bush than Kerry.

[ienjoybeer]

He was mad about how the documentry wasnt completely true...all the profesors at my school are freaking out about how its a documentry and not actual facts...and how nobody should believe in documentries.

this reminds me of something so similar that happened a few years back with a certain movie called Fahrenheih 9/11.....but nowhere near as bad


Hope you don't mind the miniature rant...

Documentaries can't really be un-biased...a director/writer/etc can be as straight and narrow as possible, but perspective is perserved all the way down to the subject of the piece itself...so, there will always be documentaries that aren't as factual as they are opinionated or shocking. Lets face it...a documentary can have wayyyy more impact on human emotion than a movie...because when you slap the name "documentary" on the film, the general (dumb) population percieves it to be a wholy (and holy) true film...and it's fucking not.
Fairenheit 9/11 was pretty gay. I think Moore alienated his audience by spewing liberal psychobable rhetoric....and it's a shame, because there was some truth to what he was saying about things like Clarke getting fired, the 98', 99', and aug 01' reports, and whatnot. But, whatever he had, he ruined it, by injecting a whole lotta unfounded conspiracy into a small bundle of truth....Kind of like dousing a perfectly good sandwich in a whole jar of mayonaise.... It's okay in small amounts, but once you go overboard...it's entirely useless.


As for Willy? I think he should dispute the documentary. There are a lot of people out there right now, with a pile of boiling bullshit heaped over them, and they are trying to push it all into Clinton's pile. Instead of being fucking men and saying: Yeah...I fucked up...But, I'm REALLY going to fix it this time..... They trade blame like a bunch of pussies. Before all of this, Clinton never pointed fingers. He was critical of the administration...yeah...who isnt? But, I don't think the public crucification of Clinton's administration by the GOP is going to win them votes on election day in November. Now that he's staking his claim and defending himself...It makes me think he's got character...and he's not afraid to ballsup and clear his name the right way...face to face...mano a mano...instead of acting like a bitch.

[CptnSpaulding]

Hope you don't mind the miniature rant...

Documentaries can't really be un-biased...a director/writer/etc can be as straight and narrow as possible, but perspective is perserved all the way down to the subject of the piece itself...so, there will always be documentaries that aren't as factual as they are opinionated or shocking. Lets face it...a documentary can have wayyyy more impact on human emotion than a movie...because when you slap the name "documentary" on the film, the general (dumb) population percieves it to be a wholy (and holy) true film...and it's fucking not.
Fairenheit 9/11 was pretty gay. I think Moore alienated his audience by spewing liberal psychobable rhetoric....and it's a shame, because there was some truth to what he was saying about things like Clarke getting fired, the 98', 99', and aug 01' reports, and whatnot. But, whatever he had, he ruined it, by injecting a whole lotta unfounded conspiracy into a small bundle of truth....Kind of like dousing a perfectly good sandwich in a whole jar of mayonaise.... It's okay in small amounts, but once you go overboard...it's entirely useless.


As for Willy? I think he should dispute the documentary. There are a lot of people out there right now, with a pile of boiling bullshit heaped over them, and they are trying to push it all into Clinton's pile. Instead of being fucking men and saying: Yeah...I fucked up...But, I'm REALLY going to fix it this time..... They trade blame like a bunch of pussies. Before all of this, Clinton never pointed fingers. He was critical of the administration...yeah...who isnt? But, I don't think the public crucification of Clinton's administration by the GOP is going to win them votes on election day in November. Now that he's staking his claim and defending himself...It makes me think he's got character...and he's not afraid to ballsup and clear his name the right way...face to face...mano a mano...instead of acting like a bitch.
yea fairenheight was almost a perfect example of a fiction movie..... their are true things in lots of fiction movies like that one.

and Clinton did indeed point fingers at this administration plenty of times.

but most of your post i agree with

[CptnSpaulding]

Maybe it was because you basicly said he was a bad president because of the Monica thing? Might try explaining why a little bit more.
he was saying that he hasnt seen him act like that since the whole monica thing (pissed off interview). Which turned out he was full of BS in that interview and probably is in this one also.

[ienjoybeer]

yea fairenheight was almost a perfect example of a fiction movie..... their are true things in lots of fiction movies like that one.

and Clinton did indeed point fingers at this administration plenty of times.

but most of your post i agree with

Criticisms and the blame game aren't the same thing. He can criticize all he wants...that's his freedom of speech..(and I'd probably agree with him on most of it). But, until they backed him against a wall, he didn't pull out his address book and start naming the names of all the guys he knew in the whitehouse who got blowjobs from their secretaries (a hypothetical example). I just find it sickening that Bush & Co. are blaming their failure at war on somone who has no administrative decision-making capabilities. Yeah...Bush had do do some Clinton asswiping when he took office....But, I dont personally think that the middle east war was/is the biggest problem that either of the two have had to/are dealing with...I think there are some remnants of the cold war coming back to haunt them...and a mini russo-sino weimar scenario hovering on the border of the next president's horizon....and I don't think Clinton knew how to deal with it, cause everything hadn't played out by then. And, I also don't think it's fair to say that Clinton was a piece of shit for not wiping out the world's Islamic extremism...Which is pretty much what they were trying to blame him for.

Hey...looking back...I'd have hired him 20 secretaries....and spent tax $$ on a private stash that he could smoke, but not inhale. All I know is my family was rolling in the cash, we weren't at war,...and now everyone I know is doing badly. Clinton did a great job of making things run smoothly. He had a bad track record with big business...but, It'd be worth it.

[Gut Check]

Maybe it was because you basicly said he was a bad president because of the Monica thing? Might try explaining why a little bit more.
I think the Monica "thing" is self explanatory, but maybe he should have said, "America elected a compulsive liar because the economy was good."

[weknowhowtolive]

I think the Monica "thing" is self explanatory, but maybe he should have said, "America elected a compulsive liar because the economy was good."Its not like Bush hasnt lied then turned around and said something different.

[Johnny Rebel]

Its not like Bush hasnt lied then turned around and said something different.


Both are guilty of that, nobody's saying otherwise.

[Gut Check]

Its not like Bush hasnt lied then turned around and said something different.
Oh you're right, Clinton rules... What sense does that make? We aren't talking about Bush. But continue to let Clinton say he was involved in fighting terror, I mean with all the terror attacks that happened during his administration, he must have been doing something right.

[weknowhowtolive]

Both are guilty of that, nobody's saying otherwise.Nope, just sayin, Clinton may have lied, doesnt make him a terrible president, so saying he was one simply because he lied about getting his rocks off on some fat bitch doesnt change his policies. And frankly at this point, i would prefer his shit over Bush's.

[Johnny Rebel]

Nope, just sayin, Clinton may have lied, doesnt make him a terrible president, so saying he was one simply because he lied about getting his rocks off on some fat bitch doesnt change his policies. And frankly at this point, i would prefer his shit over Bush's.

Ok. Once again. Nobody is saying Clinton was a terrible president because he lied, OR because he boned a fatty. Did you even read any of the thread? Jeffer said Monica reminded him of how lousy a president he was, not that Monica was the base cause of why in his opinion he was a lousy president.

[weknowhowtolive]

Ok. Once again. Nobody is saying Clinton was a terrible president because he lied, OR because he boned a fatty. Did you even read any of the thread? Jeffer said Monica reminded him of how lousy a president he was, not that Monica was the base cause of why in his opinion he was a lousy president.Uhhh....maybe you need to read it again.

[CptnSpaulding]

Clinton did a great job of making things run smoothly

its easy to have things run smoothly by avoiding situations...... that is what this whole deal is about

[jeffer]

its easy to have things run smoothly by avoiding situations...... that is what this whole deal is about
EXACTLY!!! All he did was sweep everything under the rug!

[weknowhowtolive]

EXACTLY!!! All he did was sweep everything under the rug!Like what? Im not disagreeing, its just that a lot of right wing Clinton bashers are no better than left wing Bush bashers. They spout off about he did this and that but dont point out examples.

[Hostilesouthern]

Examples? Uhhh Waco to start. Ripping apart the military and intell communites to balance the budget. Hilary's B.S. healthcare plan.

I go on and on.

I did highly approve of his push to allow gays into open, active military life. They can die for their country too.

[weknowhowtolive]

Examples? Uhhh Waco to start. Ripping apart the military and intell communites to balance the budget. Hilary's B.S. healthcare plan.

I go on and on.

I did highly approve of his push to allow gays into open, active military life. They can die for their country too.Waco was definatly a fuckup, but, i cant say that anyone would have done it any better. Ruby ridge was fucked up too, and that was under Bush Sr.

[Hostilesouthern]

Waco was definatly a fuckup, but, i cant say that anyone would have done it any better. Ruby ridge was fucked up too, and that was under Bush Sr.


Indeed, but the question was why right wingers dislike Clinton.


The thing about Monica, I did not care about that really. What bugged me was so many different women accused Clinton of sexual misconduct, even rape in one case. Now that whole "Right Wing Conspiracy" bullshit deferred the question of whether or not these charges were valid. No one really knows, but it's just...a lot of women.

[weknowhowtolive]

Indeed, but the question was why right wingers dislike Clinton.


The thing about Monica, I did not care about that really. What bugged me was so many different women accused Clinton of sexual misconduct, even rape in one case. Now that whole "Right Wing Conspiracy" bullshit deferred the question of whether or nto these charges are valid. No one really knows, but it's just...a lot of women.Oh Lindsay Lindsay Lindsay...you know as well as i do that when a celebrity gets accused of rape, the accusations come out from everywhere.

Im not saying they are true or not. Im not saying i liked Clinton. Id consider myself a right winger....i still dislike Bush Jr more than Clinton, although i dislike them both.

I saw the interview, and the way Clinton acted didnt seem nearly as bad as it was made out to be. He was definatly animated...im just wondering when being an animated and enthusiastic speaker became a bad thing.

[Hostilesouthern]

Oh Lindsay Lindsay Lindsay...you know as well as i do that when a celebrity gets accused of rape, the accusations come out from everywhere.

Im not saying they are true or not. Im not saying i liked Clinton. Id consider myself a right winger....i still dislike Bush Jr more than Clinton, although i dislike them both.

I saw the interview, and the way Clinton acted didnt seem nearly as bad as it was made out to be. He was definatly animated...im just wondering when being an animated and enthusiastic speaker became a bad thing.

I'm not saying it's true or not as well, that was too many women too just brush off as a bunch of copycats.

Hell I just leave it that I hated his taxation policies more than any other issue.


What's botheirng me about this current grumbling about how Clinton handled the Islamic threat under his presidency is this. Say Clinton went that step farther than just lobbing some bombs at empty tents in Afghanistan, say he took valid action against the Warlords and local who killed and dragged our servicemen's bodies thru the streets in Somalia.

My side would be saying the same crap about illegal wars and overkill responses. Not what's best for America, what's best for the party.

[weknowhowtolive]

I'm not saying it's true or not as well, that was too many women too just brush off as a bunch of copycats.

Hell I just leave it that I hated his taxation policies more than any other issue.


What's botheirng me about this current grumbling about how Clinton handled the Islamic threat under his presidency is this. Say Clinton went that step farther than just lobbing some bombs at empty tents in Afghanistan, say he took valid action against the Warlords and local who killed and dragged our servicemen's bodies thru the streets in Somalia.

My side would be saying the same crap about illegal wars and overkill responses. Not what's best for America, what's best for the party.Exactly, its fucking gross. And i think thats partly what Clinton was saying when he was talking about how before 9/11, before he left office, he was trying to do stuff and the right said it was too much. Then after 9/11, they say he didnt do enough.

Wether what he SAYS he did is true or not, wether the information he gave is true or not, what he's talking about IS true. The one side will always spin what the other side does to make them look bad and its fucking disgusting. Im sick of the two party bullshit.

I dont want whats best for the democrats, or the republicans, or the conservatives, or the libertarians or the green party. I want whats best for America...but that will never happen now. Too late.

[Professor]

Exactly, its fucking gross. And i think thats partly what Clinton was saying when he was talking about how before 9/11, before he left office, he was trying to do stuff and the right said it was too much. Then after 9/11, they say he didnt do enough.

Wether what he SAYS he did is true or not, wether the information he gave is true or not, what he's talking about IS true. The one side will always spin what the other side does to make them look bad and its fucking disgusting. Im sick of the two party bullshit.

I dont want whats best for the democrats, or the republicans, or the conservatives, or the libertarians or the green party. I want whats best for America...but that will never happen now. Too late.


that is exactly where we're at now, and it fucking sucks. you know why voter turnout is so low? because of the partisan bullshit in that the best candidates are shouted down or disregarded because they don't completely subject themselves to the will of the party. because of the people going strictly on party lines for issues, instead of the issues themselves. because of the divisive nature of the media to generate more advertising dollars. because the best candidates might not necessarily want some dirty laundry aired out for all to see, regardless of how little relevance it has on the ability to do the job. you have a choice between shit and shit. the system is fucked, and there's no way to change it, short of a massive attitude adjustment on everyone's part.

[weknowhowtolive]

that is exactly where we're at now, and it fucking sucks. you know why voter turnout is so low? because of the partisan bullshit in that the best candidates are shouted down or disregarded because they don't completely subject themselves to the will of the party. because of the people going strictly on party lines for issues, instead of the issues themselves. because of the divisive nature of the media to generate more advertising dollars. because the best candidates might not necessarily want some dirty laundry aired out for all to see, regardless of how little relevance it has on the ability to do the job. you have a choice between shit and shit. the system is fucked, and there's no way to change it, short of a massive attitude adjustment on everyone's part.And that, is why im voting Libertarian :smile:

[Hostilesouthern]

that is exactly where we're at now, and it fucking sucks. you know why voter turnout is so low? because of the partisan bullshit in that the best candidates are shouted down or disregarded because they don't completely subject themselves to the will of the party. because of the people going strictly on party lines for issues, instead of the issues themselves. because of the divisive nature of the media to generate more advertising dollars. because the best candidates might not necessarily want some dirty laundry aired out for all to see, regardless of how little relevance it has on the ability to do the job. you have a choice between shit and shit. the system is fucked, and there's no way to change it, short of a massive attitude adjustment on everyone's part.


The prime reason I joined the Republican Liberty Caucus. I want the GOP to be the GOP again. No more bitching about stupid shit!

[Hostilesouthern]

And that, is why im voting Libertarian :smile:


Because you want open borders and endless immigration? That's the offical party platform.

[weknowhowtolive]

Because you want open borders and endless immigration? That's the offical party platform.Hahahaha, well it sure as fuck isnt the party platform of the dude running for gubner in CA.

[Gut Check]

Exactly, its fucking gross. And i think thats partly what Clinton was saying when he was talking about how before 9/11, before he left office, he was trying to do stuff and the right said it was too much. Then after 9/11, they say he didnt do enough.
Trying to do "stuff" eh? What stuff and when did the Republicans say it was too much in the context of Bin Laden? Kooooooool Aid.

[weknowhowtolive]

Trying to do "stuff" eh? What stuff and when did the Republicans say it was too much in the context of Bin Laden? Kooooooool Aid.Fuck if i know, check out the transcript. I dont care if what he said was true or not, thats not the point. The point is, its no longer about whats good for the country, its about what will make your party look good while making the other party look bad.

[Gut Check]

I dont care if what he said was true or not, thats not the point.
Hahaha, neither does Clinton! Read what you just said, you don't care about what's true, what the hell else is there to care about!

[weknowhowtolive]

Hahaha, neither does Clinton! Read what you just said, you don't care about what's true, what the hell else is there to care about!Ive just explained it three times. Pay attention.

I dont like Clinton. I dont care what he says about liberals, the GOP, mexico, the environment. Regardless, what he said, wether the information contained in it was true or not, the point, no matter WHO SAYS IT, is still true.

It is no longer about one party trying to get elected to do what is best for everyone. Its about bad mouthing the other party as much as you can to get into office for a few years and then bail.

Make sense?

[Gut Check]

Ive just explained it three times. Pay attention.

I dont like Clinton. I dont care what he says about liberals, the GOP, mexico, the environment. Regardless, what he said, wether the information contained in it was true or not, the point, no matter WHO SAYS IT, is still true.

It is no longer about one party trying to get elected to do what is best for everyone. Its about bad mouthing the other party as much as you can to get into office for a few years and then bail.

Make sense?
In response to me asking you what the Republicans said, you said it didn't matter what Clinton said was true or not. It makes perfect sense to me.

[weknowhowtolive]

In response to me asking you what the Republicans said, you said it didn't matter what Clinton said was true or not. It makes perfect sense to me.I simply repeated what Clinton said. He said, quoting from the article

"And I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough said I did too much — same people."

Now, that could be true, or it could be false. It doesnt mean that that type of stuff isnt happening. That is all i was saying, from the very begining.

[Paul von Rotten]

I didn't care for Clinton while he was president. I will admit that witht he current administration I almost miss him.
no diggity doubt.

[Gut Check]

I simply repeated what Clinton said. He said, quoting from the article

"And I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough said I did too much — same people."

Now, that could be true, or it could be false. It doesnt mean that that type of stuff isnt happening. That is all i was saying, from the very begining.
Fair enough. That man is slippery like a fish.

[CptnSpaulding]

I simply repeated what Clinton said. He said, quoting from the article

"And I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough said I did too much — same people."

Now, that could be true, or it could be false. It doesnt mean that that type of stuff isnt happening. That is all i was saying, from the very begining.
8 years while he was in office.....the only time he cared about Bin Laden was right in the middle of the whole "lying under oath, adultry, impeachment" time........ after that died out- so did his feelings about Bin Laden.

What conservatives said about him years ago was still true, "he pulled that Bin Laden shit out of his ass to get the attention away from the huge scandal he finally got caught with"

If none of that happened, their would even be less care about Bin Laden

[Paul von Rotten]

Fair enough. That man is slippery like a fish.that shit is true. after the election nobody said shit about bin Laden except for shows like frontline and people upset with the Taliban blowing up the buddha statues in Afganistan. I remember thinking that anyone who would blow up an ancient statue should be shot without remorse. I am still pissed about that. the government didn't say dick until 9/11.

[CptnSpaulding]

Bill Clinton ... [was] offered Osama bin Laden by the Sudanese government, and they turned the offer down. They could have taken him into custody and begun unraveling his terrorist network 6 years ago [1996]. But they didn’t



edit: we shouldnt even be comparing which president was better......both served completely different terms....Bush had problems such as 9/11, Katrina, and more. Clinton had problems with adultry, and lying under oath. Which one sounds harder? hmmmm.

[ienjoybeer]

Hey, hey!!! Guys. Bush and Clinton are evil stepsisters....aight? Neither are perfect. I don't remember a time when there was one president with a blanket policy that had the answers to EVERY problem in the entire world. Each did their own thing. And...btw...just because Clinton looked like he wasn't doing much but smoking doobies and pounding ham wallet...doesn't mean he wasn't. A lot of what the president is responsible for goes on behind the scenes...that's why I'm not out there with Cindy Sheehan showing my ass to all the Pro-Bushers... Cause, I think that despite what everyone thinks they know about our international conflicts....the middle east is just the tip of the iceberg.... Ya'll dun even know...
I'm not saying like it or lump it...cause that's not what our government/country is about....but, what I am saying is: We can go on ALL goddamn day about who sucks more ass...but, at the end of the day...If you've got a major problem..you need to DO something about it...
..................but, like I said...If I had the choice to let Clinton back in office, I would do so. I don't know about some of you people...but, my family all own small businesses...and under Clinton, shit was off the chain. Now...we're two hot steps from complete poverty....so, economically...I'll take Clinton, thanks.

[CptnSpaulding]

i see what your saying and your right....we could make pages and pages arguing who was a worst president.

everyone is effected differently

[ienjoybeer]

i see what your saying and your right....we could make pages and pages arguing who was a worst president.

everyone is effected differently


I'd still like to see Bangjob and Slickwilly in a boxing match.... That would be sweet!



:edit: Better yet....Hillary and Laura...... Laura may be one of those quiet types that just snap....but, we already know that Hillary wears the man pants....that would be quite a fight.

[CptnSpaulding]

I'd still like to see Bangjob and Slickwilly in a boxing match.... That would be sweet!



:edit: Better yet....Hillary and Laura...... Laura may be one of those quiet types that just snap....but, we already know that Hillary wears the man pants....that would be quite a fight.
whatcha talkin about? bush would get his ass whooped...everyone knows that

[ienjoybeer]

whatcha talkin about? bush would get his ass whooped...everyone knows that


That's what I'm saying. Good ol' Clinton would knock the Texan (cough, Andover) pants off of Bush. They should prohibit all of this retarded, childish bullshit on the news...with he did this, and this guy fucked osama's mama, and this guy got a blowjob....and bring back sword fights, duels, boxing matches.

He who bringith it....maketh the law...hahaha...

And, while I'd like to holster two uzi's at my side and blast a bitch...I wouldn't mind pulling out a sword, instead.... That would be sweet.

[weknowhowtolive]

Everyone knows people from Arkansas are tougher than Texans.

[jeffer]

Maybe it was because you basicly said he was a bad president because of the Monica thing? Might try explaining why a little bit more.
He's just a bad president period.Good bye!

[ienjoybeer]

Everyone knows people from Arkansas are tougher than Texans.


Man...Bush talks like he's some sort of cowboy. He's nothing but a nancy little prep-school boy who's rich daddy happened to have a ranch in Texas. I don't know many cowboys that can dole out 25k a year for boarding school...
But, he's a man of many hats....from what I hear, he's also a big, bad fighter pilot, eh? Too bad he skipped out on it, before he actually got to fly anything. At least Clinton didn't get ferried up to a presidential speech at the airforce base in a fighter jet. It's a fuckin sacrelige. Some little rich fuck pretending to be something he's not.

Thus...Clinton needs to put the smackdown on him.

[Dawgnuts]

Man...Bush talks like he's some sort of cowboy. He's nothing but a nancy little prep-school boy who's rich daddy happened to have a ranch in Texas. I don't know many cowboys that can dole out 25k a year for boarding school...
But, he's a man of many hats....from what I hear, he's also a big, bad fighter pilot, eh? Too bad he skipped out on it, before he actually got to fly anything. At least Clinton didn't get ferried up to a presidential speech at the airforce base in a fighter jet. It's a fuckin sacrelige. Some little rich fuck pretending to be something he's not.

Thus...Clinton needs to put the smackdown on him.



Do you always post in fiction?

[Hostilesouthern]

Oh please, Clinton was a straight up draft dodger. I am against a draft anyway, but let's all cut out this romanticizing his presidency. The economy was doing well, without his guidance, or lack thereof. Besides, blaming a President for the state of an economy is just as silly as pointing the finger at a coach for the fumbles on the field. Our economy is doing very well currently. The Fed has more to do with that than the President.

[CptnSpaulding]

Man...Bush talks like he's some sort of cowboy. He's nothing but a nancy little prep-school boy who's rich daddy happened to have a ranch in Texas. I don't know many cowboys that can dole out 25k a year for boarding school...
But, he's a man of many hats....from what I hear, he's also a big, bad fighter pilot, eh? Too bad he skipped out on it, before he actually got to fly anything. At least Clinton didn't get ferried up to a presidential speech at the airforce base in a fighter jet. It's a fuckin sacrelige. Some little rich fuck pretending to be something he's not.

Thus...Clinton needs to put the smackdown on him.
rich boy? dont even make me start talking about your boy John Kerry........ talk about disgustingly rich...makes me sick

[Hostilesouthern]

rich boy? dont even make me start talking about your boy John Kerry........ talk about disgustingly rich...makes me sick


Ahhh yes, back to the class war game. This is where I duck out. That shit is fucking retarded.

[CptnSpaulding]

Ahhh yes, back to the class war game. This is where I duck out. That shit is fucking retarded.
hey, if someone is gonna call out bush for being rich (aka badder person then clinton) ..... then i will have to call out Mr. Kerrys 8 mansions

[Hostilesouthern]

hey, if someone is gonna call out bush for being rich (aka badder person then clinton) ..... then i will have to call out Mr. Kerrys 8 mansions


How about you call him out on his crappy voting record? That's more valid than the rich man game.

[ienjoybeer]

Do you always post in fiction?


When I'm feeling artsy....:biggrin:

[weknowhowtolive]

Rich people suck! FUCK LIBERALS YARRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

[ienjoybeer]

rich boy? dont even make me start talking about your boy John Kerry........ talk about disgustingly rich...makes me sick


Man...please...let us not bring that douche into the mix....He's not posing as a cowboy spacefighter, but, still....

[LeftWingScum]

Wow, you're all really drinking the kool aid aren't you...

lay off the rush, seriously...your hero needs viagra.

bill is absolutely right here, and finally we see someone standing up against the neo con mainstream media attacks.

it's exactly what he said - he tried and succedded at times, failed at other times, while the bush administration had ignored it until it really hit hard, and then stoked it.

i saw the government report that came out today, by order of bush, that says going into iraq has caused terrorism to flourish and spread worldwide (like the people paying attention haven't known that), and that it's imperative we stay in iraq. i guess that's the desperation now that they have nothing left, and that their fear mongering is now failing - they'll take that hit in exchange for some semblance of a justification for staying in iraq.

[LeftWingScum]

Ive just explained it three times. Pay attention.

whoa hey whoa, he's NOS, now you're on the hitlist of the violenced fuled band to ever make stuff magazine!

[CptnSpaulding]

lay off the rush, seriously...your hero needs viagra.

bill is absolutely right here, and finally we see someone standing up against the neo con mainstream media attacks.

it's exactly what he said - he tried and succedded at times, failed at other times, while the bush administration had ignored it until it really hit hard, and then stoked it.

i saw the government report that came out today, by order of bush, that says going into iraq has caused terrorism to flourish and spread worldwide (like the people paying attention haven't known that), and that it's imperative we stay in iraq. i guess that's the desperation now that they have nothing left, and that their fear mongering is now failing - they'll take that hit in exchange for some semblance of a justification for staying in iraq.
true, he did hit it hard when extreme shit started fucking up our citizens.........but Bush didnt refuse/ignore to take Bin Ladden in(unlike Clinton did) when he had the chance...and that is what the big fus is all about

[ienjoybeer]

lay off the rush, seriously...your hero needs viagra.

bill is absolutely right here, and finally we see someone standing up against the neo con mainstream media attacks.

it's exactly what he said - he tried and succedded at times, failed at other times, while the bush administration had ignored it until it really hit hard, and then stoked it.

i saw the government report that came out today, by order of bush, that says going into iraq has caused terrorism to flourish and spread worldwide (like the people paying attention haven't known that), and that it's imperative we stay in iraq. i guess that's the desperation now that they have nothing left, and that their fear mongering is now failing - they'll take that hit in exchange for some semblance of a justification for staying in iraq.


Bush is fighting a proxy war w/ China in the middle east. The Fundamentalist Islamic faction is a separate ideological battle. But, I would imagine he's hellbent on staying for the russo-sino vs. USA petrol war...and not for the ideological muslim one. And, to keep from re-igniting even a semblance of cold war fever between Us, China, and Russia...He's doing all he can to keep that on the DL, using the "terrorist" part to keep us on the war. I posted something about it on the "britain is now the biggest threat" post http://skinheads.net/forums/showthread.php?t=933&page=3 ....you should read it. I think it explains why Bush outwardly appears to be a dumbass (I mean...he is really a dumbass...I guess it just explains why he's getting away with it.). Iraqnizzle is a front for something worse.

[ienjoybeer]

true, he did hit it hard when extreme shit started fucking up our citizens.........but Bush didnt refuse/ignore to take Bin Ladden in(unlike Clinton did) when he had the chance...and that is what the big fus is all about


Don't act like Capitano knew what he was doing when he took office. Clinton left him with pllllennnty of reading material to keep him up to date. He was just interested in other matters. He didn't exactly jump on the bandwagon to shoot the planes down on the 11th, either. Neither of them are princely.... 94' - same shit, different decade.....

[CptnSpaulding]

Don't act like Capitano knew what he was doing when he took office. Clinton left him with pllllennnty of reading material to keep him up to date. He was just interested in other matters. He didn't exactly jump on the bandwagon to shoot the planes down on the 11th, either. Neither of them are princely.... 94' - same shit, different decade.....
first of all....their were meetings held by bush about getting rid of terrorism before 9/11 even happened. (not specifically about Bin Ladden, but terrorism none the less)

second.... he wasnt offered Bin Laddens head like clinton was

[ienjoybeer]

first of all....their were meetings held by bush about getting rid of terrorism before 9/11 even happened. (not specifically about Bin Ladden, but terrorism none the less)

second.... he wasnt offered Bin Laddens head like clinton was


Whoa.... Alright... Well I don't want to dig myself into conspiracy theorist shit, but I've seen public documents released with my own eyes (first about the Al Qaeda Martyrdom Batallion wanting to run planes loaded w/ c-4 cemtex into the white house, pentagon, etc..., Which was written for the library of congress by some big-wig security council for the govt.) That was back in 98'. In early Aug, I think...Aug 8th...there was that oh so special presidential memo that George Bush forgot to read.... And, then Condi comes out and says there was no way we could have known that terrorists were going to use planes as weapons?
Clinton prevented the LAX attacks, wrote the Martyrdom Report....and stopped a lot of bad shit from going down (some that we probably don't even know about).... and all George Bush could do was say....."that's one bad pilot"............................duuuhhhhyyyyy......... .....

Alright.... you can't get me started on this shit..... It's going to start an all out fucking war....good lord...


:edit: And, who's to say that if Clinton got Bin Ladin we wouldn't still be here. Bin Ladin is just another brick in the extremist wall. There are hundreds of others who are qualified and would have loved to have taken his place. Bin Ladin, unfortunately, Isn't the holy grail of all terrorist organizations everywhere. There are millions of terrorists worldwide.

[ienjoybeer]

And, besides...the terrorist crap has little, if anything on the China/Russia bullshit. Arguing about why Bush was jacking off to a book about a goat in an elementary school, instead of shooting down giant boeing jets that were heading towards NYC.....that's been disputed probably 10 million times on this forum.....and I know my facts...and you know yours...let's talk about something else...

[CptnSpaulding]

:edit: And, who's to say that if Clinton got Bin Ladin we wouldn't still be here. Bin Ladin is just another brick in the extremist wall. There are hundreds of others who are qualified and would have loved to have taken his place. Bin Ladin, unfortunately, Isn't the holy grail of all terrorist organizations everywhere. There are millions of terrorists worldwide.


..... yea true.... allright, your starting to make me think differently about the situation

[ienjoybeer]

..... yea true.... allright, your starting to make me think differently about the situation


Well...goddamn, it's about time you started seeing things my way...:biggrin:

[CptnSpaulding]

Well...goddamn, it's about time you started seeing things my way...:biggrin:
hey, if i start seeing something the other persons way...i will be the first to admit it....its much easier that way

[Gut Check]

whoa hey whoa, he's NOS, now you're on the hitlist of the violenced fuled band to ever make stuff magazine!
Ha, your lifes a joke.

[St.PeteJim]

Fuck if i know, check out the transcript. I dont care if what he said was true or not, thats not the point. The point is, its no longer about whats good for the country, its about what will make your party look good while making the other party look bad.

Welcome to politics, just wait till '08.

[St.PeteJim]

My largest criticism of Clinton was that he was too heavily dependent on polling. Whenever he was confronted with a crisis, or a tough decision that required an unpopular action, he would run to the pollsters.

On the other hand, he did a great job with "reinventing the government". He of course made mistakes in regards to terror, and is probably a sizable factor in the fact that only 17% of Americans feel that the Democrats would handle the War on Terror better.

[ienjoybeer]

My largest criticism of Clinton was that he was too heavily dependent on polling. Whenever he was confronted with a crisis, or a tough decision that required an unpopular action, he would run to the pollsters.

On the other hand, he did a great job with "reinventing the government". He of course made mistakes in regards to terror, and is probably a sizable factor in the fact that only 17% of Americans feel that the Democrats would handle the War on Terror better.

I'm right there with them. But, I don't think that someone who is worried about the Republican/Democrat garbage could do it right, either. America needs an independent leader that's not over-concerned with partisan garbage (or polls). He has to be tough...but, he's got to be a serious diplomat...and be able to make good split minute decisions...esp. if he wants to succeed on the russo-sino front of the war. It ain't gonna happen...but, I think that's probably the best answer for our country's problem. I've said it before: I want a strong president...a diplomat that will force feed the foreign world shit, and make them come back for more.

[Skones]

My largest criticism of Clinton was that he was too heavily dependent on polling.

How is finding out what the citizens of your country want a bad thing?

I can see if he needed to make an incredibly important descision in a matter ofminutes, no need to run to Gallup, but if a guy's got days or weeks, why not find out what the people want?

[ienjoybeer]

How is finding out what the citizens of your country want a bad thing?

I can see if he needed to make an incredibly important descision in a matter ofminutes, no need to run to Gallup, but if a guy's got days or weeks, why not find out what the people want?


You have a point...presidents don't magically know what their people want.

[Hostilesouthern]

How is finding out what the citizens of your country want a bad thing?

I can see if he needed to make an incredibly important descision in a matter ofminutes, no need to run to Gallup, but if a guy's got days or weeks, why not find out what the people want?


Because polls are no way to lead. We elect these people to make hard decisions, not mammy pammy about. That's the basics of the Republic. We already have clearly set guidelines as to what America is all about. Clearly defined rights and a courts system when those rights are either not so clearly defined or being run ram shot over.

Polls are about Direct Democracy. I am not in favor of Direct Democracy, since the Republic works just fine and keeps us free of the socialist scum. Not so much any longer.

[Skones]

Because polls are no way to lead. We elect these people to make hard decisions, not mammy pammy about. That's the basics of the Republic. We already have clearly set guidelines as to what America is all about. Clearly defined rights and a courts system when those rights are either not so clearly defined or being run ram shot over.
True, however, represenatives don't always know exactly what their constituents want.

Say, for the sake of argument, that Clinton did actually have a clear cut chance to get bin-Laden, but he decided not to. Now, he gets Gallup to run a poll, and they return a conclusion showing an overwhelming desire to kill bin-Laden. Now he's missed his chance, and pissed off the American public.

See where this sort of thing would work?

Polls are about Direct Democracy. I am not in favor of Direct Democracy, since the Republic works just fine and keeps us free of the socialist scum. Not so much any longer.

They're not really direct democracy. Sure, it could resemble it, but there is nothing saying that a representative has to abide by the polls descision. Much like our Electoral College...

We all know how well that works...

[Hostilesouthern]

That's why term limits are in place. Every two to four year we are able to clean house and restructure, the problem is people are not interested enough to actually toss out the poorly performing parties. Right now, I'm angry at my party. Contract with America.... broken.

[ienjoybeer]

Because polls are no way to lead. We elect these people to make hard decisions, not mammy pammy about. That's the basics of the Republic. We already have clearly set guidelines as to what America is all about. Clearly defined rights and a courts system when those rights are either not so clearly defined or being run ram shot over.

Polls are about Direct Democracy. I am not in favor of Direct Democracy, since the Republic works just fine and keeps us free of the socialist scum. Not so much any longer.

I don't know. My argument for a direct democracy would be that it helps legislative and policy decisionmaking escape the lobbyists, and gets down to the real nitty gritty...what regular citizens like us want. Majority rule never hurt anyone (badly). Although, one could argue that most of those polls are populated by a selection of people (ie. those who go to political websites....those who registered to vote, etc). And, while that's not technically an accurate assessment of what people want...most votes leave out people who aren't political...those who aren't registered to vote, etc... Quite frankly, I don't want un-informed people voting in the first place.

And, again, an argument against the direct democracy issue is that the average citizen doesn't always know what goes on behind the scenes...what fuels some of the decisionmaking, (which could also be a checks and balances argument against some forms of government secrecy and centralization) So, going by a poll may be misleading....cause there's always the assumption that people get the picture...or perhaps the poll is misleading because of the lack of diversity in the pollsters.

But, there is a lot of room for abuse with representative democracy... See, I'm afraid of letting our government holster too much power against us. History dictates that it always results in something nasty....like a dictatorship, or a devolved form of federalism...(a very centralized federal government, with little or no power being awarded to provinces or even individuals.). And, I'm not one for letting history repeat itself....

It's a pretty fickle situation...and it hangs in a really delecate balance. I feel that represented officials would probably serve us best if they used a combined method of both.....how appropriate it is, based on the situation...taking into consideration the risks of either, and coming up with the best results.

aghh.

[Hostilesouthern]

Of course majority rule has hurt folks, black people were severely held under foot due to majority rule.

51% of this country should not to call the shots for the other 49%. A good number of people think 13 is not too young for sexual relationships with adults. If 51% agrees, christ what a mess would result.

We are designed as a Free Constitutional Republic. I want to keep it as close to that ideal as possible.

[ienjoybeer]

Of course majority rule has hurt folks, black people were severely held under foot due to majority rule.

51% of this country should not to call the shots for the other 49%. A good number of people think 13 is not too young for sexual relationships with adults. If 51% agrees, christ what a mess would result.

We are designed as a Free Constitutional Republic. I want to keep it as close to that ideal as possible.


I see what you are saying....and I agree with it for the most part. What I am saying, is that public opinion should be weighed on certain things. I think that using the polls as a method of making a decision with less moral basis (ie. should we be drilling offshore of Florida) may be a good idea. Whereas... Hillbilly Bob, who's got a bunch of child porn pinned to the walls in his outhouse probably shouldn't be dictating whether or not we condone sexual activity for 13 year olds....although I have faith in the people of our country as a whole not to make those sorts of decisions.
I know a million people here who's business would shrivel up and die if we had an accident and oil spilled into the Gulf. If someone were to poll that, they'd realize that drilling off of Florida should only be done as an absolute last resort, and not viewed as a legal opportunity (this is just an example, of course).
I also think that polling people would present more interesting results and ideas. A lot of politicians use tired rhetoric, and I see the same thing being recycled over and over. I think it would kick ass if we rehabilitated our non-violent prisoners who's only crime was upbringing, lack of education and being moronic, instead of incarcerating them with cable and a.c all on the taxpayers dime (another example)...and, if tents are good enough for the army...they should be sufficient for someone who's committed a crime.. But, until we allow people from all over to share their ideas and inject new ideas and popular opinion into national politics...I don't see us straying from the position we are in....which may be satisfactory to others. I'm just saying if I were a legislator...I'd try thinking out of the box....and asking all of us what we want..because, if politics isn't for the people....the who is it for, really?

On a more serious note... outside of re-painting conventional, everyday arguments in politics...I don't think that for example...If George Bush really is fighting China in middle east...that he should listen to the polls that say...get the hell out of there. It's all contextual, subjective, etc. It depends on what they know that we don't...because every condition must be examined and weighed before coming to an important decision...and if the people don't have all the facts...(for whatever reason, national security, etc)...then polls shouldn't dictate legislation.

[weknowhowtolive]

Phhtttt if you add or remove morality from polling and voting its not gunna change shit :rolleyes: Everyones got a different idea on every subject...majority rule is the only option...one of the reasons i dont believe in the elctoral college.

[ienjoybeer]

Phhtttt if you add or remove morality from polling and voting its not gunna change shit :rolleyes: Everyones got a different idea on every subject...majority rule is the only option...one of the reasons i dont believe in the elctoral college.

The electoral college is superfluous and only designed as a snag in the system. I think that we should use representatives to vote on all other matters but actually electing the representatives (president included).

I don't believe we should have a Grecian democracy (true democracy)...especially in that anyone could be elected to parlament (senate/house)....but, their methods of electing superior officials (president, vice, etc...) could definitely work in this country if we can manage to keep voter fraud under control.

And removing major moral polls (abortion, for example) from being used as legislative tools is really important. I was raised catholic...and I think that spiritually, it's unacceptable to have an abortion...but, philisophically...It's also wrong to tell a woman what to do with her body and her life. It's a snag...thus I don't know what to think...but, other people want to control the lives of pregnant women...and they shouldn't be able to do it. (I think). That can't be polled, and should be left alone.
They should poll things like: creative ways to punish/kill child molestors and rapists, or what a creative way might be to help the state fund college educations for low income families.... shit like that.

[weknowhowtolive]

We already do elect officials to vote for us...they are just corrupt scumbags and it doesnt seem to be working. I dont want diane feinstein fucking voting for me...fuck that bitch, i hate her guts. Same with Barbara Boxer.

[ienjoybeer]

We already do elect officials to vote for us...they are just corrupt scumbags and it doesnt seem to be working. I dont want diane feinstein fucking voting for me...fuck that bitch, i hate her guts. Same with Barbara Boxer.

I was talking about the electoral college. I think that all of our votes should be counted as a majority/minority...not state by state, district by district...etc.

[weknowhowtolive]

I was talking about the electoral college. I think that all of our votes should be counted as a majority/minority...not state by state, district by district...etc.Sure but why do we need officials for that?

[ienjoybeer]

Sure but why do we need officials for that?


Huh???

[weknowhowtolive]

Huh???I think you confused me.

Are you saying we should elect officials to then vote for us?

[Skones]

Phhtttt if you add or remove morality from polling and voting its not gunna change shit :rolleyes: Everyones got a different idea on every subject...majority rule is the only option...one of the reasons i dont believe in the elctoral college.

Majority rule would be a trainwreck. Like Lindsay said, do you really want 51% dictating 49%?

If my math is right, that's 152,206,549 dictating the daily lives of 146,237,665 other people...

Doesn't make much sense...

[ienjoybeer]

I think you confused me.

Are you saying we should elect officials to then vote for us?


:biggrin: No. Im saying either: that grecian democracy says that certain officials may be elected from the general population..and I don't agree with it.

Orrr.... that I think that we should only do a majority vote (no electoral college) when electing elected officials.....

Lord...now i'm confusing myself...

[weknowhowtolive]

Majority rule would be a trainwreck. Like Lindsay said, do you really want 51% dictating 49%?

That's 152,206,549 dictating the daily lives of 146,237,665 other people...

Doesn't make much sense...What is it now then? Isnt it SUPPOSED to be majority rule in a democracy?

[ienjoybeer]

Majority rule would be a trainwreck. Like Lindsay said, do you really want 51% dictating 49%?

If my math is right, that's 152,206,549 dictating the daily lives of 146,237,665 other people...

Doesn't make much sense...

I'm not saying that general legislation should be dictated by majority. I am saying that important elections (which can be as close as a couple thousand votes anyway) should be dictated by majority instead of the electoral college. That's all.

[ienjoybeer]

What is it now then? Isnt it SUPPOSED to be majority rule in a democracy?


We have a democratic republic....not a true democracy. A true democracy isn't fitting for the times.

[weknowhowtolive]

I could be wrong, but as far as i know most of the reasons the FEC was put into place to begin with are no longer problems, and the reason majority rule wasnt used is no longer a problem.

Wasnt majority rule rejected because at the time with the 13 states and widespread people, there wasnt a way to get political platforms advertized? Im going on what i remember... i didnt go to high school so bare with me :wink:

[ienjoybeer]

I could be wrong, but as far as i know most of the reasons the FEC was put into place to begin with are no longer problems, and the reason majority rule wasnt used is no longer a problem.

Wasnt majority rule rejected because at the time with the 13 states and widespread people, there wasnt a way to get political platforms advertized? Im going on what i remember... i didnt go to high school so bare with me :wink:


I have no idea...and I'm too lazy to look it up right now... But, I would imagine you are right. I mean..at a time everyone had different currencies, the government was pretty decentralized... each state was trying to do it's own thing...I think there was some sort of problem with the state vs. federal government (because it was so decentralized, and each state wanted it's own power. We were still establishing a balance between state and federal...idk.)...and so they instituted the electoral college to make voting fair for each state government.......or something like that. Don't hold me to it...I'm a zombie from work. I'll look it up when my eyes aren't so fucking strained.

:edit:....all I want to know is how I got a 4 on my AP exam for American History....hahahaha

[weknowhowtolive]

Eh i looked it up...popular decision was only ruled out because states were so wide spread...the founding fathers had no problem trusting that hte people could elect wisely.

[Skones]

the founding fathers had no problem trusting that hte people could elect wisely.

That's because the only people allowed to vote back then were white land owners...

Hence, educated.

[weknowhowtolive]

That's because the only people allowed to vote back then were white land owners...

Hence, educated.So instead they got hired white electors to vote for them...

[Loathe]

What is it now then? Isnt it SUPPOSED to be majority rule in a democracy?

I don't know abotu you but I live in republic, not a democracy buddy.

I don't want to vote for every single issue that comes down the pipe. I want to elect a representative to do so.

The men that founded this nation were very specific in their oposition to direct democracy, because the mass would use it's vote to violate the rights of the individual.

[weknowhowtolive]

I don't know abotu you but I live in republic, not a democracy buddy.

I don't want to vote for every single issue that comes down the pipe. I want to elect a representative to do so.

The men that founded this nation were very specific in their oposition to direct democracy, because the mass would use it's vote to violate the rights of the individual.I agree, i just think on certain issues, such as say, who is elected to make those decisions, it should be overhauled and a little more direct.

[ienjoybeer]

I don't know abotu you but I live in republic, not a democracy buddy.

I don't want to vote for every single issue that comes down the pipe. I want to elect a representative to do so.

The men that founded this nation were very specific in their oposition to direct democracy, because the mass would use it's vote to violate the rights of the individual.



Hey...we were saying that type of voting should only go for elected officials....like the president. The electoral college is useless....and perhaps even counter-productive.

[Professor]

How is finding out what the citizens of your country want a bad thing?

I can see if he needed to make an incredibly important descision in a matter ofminutes, no need to run to Gallup, but if a guy's got days or weeks, why not find out what the people want?

because the citizens of our country want to watch 'reality television', mtv, shows telling them what not to wear, what's happening in celebrityland, and other mindless diversions. they don't care about actual important things. the polls are all skewed to pre-selected answers, with no gray areas. hell, you could phrase a poll in such a way to get the result that the US is a terrorist state. obviously, that would be flawed, but it is possible. polls are useless.

[Skones]

because the citizens of our country want to watch 'reality television', mtv, shows telling them what not to wear, what's happening in celebrityland, and other mindless diversions. they don't care about actual important things. the polls are all skewed to pre-selected answers, with no gray areas. hell, you could phrase a poll in such a way to get the result that the US is a terrorist state. obviously, that would be flawed, but it is possible. polls are useless.

I was thinking more of a "What do you think we should do" in lieu of a "you get to choose what we WILL do".

More of a way to get the opinion of a good majority of the country before making a descision.

Like you said though, most people are wayyyyy too stupid to entrust with something like that.

I do think, though, that it would eventually turn into something too much like the Electoral College, in that just because the public votes one way, doesn't mean the representation has to vote the same way...

[St.PeteJim]

I'm not saying that general legislation should be dictated by majority. I am saying that important elections (which can be as close as a couple thousand votes anyway) should be dictated by majority instead of the electoral college. That's all.

Better be careful what you wish for. The electoral college ensures that one region of the country cannot control (politically) the other.

[Mike]

Better be careful what you wish for. The electoral college ensures that one region of the country cannot control (politically) the other.

The only problem I have with the electoral college is that is doesn't seem to be representational of what we the people as a whole want sometimes, case in point, the 2000 presidential election. How does someone win the popular vote and not the electoral vote? I need to do some research on the mechanics of the electoral college system so I can be better informed on this debate.

[ienjoybeer]

Better be careful what you wish for. The electoral college ensures that one region of the country cannot control (politically) the other.

I feel like a retard for asking, but what do you mean by that? Are you talking about congressional stuff? Cause, I'm not saying the whole country should vote on who's going to be governor of Florida. I'm saying they should cut out the middle man in the presidential elections.

[weknowhowtolive]

The only problem I have with the electoral college is that is doesn't seem to be representational of what we the people as a whole want sometimes, case in point, the 2000 presidential election. How does someone win the popular vote and not the electoral vote? I need to do some research on the mechanics of the electoral college system so I can be better informed on this debate.The way it used to work was that the people who were representing were elected, and then one person voted for president...instead of thousands. Now its state wide and depending on how many representitives and people a state has they get a set amount of points or votes. So states like NJ and MD even though they are tiny, they have the requirements for more electoral votes. And us Californians have the most. Then states that tend to go red like UT, ID, CO...even though they are big, they dont have many votes. So, although rare, it can work out like in 2000.

[Loathe]

I feel like a retard for asking, but what do you mean by that? Are you talking about congressional stuff? Cause, I'm not saying the whole country should vote on who's going to be governor of Florida. I'm saying they should cut out the middle man in the presidential elections.

Basically it means that the electoral college prevents the millions of city dwellers from controlling the smaller number of people that live in rural areas by ensuring that each states votes counts equally.

Rememebr we are a republic, with what was supposed to be a loose federal government. Not the monolithic central government that we find ourselves with today.

Basically it was a way of making sure that each region of the country has an equal say in the administration that runs the executive branch.

[ienjoybeer]

Basically it means that the electoral college prevents the millions of city dwellers from controlling the smaller number of people that live in rural areas by ensuring that each states votes counts equally.

Rememebr we are a republic, with what was supposed to be a loose federal government. Not the monolithic central government that we find ourselves with today.

Basically it was a way of making sure that each region of the country has an equal say in the administration that runs the executive branch.



I see what you are saying.... It took me a minute. My thoughts on that are: by counting votes by district, city, state, etc... We aren't necessarily electing who we vote for. I understand that rural ideals and city ideals are different...but, by trying to balance it out, you are diluting the votes...and they count improportionately. And, anyone can just come along and legislate that we change the way the districts work, or the population requirements, etc. Presidents (I'm not talking about the senate or the house) should be voted in via majority rule.

And, if anything...our mosterous, monolithic, centralized government is a testament to why we should abolish the electoral college.... It's not a straight-forward voting system, and it allows for...shall we say...."abuses".

[Bound Fo' Glory]

Better be careful what you wish for. The electoral college ensures that one region of the country cannot control (politically) the other.
Exactly, I'll be damned if I let some rubes from south of the Mason-Dixon control what happens around here.:wink:

[Loathe]

I see what you are saying.... It took me a minute. My thoughts on that are: by counting votes by district, city, state, etc... We aren't necessarily electing who we vote for. I understand that rural ideals and city ideals are different...but, by trying to balance it out, you are diluting the votes...and they count improportionately. And, anyone can just come along and legislate that we change the way the districts work, or the population requirements, etc. Presidents (I'm not talking about the senate or the house) should be voted in via majority rule.

And, if anything...our mosterous, monolithic, centralized government is a testament to why we should abolish the electoral college.... It's not a straight-forward voting system, and it allows for...shall we say...."abuses".

I don't think you do still get it.

It's a states rights issue.

See the state is supposed to be, well, a higher government than the federal governement. Of course the civil war, and every war since that, has further eroded that power, to the point that we don't really have that decentrilized republic we were promised :)

[ienjoybeer]

I don't think you do still get it.

It's a states rights issue.

See the state is supposed to be, well, a higher government than the federal governement. Of course the civil war, and every war since that, has further eroded that power, to the point that we don't really have that decentrilized republic we were promised :)


No...I understand that. I just don't see how it fits into making the presidential election a majority. Don't mind me...I'll be lost thinking about it forever...and then on some rainy day when I'm 50....it'll randomly pop into my head...."Ohhhhh...so that's what he was talking about".

I do understand that state government is supposed to be able to pass laws that are non-federal issues, and that Federal Govt. shouldn't dictate the affairs of the state...idk...ask me in a month if I got it...haha.

I've not been stumped on a political conversation in a long time. I reckon, too, it's probably something simple. Sorry.

[Bound Fo' Glory]

I don't think you do still get it.

It's a states rights issue.

See the state is supposed to be, well, a higher government than the federal governement. Of course the civil war, and every war since that, has further eroded that power, to the point that we don't really have that decentrilized republic we were promised :)
If you States Rights folks would've made your houses fire proof you would still have a de-centralized government.:wink:

[LeftWingScum]

first of all....their were meetings held by bush about getting rid of terrorism before 9/11 even happened. (not specifically about Bin Ladden, but terrorism none the less)

second.... he wasnt offered Bin Laddens head like clinton was

he fucking recieved intel from outgoing clinton officials A MONTH BEFORE 9/11 called "bin laden determined to strike within us" that they didn't think was important enough to consider. let me repeat that: a report FROM THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION on terrorism and how to combat it. but yeah, i guess bill wasn't doing jack shit, while bush was on the ball the whole time.

[LeftWingScum]

Polls are about Direct Democracy. I am not in favor of Direct Democracy, since the Republic works just fine and keeps us free of the socialist scum. Not so much any longer.

you really abhor freedom and democracy. then again i think that's a given when someone wants a conservative nanny state.

[Hostilesouthern]

you really abhor freedom and democracy. then again i think that's a given when someone wants a conservative nanny state.


Is it ankle biter day again already?

[weknowhowtolive]

Is it ankle biter day again already?Craig Day is like Columbus Day. Except you dont get it off work, it means even less, and it happens way more often.

[Loathe]

you really abhor freedom and democracy. then again i think that's a given when someone wants a conservative nanny state.

Thats funny from someone that believes in vast governemnt led redistribution of wealth.

Freedom and democracy are not mutually exclusive my friend.

[LeftWingScum]

Thats funny from someone that believes in vast governemnt led redistribution of wealth.

Freedom and democracy are not mutually exclusive my friend.

i believe in fair distribution of wealth; you believe in redistribution of wealth upward. that's the conservative nanny state.

[LeftWingScum]

Is it ankle biter day again already?

i really, really get to you. if my arguments are so out there, so insane, they should be extremely easy to destroy. go for it!

[Skones]

i believe in fair distribution of wealth

It is distributed fairly...

...You bust your ass and earn your fortune, then it's only fair that it's yours.

You sit on your ass and don't earn your fortune, then it's only fair that you're shit out of luck...

[LeftWingScum]

It is distributed fairly...

...You bust your ass and earn your fortune, then it's only fair that it's yours.

You sit on your ass and don't earn your fortune, then it's only fair that you're shit out of luck...

don't tell me you don't know what capital gains are.

and if we're going to talk earned income, those that do the least work get the greatest share of the profit. the workers who DO THE WORK, who produce the goods and services that generate profit, see the least of it.

[Skones]

and if we're going to talk earned income, those that do the least work get the greatest share of the profit. the workers who DO THE WORK, who produce the goods and services that generate profit, see the least of it.

Yeah, it's called being an entrepreneur...

You start a business, bring it up from nothing and you'll get your just reward...

If that business fail, usually one would face financial ruin.

[LeftWingScum]

Yeah, it's called being an entrepreneur...

You start a business, bring it up from nothing and you'll get your just reward...

If that business fail, usually one would face financial ruin.

it doesn't fly. there is no valid argument that those who generate the profit from goods and services should see the least amount of it. it's fucking crazy talk.

now want to tell me how capital gains is "earning money"?

[Skones]

it doesn't fly. there is no valid argument that those who generate the profit from goods and services should see the least amount of it. it's fucking crazy talk.
Sure there is...

The people that do the majority of the work don't OWN or OPERATE the business.

Why should they live like kings while the man/woman/child that came up with the ideas, the know-how, the start up money, or any other nuber of things live in the gutter?

That just doesn't make any sense...

now want to tell me how capital gains is "earning money"?

Ever bought a house, rehabed it, and turned around and sold it for profit?

I'm in the process of doing it right now, and it'll most deffinently be earned money in my pocket...

Even if you don't rehab it, and sell it years down the line, when property values have exploded, you've still earned that money in your pocket...

[weknowhowtolive]

So Craig, you think the highest ranked person should get the least, and the pay should rise as you go down the ladder. So the lowest person doing the crappiest work should make the most, and the person at the top who started the business should make the least?

[St.PeteJim]

it doesn't fly. there is no valid argument that those who generate the profit from goods and services should see the least amount of it. it's fucking crazy talk.

now want to tell me how capital gains is "earning money"?

Capital gains is earning money because the investor is putting their money up for risk. If you really don't want it to be considered "earned" income, then I would have to agree with you so that it will no longer be taxed. Honestly I'm surprised you are against taxing Capital Gains.

Workers do get an even share of the profit, if they invest in their company stock. If a company goes under, should the worker fork over their money?

[Gut Check]

Workers do get an even share of the profit, if they invest in their company stock. If a company goes under, should the worker fork over their money?
Good point. If the worker is the end all be all of the company, as he suggests, shouldn't, under a system he supports, they stand to lose more than a paycheck if the company flops?