DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on January 28, 2008, 02:38:58 AM
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/27/mccain-warns-there-will_n_83459.html
I like McCain , he is realistic and his straight talk is realistic.
If a canadate were to say that there will never be another war no one would beleive him , but what about canadates that simply avoid the subject?
The best policys dealing with wars are the ones that make them rarer and those that make us win them.
-
Fact-Checking McCain's Straight-Talk
By George Will
In 2004, one of John McCain's closest associates, John Weaver, spoke to John Kerry about the possibility of McCain running as Kerry's vice presidential running mate. In "No Excuses," Bob Shrum's memoir of his role in numerous presidential campaigns, including Kerry's, Shrum writes that Weaver assured Kerry that "McCain was serious about the possibility of teaming up with him," and Kerry approached McCain. He, however, was more serious about seeking the 2008 Republican nomination.
But was it unreasonable for Kerry to think McCain might be comfortable on a Democratic ticket? Not really.
In ABC's New Hampshire debate, McCain said: "Why shouldn't we be able to reimport drugs from Canada?" A conservative's answer is:
That amounts to importing Canada's price controls, a large step toward a system in which some medicines would be inexpensive but many others ? new pain-relieving, life-extending pharmaceuticals ? would be unavailable. Setting drug prices by government fiat rather than market forces results in huge reductions of funding for research and development of new drugs. McCain's evident aim is to reduce pharmaceutical companies' profits. But if all those profits were subtracted from the nation's health care bill, the pharmaceutical component of that bill would be reduced only from 10 percent to 8 percent ? and innovation would stop, taking a terrible toll in unnecessary suffering and premature death. When McCain explains that trade-off to voters, he will actually have engaged in straight talk.
There are decent, intelligent people who believe that equity or efficiency or both are often served by government setting prices. In America, such people are called Democrats.
Because McCain is a "maverick" ? the media encomium reserved for Republicans who reject important Republican principles ? he would be a conciliatory president. He has indeed worked with Ted Kennedy on immigration reform, with Russ Feingold on restricting political speech (McCain-Feingold) and with Kennedy and John Edwards ? a trial lawyer drawn to an enlargement of opportunities for litigation ? on the "patients' bill of rights."
McCain is, however, an unlikely conciliator because he is quick to denigrate the motives, and hence the characters, of those who oppose him. He promiscuously accuses others of "corruption," the ubiquity of which he says justifies McCain-Feingold's expansive government regulation of the quantity, timing and content of campaign speech.
McCain says he would nominate Supreme Court justices similar to Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Sam Alito. But how likely is he to nominate jurists who resemble those four: They consider his signature achievement constitutionally dubious.
When the Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold 5-4, Scalia and Thomas were in the minority. That was before Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor, who was in the majority. Two years later, McCain filed his own brief supporting federal suppression of a right-to-life group's issue advertisement in Wisconsin because it mentioned a candidate for federal office during the McCain-Feingold blackout period prior to an election. The court ruled 5-4 against McCain's position, with Alito in the majority.
In the New Hampshire debate, McCain asserted that corruption is the reason drugs currently cannot be reimported from Canada. The reason is "the power of the pharmaceutical companies." When Mitt Romney interjected, "Don't turn the pharmaceutical companies into the big bad guys," McCain replied, "Well, they are."
There is a place in American politics for moralizers who think in such Manichaean simplicities. That place is in the Democratic Party, where people who talk like McCain are considered not mavericks but mainstream.
Republicans are supposed to eschew demagogic aspersions concerning complicated economic matters. But applause greets faux "straight talk" that brands as "bad" the industry responsible for the facts that polio is no longer a scourge, that childhood leukemia is no longer a death sentence, that depression and other mental illnesses are treatable diseases, that the rate of heart attacks and heart failures has been cut more than in half in 50 years.
When McCain and Joe Lieberman introduced legislation empowering Congress to comprehensively regulate U.S. industries' emissions of greenhouse gases in order to "prevent catastrophic global warming," they co-authored an op-ed column that radiated McCainian intolerance of disagreement. It said that a U.N. panel's report "puts the final nail in denial's coffin about the problem of global warming." Concerning the question of whether human activity is causing catastrophic warming, they said, "the debate has ended."
Interesting, is it not, that no one considers it necessary to insist that "the debate has ended" about whether the Earth is round. People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues.
Article (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will011808.php3)
-
I don't always agree with McCain , nor do I always disagree with the Democratic platform. I am not hurt that McCain doesn't reject an idea instantly just because a Democrat once espoused it.
Importing (or reimporting) drugs from Canada would ruin the Canadian system for Canada ,the idea would work for about a weekThis is an idea in which I don't agree with McCain, I am generally far to his right.
I don't require my favorite candidate to agree with me on every conceivable issue , I prefer integrity to complete agreement .
Some candidates (yes even some of ours) strike me as insincere and their agreement with me might be a result of this mornings polling agreeing with me , an ephemeral ,wispy ,whim of an agreement with my opinions is a poor substitute for real intelligence , love of country , talent in leadership,inspiration , spirituality and most of all integrity.
I consider John McCain unlikely to become a weathervane with more polls in his pockets than thoughts in his head.
Also he and I agree on a few basic principals that would kill the deal if we didn't , I do require my favorite to agree with me a little.
-
http://www.johnmccain.com/
-
;)
-
I consider John McCain unlikely to become a weathervane with more polls in his pockets than thoughts in his head.
This is the primary reason why I prefer McCain at this point, I dont agree with some of his policy ideas but I do like his integrity. He's not the politically manipulative animal that Hillary is, the somewhat shady and frightening person Huckabee is, or (to me at least) the naive wanderer that Obama is. The best thing about McCain to me is that at 70+ years, what does he have to lose in defying some of the more extremist positions of his party? His political career? Admittedly, that can be a negative too ( George W anyone?), but I like the guy.
-
So McCain is selling war. Let's see who buys it.
-
Importing (or reimporting) drugs from Canada would ruin the Canadian system for Canada ,the idea would work for about a weekThis is an idea in which I don't agree with McCain, I am generally far to his right.
===============================================================
No, it would not do any such thing. More drugs would be purchased through Canada, and if the US pharmaceuticals refused to send them, Canada could easily lift the patent rights and allow more drugs to be produced generically.
The drug companies are cleaning up bigtime when they are charging up to $15 for one damned pill.
US Big Pharma has a far higher profit margin than the legalized thieves who run the casinos.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The best policys dealing with wars are the ones that make them rarer and those that make us win them.
Well, then the Republicans are only half right, becsuse they mongered up a war with granada and another with Panama, and pretty much won both. But neither was necessary.
Reagan sent marines to Lebanon, for no good reason, and turned tail and got the Hell out when they got blown up. The next week he invaded Grenada, where the odds of winning was better. Otherwise strategic nutmeg stockpiles could have been depleted and we would have had to make do with cinnamon in our eggnog.
The US fights far too many wars. Iraq was entirely unnecessary- More so than Panama or Grenada.
Republicans like to monger wars. They are most sucessful if they pick on small, unprepared nations close to home.
If we elect -God forfend- another goddamn Republican president, I would fear for the governments of Barbados, the Cayman Islands, and St Kitts.
-
Importing (or reimporting) drugs from Canada would ruin the Canadian system for Canada ,the idea would work for about a weekThis is an idea in which I don't agree with McCain, I am generally far to his right.
===============================================================
No, it would not do any such thing. More drugs would be purchased through Canada, and if the US pharmaceuticals refused to send them, Canada could easily lift the patent rights and allow more drugs to be produced generically.
The drug companies are cleaning up bigtime when they are charging up to $15 for one damned pill.
US Big Pharma has a far higher profit margin than the legalized thieves who run the casinos.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The best policys dealing with wars are the ones that make them rarer and those that make us win them.
Well, then the Republicans are only half right, becsuse they mongered up a war with granada and another with Panama, and pretty much won both. But neither was necessary.
Reagan sent marines to Lebanon, for no good reason, and turned tail and got the Hell out when they got blown up. The next week he invaded Grenada, where the odds of winning was better. Otherwise strategic nutmeg stockpiles could have been depleted and we would have had to make do with cinnamon in our eggnog.
The US fights far too many wars. Iraq was entirely unnecessary- More so than Panama or Grenada.
Republicans like to monger wars. They are most sucessful if they pick on small, unprepared nations close to home.
If we elect -God forfend- another goddamn Republican president, I would fear for the governments of Barbados, the Cayman Islands, and St Kitts.
Are you approveing the wars that have occured during Democratic administrations?
-
So McCain is selling war. Let's see who buys it.
I don't think that is what he said.
Can you say that there will not be war?
There is nothing to prepare for or guard against?
-
<<I don't think that is what he said.>>
He accuses his opponents of waving the white flag or betraying the young men and women who wear the uniform, etc. In the context of on-going war, that's selling war.
<<Can you say that there will not be war?>>
How? There's already war.
<<There is nothing to prepare for or guard against?>>
Sure, guard your planes against hijackers. Guard your shores against smuggled nukes. Don't pretend that the wars of aggression that you have chosen to wage in Afghanistan and Iraq have anything to do with "guarding against" or "preparing for." That's pure sophistry. Don't pretend that war on Iran will be "guarding against" anything either.
What McCain is selling is war. You know it and I know it. He's gonna continue the war in Iraq, if necessary for 100 years. He'll continue the war in Afghanistan. He may attack either Pakistan or Iran next. That's all war. Nothing defensive about it. They are all thousands of miles from here. So the little old war criminal can sell war, and we'll just have to wait and see who's buying.
-
<<I don't think that is what he said.>>
He accuses his opponents of waving the white flag or betraying the young men and women who wear the uniform, etc. In the context of on-going war, that's selling war.
When did he do that?
War is best avoided by being evidently tough , the tougness has to be visible.
This does fail , but what would never fail?
Sure, guard your planes against hijackers. Guard your shores against smuggled nukes. Don't pretend that the wars of aggression that you have chosen to wage in Afghanistan and Iraq have anything to do with "guarding against" or "preparing for." That's pure sophistry. Don't pretend that war on Iran will be "guarding against" anything either.
Should we enact restrictions on our transportation and imports and immagration to the point that we are safe from 19 guys that don't have criminal records?
That is a lot of restiction .
It is cheaper and more comfortable to go fight them closer to their home than ours , I wish they had realised this much earlyer. The busyer the are in Afganistan and Iraq ,the easyer it is to intercept their operations infiltrateing the US.
Invadeing Afganistan was totaly unavoidable , Iraq might be more arguable ,but it is working out well.
Right now I think that a war on Iran might be avoidable, the number of arms being smuggled into Iraq for the purpose of killing Americans has dwindled.
-
Are you approveing the wars that have occured during Democratic administrations?
===================
After Vietnam, the Democrats learned their lesson. Now all the wars are started by Republicans, who still think that Vietnam was some sort of "noble cause".
I am against all wars started by the US. We should not start wars.
-
<<When did he do that? [accuse his opponents of waving the white flag or betraying the young men and women who wear the uniform]>>
Very recently, actually - -
McCain Criticizes Clinton's 'White Flag'
By Juliet Eilperin
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla.--Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) forcefully attacked Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) today for suggesting during Monday's Democratic debate that she would set a 60-day timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq if elected president.
"For the first time in American political history, a candidate for president has called for surrender and raised the white flag," McCain told reporters. "I think that's terrible.">>
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/24/mccain_criticizes_clintons_white_flag.html
January 27, 2008
On Saturday morning, McCain seized on the comment in Ft. Myers. Speaking to reporters after a crowded town hall meeting, he charged that Romney "wanted to set a date for withdrawal similar to what the Democrats have [been] seeking, which would have led to a victory by Al Qaeda, in my view."
Jan. 26, 2008
By LIZ SIDOTI Associated Press Writer
SARASOTA, Fla. (AP) _ JohnMcCain accused MittRomney Saturday of wanting to set a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, drawing an immediate protest from his Republican presidential rival, who said: ''That's simply wrong and it's dishonest, and he should apologize.''
McCain countered: ''I think the apology is owed to the young men and women serving this nation in uniform, that we will not let them down in hard times or good. That is who the apology is owed to.''
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmVkMTE2OWQ2YmIyNzZhYzk3ZDc1ZTQ5NDcyYzJhOTU=>>
=============
"If we surrender and wave the white flag, like Sen. Clinton wants to do, and withdraw as Gov. Romney wanted to do," McCain said, "then there will be chaos, genocide and the cost in American blood and treasure will be dramatically higher."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-gop_sunjan27,0,5535011.story
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Should we enact restrictions on our transportation and imports and immagration to the point that we are safe from 19 guys that don't have criminal records?>>
Nice straw man. Who built him? You should have, and Bush should have, instituted tighter airport security. Very simple. Very easy. Bush didn't do it. Had eight months to act, and did jack-shit all that time. Fails miserably, and then you ask a question that has absolutely nothing to do with anything? Instead of pretending that the problem is of such huge magnitude as to be insoluble, why don't you just admit that the attacks could have been avoided with relative ease and that Bush fucked up miserably?
<<It is cheaper and more comfortable to go fight them closer to their home than ours . . . >>
Huh? It's cheaper and more comfortable to fight them in Iraq than to tighten up airport security? Are you nuts? Do you have the remotest idea what the war is costing you? And "more comfortable?" It's more comfortable for who? For an airline passenger who won't have to take his shoes off at security or for the hillbilly moron who loses his limbs in Iraq?
<<Iraq might be more arguable ,but it is working out well. >>
Yeah, unless you're one of the 150,000 dead Iraqis or a family member. Doesn't seem to be working out all that well for them. Or one of the 4,000 dead hillbillies or the 25,000 wounded Americans. You've really got some strange and bizarre ideas of what it means to be "working out well." You're not even going to get any oil out of this. This is a fucking catastrophe.
<<Right now I think that a war on Iran might be avoidable . . . >>
You sound like a boxer who's just had his ass whipped by two unranked nobodies saying that right now a title match with the champ might not be in the cards. You're God-damned right a war with Iran "might be avoidable," much to my disappointment - - I would love to see what would happen to you guys if you took on Iran. Militarily AND economically. Too bad I'll never get the chance.
-
<<When did he do that? [accuse his opponents of waving the white flag or betraying the young men and women who wear the uniform]>>
Very recently, actually - -
McCain Criticizes Clinton's 'White Flag'
By Juliet Eilperin
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla.--Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) forcefully attacked Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) today for suggesting during Monday's Democratic debate that she would set a 60-day timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq if elected president.
"For the first time in American political history, a candidate for president has called for surrender and raised the white flag," McCain told reporters. "I think that's terrible.">>
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/24/mccain_criticizes_clintons_white_flag.html
January 27, 2008
On Saturday morning, McCain seized on the comment in Ft. Myers. Speaking to reporters after a crowded town hall meeting, he charged that Romney "wanted to set a date for withdrawal similar to what the Democrats have [been] seeking, which would have led to a victory by Al Qaeda, in my view."
Jan. 26, 2008
By LIZ SIDOTI Associated Press Writer
SARASOTA, Fla. (AP) _ JohnMcCain accused MittRomney Saturday of wanting to set a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, drawing an immediate protest from his Republican presidential rival, who said: ''That's simply wrong and it's dishonest, and he should apologize.''
McCain countered: ''I think the apology is owed to the young men and women serving this nation in uniform, that we will not let them down in hard times or good. That is who the apology is owed to.''
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmVkMTE2OWQ2YmIyNzZhYzk3ZDc1ZTQ5NDcyYzJhOTU=>>
=============
"If we surrender and wave the white flag, like Sen. Clinton wants to do, and withdraw as Gov. Romney wanted to do," McCain said, "then there will be chaos, genocide and the cost in American blood and treasure will be dramatically higher."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-gop_sunjan27,0,5535011.story
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Should we enact restrictions on our transportation and imports and immagration to the point that we are safe from 19 guys that don't have criminal records?>>
Nice straw man. Who built him? You should have, and Bush should have, instituted tighter airport security. Very simple. Very easy. Bush didn't do it. Had eight months to act, and did jack-shit all that time. Fails miserably, and then you ask a question that has absolutely nothing to do with anything? Instead of pretending that the problem is of such huge magnitude as to be insoluble, why don't you just admit that the attacks could have been avoided with relative ease and that Bush fucked up miserably?
<<It is cheaper and more comfortable to go fight them closer to their home than ours . . . >>
Huh? It's cheaper and more comfortable to fight them in Iraq than to tighten up airport security? Are you nuts? Do you have the remotest idea what the war is costing you? And "more comfortable?" It's more comfortable for who? For an airline passenger who won't have to take his shoes off at security or for the hillbilly moron who loses his limbs in Iraq?
<<Iraq might be more arguable ,but it is working out well. >>
Yeah, unless you're one of the 150,000 dead Iraqis or a family member. Doesn't seem to be working out all that well for them. Or one of the 4,000 dead hillbillies or the 25,000 wounded Americans. You've really got some strange and bizarre ideas of what it means to be "working out well." You're not even going to get any oil out of this. This is a fucking catastrophe.
<<Right now I think that a war on Iran might be avoidable . . . >>
You sound like a boxer who's just had his ass whipped by two unranked nobodies saying that right now a title match with the champ might not be in the cards. You're God-damned right a war with Iran "might be avoidable," much to my disappointment - - I would love to see what would happen to you guys if you took on Iran. Militarily AND economically. Too bad I'll never get the chance.
Everybody tosses around the word "divisive" and McCain seems not only to have avoided the appelation but has actually somehow, probably by playing his war prisoner persona to the hilt, comes off as a uniter via the paste of patriotism.
This is spite of his George M. Cohen rhetoric.
This might play well among the dottering, blotso American Legion crowd, but I hardly think today's average voter is moved by this, his kind of jingo.
He alters his voice purposefully, cracking and broken with some awe of pride, as if he were reading the Bible to kids. At times I wonder if he thinks he owns the rights to sole spokesmanship for the kids dying in Iraq.
You wonder at the acumen of his emphasis on this subject, given that the majority of the people of the country are against the continuing imperialistic invasion of oil-rich Iraq.
Since it taxes common logic, I can only assume that McCain is simply a cog in the wheels of the corporations and mega-rich who reap huge financial rewards when war is raging somewhere in the world.
That up against Obama and his message of talking to the world on an adult level seems to have set the debate: do we want a remake of Rumsfeld and crewe, or do we want some civility restored to our worldwide reputation?
Given the compliance of the media in such matters, an easy conclusion is not guaranteed.
-
Are you approveing the wars that have occured during Democratic administrations?
===================
After Vietnam, the Democrats learned their lesson. Now all the wars are started by Republicans, who still think that Vietnam was some sort of "noble cause".
I am against all wars started by the US. We should not start wars.
So you slept throgh the whole Clinton administration period?
-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Should we enact restrictions on our transportation and imports and immagration to the point that we are safe from 19 guys that don't have criminal records?>>
Nice straw man. Who built him? You should have, and Bush should have, instituted tighter airport security. Very simple. Very easy. Bush didn't do it. Had eight months to act, and did jack-shit all that time. Fails miserably, and then you ask a question that has absolutely nothing to do with anything? Instead of pretending that the problem is of such huge magnitude as to be insoluble, why don't you just admit that the attacks could have been avoided with relative ease and that Bush fucked up miserably?
Didn't this actually happen? What makes an actuall event a straw man?
Tighten the security of airports all you want ,there isn't anything that you can actually do at the airport that would have stopped Mohammed Atta and company. and there especialy was nothing to do that the public would have accepted without the 9-11 attack in the past.
-
<<Didn't this actually happen? >>
Of course it didn't. If it had happened, nobody could have boarded the flights armed with box-cutters. Especially not four to a plane, on four planes.
<<What makes an actuall event a straw man?>>
I said Bush failed to protect the planes and the passengers.
You said, it would have been tough to set up security that would have screened out 19 young men with clean criminal records.
That was the straw man - - should Bush have been able to prevent the entry into America of the 19 hijackers? That wasn't in issue. Bush's failure was not that he failed to prevent these guys getting into the country or even getting to the airport. That's the straw man. Bush's failure was that he had 8 months to enhane airline safety and failed miserably. Simple X-ray screening would have detected the box-cutters. Procedures now in place which Bush never gave a minute's thought to would have prevented all the hijackings. And the Air Force failure to shoot down the jets - - I spoke to an air traffic controller who says that in the first five minutes of take-off it would have been apparent the planes were deviating from their courses and could have been challenged and shot down. No one scrambled the fighters until way too late.
<<Tighten the security of airports all you want ,there isn't anything that you can actually do at the airport that would have stopped Mohammed Atta and company. >>
Ridiculous. Absurd. Guys with box-cutters shouldn't be able to get on now, and if they CAN, it just means that Bush is still fucking up almost eight years into the job.
<< . . . and there especialy was nothing to do that the public would have accepted without the 9-11 attack in the past.>>
The PUBLIC? The public doesn't accept the war in Iraq, but that doesn't stop Bush and Cheney. What the fuck would the public have to do with it? The leader leads. Period. He sells it to them like he sold the war.
-
<<Didn't this actually happen? >>
Of course it didn't. If it had happened, nobody could have boarded the flights armed with box-cutters. Especially not four to a plane, on four planes.
The attack happned afer Mohammd Atta wandered the country for months searching for vunerable targets , soon er or later he was going to find something.
<<What makes an actuall event a straw man?>>
I said Bush failed to protect the planes and the passengers.
You said, it would have been tough to set up security that would have screened out 19 young men with clean criminal records.
That was the straw man - - should Bush have been able to prevent the entry into America of the 19 hijackers? That wasn't in issue. Bush's failure was not that he failed to prevent these guys getting into the country or even getting to the airport. That's the straw man. Bush's failure was that he had 8 months to enhane airline safety and failed miserably. Simple X-ray screening would have detected the box-cutters.
Not really the box cutter is a very small peice of metal a dangerous shiv can still be hidden on a person even in an environment as controlled as a state prison Procedures now in place which Bush never gave a minute's thought to would have prevented all the hijackings.
Tell me which procedure you mean , I am not aware of one that couldn't be spoofed some way. I would feel bad to tell you my ideas for circumventing seach , instead I would gogle up the reports of news orginasatons tht have smuggled pistols and faux bombs onto planes recently just to prove it still possible.And the Air Force failure to shoot down the jets - - I spoke to an air traffic controller who says that in the first five minutes of take-off it would have been apparent the planes were deviating from their courses and could have been challenged and shot down. No one scrambled the fighters until way too late.
I have been working in avition for two decades almost all of it for the USAF. Let me assure you that this air traffic controller was pullng your leg.
<<Tighten the security of airports all you want ,there isn't anything that you can actually do at the airport that would have stopped Mohammed Atta and company. >>
Ridiculous. Absurd. Guys with box-cutters shouldn't be able to get on now, and if they CAN, it just means that Bush is still fucking up almost eight years into the job.
And things were perfect when? I would bet that if you yourself were tasked with sneaking a box cutter past the best ecurity personell in the world you could find a way to do it. A box cutter is just a realy small peice of metal
<< . . . and there especialy was nothing to do that the public would have accepted without the 9-11 attack in the past.>>
The PUBLIC? The public doesn't accept the war in Iraq, but that doesn't stop Bush and Cheney. What the fuck would the public have to do with it? The leader leads. Period. He sells it to them like he sold the war.
I don't know how it is in Canada , but in the USA the public is infuential on political decisions. Public tolerance for security measures increased a lot in the 9-11 aftermath.
-
<<The attack happned afer Mohammd Atta wandered the country for months searching for vunerable targets , soon er or later he was going to find something.>>
The fact is that he DID "find something" and that something, thanks to the moron Bush, was inadequately unguarded.
<<Not really the box cutter is a very small peice of metal a dangerous shiv can still be hidden on a person even in an environment as controlled as a state prison>>
The box cutter is a metal blade with a distinct outline which would show up on any routine X-ray. Had the X-rays been supplemented with U.S. marshalls or other on-board security, the entire attack would have been easily foiled.
<<Tell me which procedure you mean , I am not aware of one that couldn't be spoofed some way. I would feel bad to tell you my ideas for circumventing seach , instead I would gogle up the reports of news orginasatons tht have smuggled pistols and faux bombs onto planes recently just to prove it still possible.>>
Yes, thank you for proving my point that even now the idiot is fucking up and leaving the planes unprotected. Makes me feel real good every time I catch a plane to or from the U.S. Maybe some of that cash blown away in Iraq would have purchased some more sophisticated equipment, but first things first, eh, gotta bring democracy to the Iraqis.
<<I have been working in avition for two decades almost all of it for the USAF. Let me assure you that this air traffic controller was pullng your leg.>>
With all due respect, I don't believe you worked as an air traffic controller and what this guy told me sounded very logical and very clear.
<<And things were perfect when? I would bet that if you yourself were tasked with sneaking a box cutter past the best ecurity personell in the world you could find a way to do it. A box cutter is just a realy small peice of metal>>
It's not so small. Some have a short blade maybe two cm. or less, and they're virtually useless as weapons. The one on my desk now has 66 mm. that I can see and about 1 cm. that I can't. They'd both show on an X-ray. Besides, Bush's failure was total - - goes beyond detecting the box-cutters, it should have included marshalls on the planes and cabin security for the pilots, plus shoot-down procedures for any plane with a rogue pilot posing a danger to thousands of people. He fucked up in more ways than I can count.
<<I don't know how it is in Canada , but in the USA the public is infuential on political decisions. Public tolerance for security measures increased a lot in the 9-11 aftermath.>>
If Bush had even TRIED to increase airport security, and had failed due to popular pressure, you might have a point. You could argue that he tried. You'd have to admit to some piss-poor leadership if he couldn't convince the public, but the sad fact is that he didn't even try. He was asleep at the switch. And you can leave Canada out of this discussion, it's U.S.A. all the way, and I know this is one "President" who doesn't give a shit about public opinion. If he did, he'd already have been out of Iraq. Nice try though. Very imaginative.
-
<<The attack happned afer Mohammd Atta wandered the country for months searching for vunerable targets , soon er or later he was going to find something.>>
The fact is that he DID "find something" and that something, thanks to the moron Bush, was inadequately unguarded.
So Mohammed Atta should have wandered the country for months and found everything guarded? This is my point we don't have that many guards .
<<Not really the box cutter is a very small peice of metal a dangerous shiv can still be hidden on a person even in an environment as controlled as a state prison>>
The box cutter is a metal blade with a distinct outline which would show up on any routine X-ray. Had the X-rays been supplemented with U.S. marshalls or other on-board security, the entire attack would have been easily foiled.
I don't know about Canadians , but Americans that get too many X-rays get cancer.
<<Tell me which procedure you mean , I am not aware of one that couldn't be spoofed some way. I would feel bad to tell you my ideas for circumventing seach , instead I would gogle up the reports of news orginasatons tht have smuggled pistols and faux bombs onto planes recently just to prove it still possible.>>
Yes, thank you for proving my point that even now the idiot is fucking up and leaving the planes unprotected. Makes me feel real good every time I catch a plane to or from the U.S. Maybe some of that cash blown away in Iraq would have purchased some more sophisticated equipment, but first things first, eh, gotta bring democracy to the Iraqis.
Bush is not doing it wrong , it is working , he just isn't doing it your way , which would be x-raying everyone.<<I have been working in avition for two decades almost all of it for the USAF. Let me assure you that this air traffic controller was pullng your leg.>>
With all due respect, I don't believe you worked as an air traffic controller and what this guy told me sounded very logical and very clear.
In Atlanta they have a take off and an landing one per minute all day 24 -7 none of these is followed by an F-16 . This guy does not sound logical at all to me , I think he was either not in avaition or he was joshing you. Do you think the USSR kept up with their airspace? Mathias Rust discovered that the defense of airspace is more difficult than anyone was letting on. There are not as many fighters in existance world wide as there are aircraft in the air in the US at any given moment , not even close. There is no fighter exastant that can scramble fast enough to prevent the entry of our airspace by an aircraft already in our airspace.
<<And things were perfect when? I would bet that if you yourself were tasked with sneaking a box cutter past the best ecurity personell in the world you could find a way to do it. A box cutter is just a realy small peice of metal>>
It's not so small. Some have a short blade maybe two cm. or less, and they're virtually useless as weapons. The one on my desk now has 66 mm. that I can see and about 1 cm. that I can't. They'd both show on an X-ray. Besides, Bush's failure was total - - goes beyond detecting the box-cutters, it should have included marshalls on the planes and cabin security for the pilots, plus shoot-down procedures for any plane with a rogue pilot posing a danger to thousands of people. He fucked up in more ways than I can count.
<<I don't know how it is in Canada , but in the USA the public is infuential on political decisions. Public tolerance for security measures increased a lot in the 9-11 aftermath.>>
If Bush had even TRIED to increase airport security, and had failed due to popular pressure, you might have a point. You could argue that he tried. You'd have to admit to some piss-poor leadership if he couldn't convince the public, but the sad fact is that he didn't even try. He was asleep at the switch. And you can leave Canada out of this discussion, it's U.S.A. all the way, and I know this is one "President" who doesn't give a shit about public opinion. If he did, he'd already have been out of Iraq. Nice try though. Very imaginative.
Canadians are evidently invunerable to X-rays , I am sorry to report that Americans don't want to be x-rayed that frequently.
President Bush didn't institute a system of local invunerability , which would not have worked , he made his defense of offence and it seems to be largely working. President Clinton will have an oppurtunity to reverse this and Osama will finally have a chance to really tick us off.
-
<<So Mohammed Atta should have wandered the country for months and found everything guarded? This is my point we don't have that many guards .>>
"Terrorists" have been hijacking planes for decades. Whatever else should have been given tightened security, the planes were an obvious place to start. I'm just amazed that anyone can excuse such a miserable failure. I don't even know how we got onto this ludicrous discussion of Mohammed Atta "wandering the country" in the first place. He sure as hell didn't have to wander very far. He probably knew about airplanes from Terrorism 101.
<<I don't know about Canadians , but Americans that get too many X-rays get cancer.>>
Canada's much more advanced medically, I guess. Up here, it's the carry-ons that get the X-rays, the passengers only get wanded.
<<Bush is not doing it wrong , it is working , he just isn't doing it your way . . . >>
Your problem is trying to suck and blow at the same time: "people are still sneaking stuff onto planes," "Bush isn't doing it wrong." Two statements, only one of which can be true.
<<In Atlanta they have a take off and an landing one per minute all day 24 -7 none of these is followed by an F-16 .>>
According to my friend, the planes are tracked from take-off for a fixed period of time or a certain distance, I forget which of the two it is. Maybe both. Each plane has a flight plan which cannot be deviated from, it's direction and altitude are given to it before it takes off. The air traffic controller knows if the plane is where it should be and it's very serious business when they deviate. It's an emergency. All hijacked flights were coast-to-coast. A deviation towards New York took place early enough in the flight for ground stations to know there was a serious problem.
<<President Bush didn't institute a system of local invunerability , which would not have worked ,>>
Well, that's a clear point of disagreement. I think it's painfully obvious that enhanced airport security could and did make all the difference.
<< . . . he made his defense of offence >>
the problem I find with that was that Osama went on the offence first, and Bush's defence was a little too late to help the folks in the towers. "Better late than never" might be a good way of dealing with Bush's National Guard "duties," but it was clearly inadequate for the President of the United States.
<< . . . and it seems to be largely working. >>
What's "largely working" if anything is, are the relatively simple and painless measures taken to improve airport security. The attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq are total disasters which have already killed almost twice as many Americans as the "terrorist" attacks, wounded 25,000 of them and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
<<President Clinton will have an oppurtunity to reverse this and Osama will finally have a chance to really tick us off.>>
I don't think Clinton would do anything to stop the war because she doesn't when she has the chance now. Osama can try his hand again. Personally, I think there's an excellent chance that the revenge will come from some really pissed-off Iraqi or Afghan. Osama's done enough. His problem is that if he pulls off anything less than another 9-11, he'll look like a punk and a has-been.
-
In prison a prisoner has no privacy at all , every time they search the prisoners they find improvised wepons , and of course don't find all of them.
There is a severe limit on how well searching people can work, and we are near that limit now. hideing a box cutter is not such a great challenge , it is knowing that displaying a box cutter on an airliner now would instantly invlve one in a desprate fight for life with fifty or two hundred highly motivated people, as Richard Reed found , that isthe challenge.
Terrorists are created all the time, it is most effecient to go to the sorce an kill them where they are plentyfull preventing them from organiseing expidition like Mohammed Attas.
Your problem is trying to suck and blow at the same time: "people are still sneaking stuff onto planes," "Bush isn't doing it wrong." Two statements, only one of which can be true.
They are both true , you are over estimateing the effacacy of personal and luggage search. Lets sit a group of airport secrity persons through the Steve McQueen calssic "Papillon" just before you get your search.
-
The box cutter is a metal blade with a distinct outline which would show up on any routine X-ray. Had the X-rays been supplemented with U.S. marshalls or other on-board security, the entire attack would have been easily foiled.
Ever see the display of an airport x-ray of a carry-on bag (which is where I suspect you expect him to carry the box cutter, since people don't get x-rayed)? Let's see, throw in an electric razor, MP3 player, batteries, toiletries, CD player, CDs, travel alarm clock, et cetera and so on and so forth, and it makes for a pretty messy picture on the screen. Now imagine the very slim outline of a six inch long box cutter turned on edge and how difficult that would be to spot on the display...
It's not as easy as you would think.
-
Ever see the display of an airport x-ray of a carry-on bag (which is where I suspect you expect him to carry the box cutter, since people don't get x-rayed)? Let's see, throw in an electric razor, MP3 player, batteries, toiletries, CD player, CDs, travel alarm clock, et cetera and so on and so forth, and it makes for a pretty messy picture on the screen. Now imagine the very slim outline of a six inch long box cutter turned on edge and how difficult that would be to spot on the display...
It's not as easy as you would think.
And, of course, what Mikey fails to mention is that weapons were found stashed on board other airplanes on 9/11 (Time magazine, 9/22/01 - no longer available online). So, apparently there were a number of accomplices working in secured areas who could stash weapons on board a number of different flights, and the terrorists just had to know which flights already had weapons stashed on board, and where they were located. They didn't have to smuggle them through security, because they were already on the planes.
-
<<Didn't this actually happen? >>
Of course it didn't. If it had happened, nobody could have boarded the flights armed with box-cutters. Especially not four to a plane, on four planes.
<<What makes an actuall event a straw man?>>
I said Bush failed to protect the planes and the passengers.
You said, it would have been tough to set up security that would have screened out 19 young men with clean criminal records.
That was the straw man - - should Bush have been able to prevent the entry into America of the 19 hijackers? That wasn't in issue. Bush's failure was not that he failed to prevent these guys getting into the country or even getting to the airport. That's the straw man. Bush's failure was that he had 8 months to enhane airline safety and failed miserably. Simple X-ray screening would have detected the box-cutters. Procedures now in place which Bush never gave a minute's thought to would have prevented all the hijackings. And the Air Force failure to shoot down the jets - - I spoke to an air traffic controller who says that in the first five minutes of take-off it would have been apparent the planes were deviating from their courses and could have been challenged and shot down. No one scrambled the fighters until way too late.
<<Tighten the security of airports all you want ,there isn't anything that you can actually do at the airport that would have stopped Mohammed Atta and company. >>
Ridiculous. Absurd. Guys with box-cutters shouldn't be able to get on now, and if they CAN, it just means that Bush is still fucking up almost eight years into the job.
<< . . . and there especialy was nothing to do that the public would have accepted without the 9-11 attack in the past.>>
The PUBLIC? The public doesn't accept the war in Iraq, but that doesn't stop Bush and Cheney. What the fuck would the public have to do with it? The leader leads. Period. He sells it to them like he sold the war.
"The PUBLIC? The public doesn't accept the war in Iraq, but that doesn't stop Bush and Cheney. What the fuck would the public have to do with it? The leader leads. Period. He sells it to them like he sold the war."
Agreed. However, sometimes the public has a nasty habit of deciding for itself what is appropriate. Anything other than what happened to Afghanistan, for example, would not have been tolerable. People wanted BLOOD.
-
Ever see the display of an airport x-ray of a carry-on bag (which is where I suspect you expect him to carry the box cutter, since people don't get x-rayed)? Let's see, throw in an electric razor, MP3 player, batteries, toiletries, CD player, CDs, travel alarm clock, et cetera and so on and so forth, and it makes for a pretty messy picture on the screen. Now imagine the very slim outline of a six inch long box cutter turned on edge and how difficult that would be to spot on the display...It's not as easy as you would think.
And, of course, what Mikey fails to mention is that weapons were found stashed on board other airplanes on 9/11 (Time magazine, 9/22/01 - no longer available online). So, apparently there were a number of accomplices working in secured areas who could stash weapons on board a number of different flights, and the terrorists just had to know which flights already had weapons stashed on board, and where they were located. They didn't have to smuggle them through security, because they were already on the planes.
But....but....It happened on Bush's watch, so it's his fault. It just is
-
<<But....but....It happened on Bush's watch, so it's his fault. It just is>>
Well, if it isn't Bush's responsibility, whose is it? Mine? These arguments against his obvious fuck-up are becoming increasingly lame. First by pretending that stashed razor blades as opposed to passenger-smuggled blades are impossible to guard against. Total security on the planes would have envisaged access to the planes by all persons, passengers just being a part of the total equation. Guarding against other persons accessing the planes is even simpler than passengers, since the workers can be surveilled and subjected to stricter controls than the passengers. Regular pre-flight sweeps of the planes with X-rays or other metal-detecting devices, controlled access by workers who are subject to 24-hour video surveillance, controls requiring them to shower and don controlled uniforms before accessing the planes, etc. And on-board marshalls, early detection and shoot-down procedures for rogue aircraft, etc.
The buck stops with the Chief Executive and the Chief Executive fucked up. End of story.
-
<<But....but....It happened on Bush's watch, so it's his fault. It just is>>
Well, if it isn't Bush's responsibility, whose is it? Mine? These arguments against his obvious fuck-up are becoming increasingly lame. First by pretending that stashed razor blades as opposed to passenger-smuggled blades are impossible to guard against. Total security on the planes would have envisaged access to the planes by all persons, passengers just being a part of the total equation. Guarding against other persons accessing the planes is even simpler than passengers, since the workers can be surveilled and subjected to stricter controls than the passengers. Regular pre-flight sweeps of the planes with X-rays or other metal-detecting devices, controlled access by workers who are subject to 24-hour video surveillance, controls requiring them to shower and don controlled uniforms before accessing the planes, etc. And on-board marshalls, early detection and shoot-down procedures for rogue aircraft, etc.
The buck stops with the Chief Executive and the Chief Executive fucked up. End of story.
It is the responsibility of the guys that did it , and those that supported it , and those that approved of it.
President Bush has been doing the right thing , not meeting an impossible standard ,but doing practcal things that have been effective.
It really is impossible to make anywhere totally secure , but to show that the rsult of a successfull attack is a return attack with plenty of interest is quite doable.
-
<<But....but....It happened on Bush's watch, so it's his fault. It just is>>
Well, if it isn't Bush's responsibility, whose is it? Mine? ....
It is the responsibility of the guys that did it , and those that supported it , and those that approved of it.
BINGO !!
-
Regular pre-flight sweeps of the planes with X-rays or other metal-detecting devices, controlled access by workers who are subject to 24-hour video surveillance, controls requiring them to shower and don controlled uniforms before accessing the planes, etc.
Where is there an x-ray machine big enough to run a 747 through? And how do you use a metal detector on a plane that is made of metal? And who would subject themselves to 24 hour video surveillance?
Do you really think things through?
-
Regular pre-flight sweeps of the planes with X-rays or other metal-detecting devices, controlled access by workers who are subject to 24-hour video surveillance, controls requiring them to shower and don controlled uniforms before accessing the planes, etc.
Where is there an x-ray machine big enough to run a 747 through? And how do you use a metal detector on a plane that is made of metal? And who would subject themselves to 24 hour video surveillance?
Do you really think things through?
I have seen an X-ray machine made for fighter aircraft which gives instant results , it is really neat , too expensive to use every week but we run every F-15 thru to find lost wrenches. It gets used about twice a month.
To detect small weapons hidden on an aircraft with a simular device would be orders of magnitude outside of practical.
But criticism doesn't need to be practical , real action does.
-
<<Where is there an x-ray machine big enough to run a 747 through?>>
I don't know, but I had envisaged devices smaller and more portable using X-ray or other technology to detect stashed weapons on planes.
<<And how do you use a metal detector on a plane that is made of metal? >>
If not a metal detector, a similar quality device that would detect blades stashed in seats, overhead compartments and other places where "terrorists" would likely access them. Manual sweeps if not possible electronically.
<<And who would subject themselves to 24 hour video surveillance?>>
I meant the planes are under the 24 hr video surveillance, and the activities of anyone who enters them. I obviously didn't mean 24 hrs on each individual worker.
In addition to the fuck-ups on failing to prevent the weapons being stashed on or carried onto the planes, there were further fuck-ups in not assigning marshalls to flights and not having a practical shoot-down program in place. Also in not securing the pilot cockpits. The failures of the Bush administration were multiple and across the board. Unfortunately, the idiot still has his defenders. Logic and common sense mean nothing to them. Nitpicking and naysaying mean everything. We can send a man to the moon, but stopping one man from carrying a box-cutter onto a plane? IMPOSSIBLE. Yeah, right.
<<Do you really think things through?>>
Yeah, I do. Your problem is that you have confused nit-picking with thinking.
-
<<Where is there an x-ray machine big enough to run a 747 through?>>
I don't know, but I had envisaged devices smaller and more portable using X-ray or other technology to detect stashed weapons on planes.
<<And how do you use a metal detector on a plane that is made of metal? >>
If not a metal detector, a similar quality device that would detect blades stashed in seats, overhead compartments and other places where "terrorists" would likely access them. Manual sweeps if not possible electronically.
<<And who would subject themselves to 24 hour video surveillance?>>
I meant the planes are under the 24 hr video surveillance, and the activities of anyone who enters them. I obviously didn't mean 24 hrs on each individual worker.
In addition to the fuck-ups on failing to prevent the weapons being stashed on or carried onto the planes, there were further fuck-ups in not assigning marshalls to flights and not having a practical shoot-down program in place. Also in not securing the pilot cockpits. The failures of the Bush administration were multiple and across the board. Unfortunately, the idiot still has his defenders. Logic and common sense mean nothing to them. Nitpicking and naysaying mean everything. We can send a man to the moon, but stopping one man from carrying a box-cutter onto a plane? IMPOSSIBLE. Yeah, right.
<<Do you really think things through?>>
Yeah, I do. Your problem is that you have confused nit-picking with thinking.
All of the things you menton are extremely hard to do and impossible to do very thouroughly so s to prevent the one in a billion that wll cause the harm.
Invadeing the home of the hijacker is actually easyer,............and more satisfying to the public.
-
I don't care how much money you spend, there will always Bea way terrorists can achieve their purpose, if not all the time, but sporadically. Examples incldue plastic weapons, weaponry assembled in many innocuous pieces, explosive liquids in ever-smaller quantities and so on.
What you implement are measures that are prudent and logical and hope for the best. As technology provides common sense improvements, then you implement them and still hope and pray for the best.
-
We can send a man to the moon, but stopping one man from carrying a box-cutter onto a plane? IMPOSSIBLE. Yeah, right.
Absolute security is impossible. That is a correct statement.
There is no such thing as a lock that be picked or broken, there is no such thing as data encryption that can't be decrypted, there is no surveillance that can't be bypassed. Anybody who thinks differently is deluding themselves.
-
<<All of the things you menton are extremely hard to do and impossible to do very thouroughly . . . >>
Yes, I quite understand. It is impossible to seat marshalls on flights. The little bastards just won't sit still long enough! Impossible to manually sweep the plane for stashed weapons. Everyone's afraid of pricking themselves. Glove technology just hasn't evolved enough. Impossible to tell when a plane is deviating from a flight path and heading towards a major target and equally impossible to shoot it down, although the U.S. has no problem in shooting down Iranian civilian airliners it can't even see. Impossible for cabin attendants to signal to pilots when to activate cockpit-sealing devices. The development of that technology alone would cost more than the entire Manhattan Project.
Honest to God, never seen a sillier bunch of lame and pathetic excuses in my life, all in defence of the indefensible. Your "President," for Christ sake, failed to prevent the hijacking of four airliners by men armed with box-cutters, three of which were flown into extremely high-value targets.
-
<<Absolute security is impossible. That is a correct statement.
<<There is no such thing as a lock that be picked or broken, there is no such thing as data encryption that can't be decrypted, there is no surveillance that can't be bypassed. Anybody who thinks differently is deluding themselves.>>
All of that is very true. However, we are not speaking of a failure to provide "absolute security." We are not faulting the "President" for failing to install infallible impenetrable security.
The problem is simply that the schmuck failed to prevent 19 guys from hijacking four airliners with box-cutters. Holy fucking shit, that should not require divine intervention.
-
The problem is simply that the schmuck failed to prevent 19 guys from hijacking four airliners with box-cutters. Holy fucking shit, that should not require divine intervention.
Preventing hijacking IS providing impenetrable security. Hijackings have been around since there have been vehicles, and it will continue to be around as long as we continue to use vehicles. The only way to prevent a hijacking is to provide impenetrable security, which is tantamount to wishful thinking.
-
<<Preventing hijacking IS providing impenetrable security. Hijackings have been around since there have been vehicles, and it will continue to be around as long as we continue to use vehicles. The only way to prevent a hijacking is to provide impenetrable security, which is tantamount to wishful thinking.>>
This particular hi-jacking was easily preventable.
-
This particular hi-jacking was easily preventable.
Not by the US government. Prior to 9-11, security for the airlines was handled by the airlines.
-
<<Preventing hijacking IS providing impenetrable security. Hijackings have been around since there have been vehicles, and it will continue to be around as long as we continue to use vehicles. The only way to prevent a hijacking is to provide impenetrable security, which is tantamount to wishful thinking.>>
This particular hi-jacking was easily preventable.
No , the people involved that could have done something were deep in Catch 22 territory.
Some suspicion was raised by Mausoui 's capture and some other indications , but there was a firewall between the various agencies that each had an incomplete picture of the oncoming tragedy , we have always had a deep suspicion of government and hobbles on enforcement agencies were supposed to keep them from becoming intrusive and pervasive in our daily lives.
Passengers and crew were instructed not to resist a hijacker , docility continued until the passengers on one of planes learned what the other planes were doing. Up till then there was an attitude of letting the professionals handle the criminals , rescue could happen after the plane landed. Richard Reeve landed on the wrong side of this changing and when his intended victims realized what he was up to they took effective action to save themselves.
Having people remove their shoes , drop fingernail files in bins , carry no more than a few oz. of fluid is an inconvenience to millions but not an insurmountable barrier to the few mischievous enough to devote lots of thought to it. Imagine that you have to find a small knife on my person , you could search me until you found it no matter how well I had hidden it , but finding a small knife on me when I am in a stream of millions of persons is a very diffrent challenge.
Air Marshalls ride on flights all the time , but how many air marshalls can there be? There are not enough to ride on every flight and there is nowhere to go and get that many , a better idea was arming the Aircrews , but even this was fought very severely by political entities that can't believe that the presence of a gun is ever a good thing.
If you had gotten onto one of those aircraft right behind Mohamed Atta , what would have tipped you off so easily that he had a weapon smaller than a house key and suicidal , murderous plans?
-
<<Not by the US government. Prior to 9-11, security for the airlines was handled by the airlines.>>
Also Bush's fault. If each airline sets its own security, there will be varying levels of standards and execution. Shoulda been taken over immediately. Nobody on his team even evaluated the threat. The whole airline security thing was just off their radar screen. There's no getting around it - - the cities were at risk from hijacked planes and Bush was at the helm for almost eight months, during which virtually nothing was done to address the problem.
-
There's no getting around it - - the cities were at risk from hijacked planes and Bush was at the helm for almost eight months, during which virtually nothing was done to address the problem.
He at the helm for almost 8 months, and his first budget had yet to be submitted. Also, Bush cannot rewrite federal law by himself, and 8 months is not enough to get the laws pertaining to a major industry changed.
I notice you have no criticism for the previous administrations, who had over 50 years to do the same thing...
-
>>Also Bush?s Fault ? the cities were at risk from hijacked planes and Bush was at the helm for almost eight months, during which virtually nothing was done to address the problem.<<
It never ends does it. I imagine will go on for decades. The left never seems to tire of lying about Reagan, Bush, hell they even lie about Nixon!
After eight years of President Bush I have to say that if nothing else, he?s exposed these people for what they are. Hopefully some of them will seek medical attention, but more than likely they are part of the 46 million uninsured.
Seriously folks, airline security, prior to 9-11 is President Bush?s fault because ? I guess he was supposed to over haul the entire airline industry in less than eight months. Remember now, you don?t just snap your fingers, especially when it comes to the government. Meetings, hearings, more meetings, more hearings, votes, amendments, more votes, more amendments, a final vote ? and then it?s off to the Senate! For hearings, meetings ?. You get the picture. But hey! Bush, idiot that he is, should have seen the future. He should have known.
Pardon me while I go puke.
-
>>Also Bush?s Fault ? the cities were at risk from hijacked planes and Bush was at the helm for almost eight months, during which virtually nothing was done to address the problem.<<
It never ends does it. I imagine will go on for decades. The left never seems to tire of lying about Reagan, Bush, hell they even lie about Nixon!
After eight years of President Bush I have to say that if nothing else, he?s exposed these people for what they are. Hopefully some of them will seek medical attention, but more than likely they are part of the 46 million uninsured.
Seriously folks, airline security, prior to 9-11 is President Bush?s fault because ? I guess he was supposed to over haul the entire airline industry in less than eight months. Remember now, you don?t just snap your fingers, especially when it comes to the government. Meetings, hearings, more meetings, more hearings, votes, amendments, more votes, more amendments, a final vote ? and then it?s off to the Senate! For hearings, meetings ?. You get the picture. But hey! Bush, idiot that he is, should have seen the future. He should have known.
Pardon me while I go puke.
Rapid and profound change like tht would be tough if George Bush were King , espcially tough because the President shares power. Rich is right , American Presidents do not rule by decree , it is usually necessacery to gather consensus.
Remember when Clinton first became President? Day one eight o'clock he writes an order to integrate the military with Homosexuals , even when the entire corps is sworn to obedience ,that sort of kingly , imperious arrogance doesn't fly.
-
<<He at the helm for almost 8 months, and his first budget had yet to be submitted.>>
There had to be a way to present at least some of this as a special emergency budget. The security gaps were a disaster waiting to happen. As a minimum he could have had marshalls on all flights. Eight months is a long time. Also the air traffic controllers can tell in five minutes if a plane is majorly off course. The shoot-down capability shouldn't have taken more than a month to establish.
<<Also, Bush cannot rewrite federal law by himself, and 8 months is not enough to get the laws pertaining to a major industry changed.>>
He never even tried. Presented as an emergency regulation it could have been done.
<<I notice you have no criticism for the previous administrations, who had over 50 years to do the same thing...>>
Didn't happen on their watch. Happened on Bush's. He claimed to be better than the previous administrations. Now you're saying he didn't even have to try to be better, it's enough that he's no worse? He had the responsibility. The danger was a growing danger. The resentment of Amerikkka had been building steadily. He was oblivious to it.
-
>>He never even tried. Presented as an emergency regulation it could have been done.<<
Once again you show your ignorance of American and it's government. You have absolutely no idea what you're accusing the president of, you're simply throwing out accusations because that's what you do. Prior to 9-11 NO ONE even remotely considered the idea of airliners being used as missiles, NO ONE. It was a pre-9/11 world and the world was still thinking terrorists hijacked airliners.
But hey, if the next door neighbors dog tells you to blame it on Bush, you better do it.
-
<<Prior to 9-11 . . . >>
Prior to 9-11, the levels of anti-Amerikkkan feeling in the world had been steadily rising. The world was changing. Bush didn't have a clue. He didn't see because he wasn't looking. But it was his job to be looking.
-
<<Prior to 9-11 . . . >>
Prior to 9-11, the levels of anti-Amerikkkan feeling in the world had been steadily rising. The world was changing. Bush didn't have a clue. He didn't see because he wasn't looking. But it was his job to be looking.
Steadily riseing for eight months?
-
<<Steadily riseing for eight months?>>
A lot longer than that. He had plenty of warning.
-
<<Steadily riseing for eight months?>>
A lot longer than that. He had plenty of warning.
Longer ?
Why?
During the period that the USA learned to feed the world and promoted the Green revolution feeding the worlds poulation better than ever before...
During the period that the USA fostered democracy helping it survive the attack of despotism and promoteing democracy to the point that it is the most common system of government ...
During the time that the US encuraged free trade and enritched its tradeing partners with dollars ...
All that time the USA was earning eniminity?
Why was President Bush supposed to be diffrent than prevous presidents in this respect , was he not chosen by the same electoriate that had chosen FDR?
-
<<Steadily riseing for eight months?>>
A lot longer than that. He had plenty of warning.
Longer ?.....Why was President Bush supposed to be diffrent than prevous presidents in this respect , was he not chosen by the same electoriate that had chosen FDR?
Plane, didn't you get the memo? Bush wasn't chosen by the electorate, he was chosen by the Far Right Supreme Court ;)
-
<<Bush wasn't chosen by the electorate, he was chosen by the Far Right Supreme Court Wink>>
Minus the wink, sirs, you sure got THAT right.
As for plane's idea that the same electorate that voted in FDR also voted in George W. Bush, I almost hate to break the news to this gentle soul, but somebody's gotta tell him: plane, sit down and brace yourself - - most of the people who voted for FDR have died a long time ago and are now in heaven, (unless they cast their votes in the South.)
plane also wanted to know when enmity was rising against the U.S. and asked whether it was . . .
<<During the period that the USA learned to feed the world and promoted the Green revolution feeding the worlds poulation better than ever before...
<<During the period that the USA fostered democracy helping it survive the attack of despotism and promoteing democracy to the point that it is the most common system of government ...
<<During the time that the US encuraged free trade and enritched its tradeing partners with dollars ...>>
to which I would answer that it probably started in most places during and after the U.S. invasion, bombing, occupation and terrorization of Viet Nam although in Latin America it probably started after the U.S. government, on behalf of a few Fortune 500 companies, overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala and installed and supported a vicious military dictatorship that killed hundreds of thousands of its own people, mostly after horrific torture and continued to do the same all over Central and South America. I don't have time to deal in detail with the rest of your hilarious attempts to mischaracterize as benevolent altruism what the U.S. was actually doing in the world, but to keep this focused on the Middle East, where the thread belongs, I would say that:
anti-Amerikkkan sentiment was smouldering in the Middle East as it became evident, after the Eisenhower administration ended, that U.S. support was really tilting from neutral to pro-Israeli, but really caught fire after the First Intifada, when Israeli brutality became front-page news everywhere BUT the U.S. The stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia appears to have set off bin Laden and his followers, whose chief objective was to demonstrate to all Arabs and Muslims the real menace that Amerikkka represented to them and turn them against their bought-off pro-Amerikkkan rulers.
-
The record of American Benelevolence has always been mixed.
What good we did the French might be balanced with what evil we have done the Apache , the period in which Americans have been offensive to someone started at day one.
Trying to do the right thing is one of the things that causes a lot of the troubble , but to become isolationist serves just as well and also gets us into troubble.
The answer to the indefada is to win it , then be good , being good as the looser won't work out .
-
<<Plane, didn't you get the memo? Bush wasn't chosen by the electorate, he was chosen by the Far Right Supreme Court Wink>>
Minus the wink, sirs, you sure got THAT right.
Actually, with the wink, I'm dead on accurate with how much a joke the idea is. Borders the Elvis Factor. But as long as you feel better, that's the important thing ;D
-
<<Plane, didn't you get the memo? Bush wasn't chosen by the electorate, he was chosen by the Far Right Supreme Court Wink>>
Minus the wink, sirs, you sure got THAT right.
Actually, with the wink, I'm dead on accurate with how much a joke the idea is. Borders the Elvis Factor. But as long as you feel better, that's the important thing ;D
As I recall Sirs, the electorate chose Al Gore. The electoral college chose George W. Bush.
-
Actually, with the wink, I'm dead on accurate with how much a joke the idea is. Borders the Elvis Factor. But as long as you feel better, that's the important thing ;D
As I recall Sirs, the electorate chose Al Gore. The electoral college chose George W. Bush.
My Bad.....you're right Js, the Constitution chose Bush over Gore. Good catch
-
Actually, with the wink, I'm dead on accurate with how much a joke the idea is. Borders the Elvis Factor. But as long as you feel better, that's the important thing ;D
As I recall Sirs, the electorate chose Al Gore. The electoral college chose George W. Bush.
My Bad.....you're right Js, the Constitution chose Bush over Gore. Good catch
Another close election is possible ,irony would be served hot and steaming if the electorial colledge were to frustrate 1% of the electorate this time.
Are the members of any party ready to declare that they will honor the electorate or will they stick to the rules as they are ?
makeing such a declaration before the election is resolve , afterwards is whining.
-
Not exactly the same thing as the electorate, is it, sirs? The electorate is the American people voting. The Constitution is a document trying in this case to take some of that fabled "democracy" away from the American people voting. As I said, minus the wink, you actually did get it right that one time.
-
The electorate is the American people voting. The Constitution is a document trying in this case to take some of that fabled "democracy" away from the American people voting.
LOL.....well, that's 1 whacked out interpretation of our country's greatest document. Thanks for the good chuckle, as I head off to work
-
<<LOL.....well, that's 1 whacked out interpretation of our country's greatest document. Thanks for the good chuckle, as I head off to work>>
That's one undisputed analysis of the theory underlying the Electoral College and the College's reason for being. No historian that I'm aware of has ever advanced another. Maybe (apart from your own illustrious opinion) you can point me to one who has.
-
That's one undisputed analysis of the theory underlying the Electoral College and the College's reason for being. No historian that I'm aware of has ever advanced another. Maybe (apart from your own illustrious opinion) you can point me to one who has.
I'd like to read about this "theory" that the electoral college was setup to take democracy away from the American people.
The only "theory" I've ever heard is the one advanced by the framers: the election was setup the way it was because the President is the leader of the coalition of the various STATES, not the citizens. The state government is supposed to represent the citizens, while the federal government works out relations between states and between the United States as a whole and foreign interests. Therefore, it's the STATES that elect the President, and not the citizens.
-
<<LOL.....well, that's 1 whacked out interpretation of our country's greatest document. Thanks for the good chuckle, as I head off to work>>
That's one undisputed analysis of the theory underlying the Electoral College and the College's reason for being. No historian that I'm aware of has ever advanced another. Maybe (apart from your own illustrious opinion) you can point me to one who has.
One of the reasons was the lack of instantainious communication , it is so long since the invention of the telegraph that we have become ignorant of the problems faced by people who were seaparated by a few days travel.
When the Elections were held ,a tie would have been hard to deal with unless there were electors who could change their vote.
The constitution was a document of practicality and idealism , the Electorial colledge is a way to acheve both.
Haveing a bit of separation between the people and direct controll of the government is also an intended effect of the Electorial colledge as well as several other features that make the democracy depend on representatives rather then direct votes. This is not enough to keep the people from getting their way , it is enough to allow a fad to blow over before law is made.
This effect has worked against my faction in the Abortion debate , if submitted to a referendum , Abortion rights would very likely fail even now , if submitted to a referendum the same year as Roe Vs Wade was decided it would have failed in a landslide.
-
<<LOL.....well, that's 1 whacked out interpretation of our country's greatest document. Thanks for the good chuckle, as I head off to work>>
That's one undisputed analysis of the theory underlying the Electoral College and the College's reason for being.
See above for proper clarification of that latest response. Suffice to say, how smart the founders were to prevent major urban populations to dictate who's going to be president for the other 80+% of the country
-
Actually, with the wink, I'm dead on accurate with how much a joke the idea is. Borders the Elvis Factor. But as long as you feel better, that's the important thing ;D
As I recall Sirs, the electorate chose Al Gore. The electoral college chose George W. Bush.
My Bad.....you're right Js, the Constitution chose Bush over Gore. Good catch
No. The constitution is a document and cannot perform any action on its own accord.
The electorate are the elgibile voters of the region being discussed (in this case the United States).
The Electoral College is a group of people chosen through a process and allocated by the various states to vote for candidates determined on party lines.
You said that George W Bush was chosen by the electorate, which is false. Al Gore was chosen by the electorate. George W. Bush was chosen by the Electoral College. No one was chosen by the constitution, which is not a living being with a mind of its own. You may state that Bush was chosen through a process written into the U.S. Constitution. That would be accurate.
-
ALEXANDER HAMILTON FROM THE FEDERALIST PAPERS
http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012601.htm
<<It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
<<It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place. >>
-
You said that George W Bush was chosen by the electorate, which is false. Al Gore was chosen by the electorate. George W. Bush was chosen by the Electoral College. No one was chosen by the constitution, which is not a living being with a mind of its own.
Actually, it was put together by those "living beings with minds of their own" folk, and I did already concede about the electorate vs electoral college. So why the need to repeat that is quite puzzling
You may state that Bush was chosen through a process written into the U.S. Constitution. That would be accurate.
Pretty much, what I inferred
-
[snippage]
This doesn't say that it was setup to take democracy from the people; indeed it shows that democratic principles are adhered to: "selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass."
-
<<LOL.....well, that's 1 whacked out interpretation of our country's greatest document. Thanks for the good chuckle, as I head off to work>>
That's one undisputed analysis of the theory underlying the Electoral College and the College's reason for being.
See above for proper clarification of that latest response. Suffice to say, how smart the founders were to prevent major urban populations to dictate who's going to be president for the other 80+% of the country
LOL
Do you realize that your sentence is completely illogical? If 80% of the country lived outside of major urban centers, then they and not those deranged urbanites would be the ones electing the president and enforcing their will upon the minority.
The Electoral College is an 18th century relic from a time when "democracy" still primarily referred to white male landowners, who were certainly not the majority of the people in the country. They wanted a system similar enough to Britain (which at the time had "rotten boroughs" and other guarantees) to ensure that the great unwashed masses did not send some uncouth nutter to the office of the President.
This had nothing to do with protecting the sanctified and holy rural puritans from the evil scourge of the demonic cities. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were sharp guys, no doubt, but even they could not foresee that there would one day be a state of Washington where a politician could win only a few counties and win the entire state handily!
-
This had nothing to do with protecting the sanctified and holy rural puritans from the evil scourge of the demonic cities. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were sharp guys, no doubt, but even they could not foresee that there would one day be a state of Washington where a politician could win only a few counties and win the entire state handily!
Of course, in the current system, that's balanced by states who do NOT have huge concentrations of population in small areas.
-
This had nothing to do with protecting the sanctified and holy rural puritans from the evil scourge of the demonic cities. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were sharp guys, no doubt, but even they could not foresee that there would one day be a state of Washington where a politician could win only a few counties and win the entire state handily!
Of course, in the current system, that's balanced by states who do NOT have huge concentrations of population in small areas.
Why not just let the people vote?
No other nation relies on an 18th century board of electors to do their voting for them.
-
No other nation relies on an 18th century board of electors to do their voting for them.
How are the members of the House of Lords chosen? For that matter, how is the British Prime Minister chosen?
-
No other nation relies on an 18th century board of electors to do their voting for them.
For that matter, how is the President of China elected?
Want more examples?
-
This had nothing to do with protecting the sanctified and holy rural puritans from the evil scourge of the demonic cities. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were sharp guys, no doubt, but even they could not foresee that there would one day be a state of Washington where a politician could win only a few counties and win the entire state handily!
Of course, in the current system, that's balanced by states who do NOT have huge concentrations of population in small areas.
BINGO
Of course, in the current system, that's balanced by states who do NOT have huge concentrations of population in small areas.
Why not just let the people vote? No other nation relies on an 18th century board of electors to do their voting for them.
asked and answered already. A) People do vote, and B) So that the largest, most urbanized areas of the country aren't dictating who's going to be rural America's President, each and every election cycle
-
<<Plane, didn't you get the memo? Bush wasn't chosen by the electorate, he was chosen by the Far Right Supreme Court Wink>>
Minus the wink, sirs, you sure got THAT right.
Actually, with the wink, I'm dead on accurate with how much a joke the idea is. Borders the Elvis Factor. But as long as you feel better, that's the important thing ;D
As I recall Sirs, the electorate chose Al Gore. The electoral college chose George W. Bush.
Gee, isn't that the way it has been done for two centuries, e.g. the electoral college setles it? Whining after the fact is immature. If Gore & Co. don't like this Inconvenient Truth, then they should go about changing it.
-
No other nation relies on an 18th century board of electors to do their voting for them.
How are the members of the House of Lords chosen? For that matter, how is the British Prime Minister chosen?
Members of the HoL are chosen through a very bizarre process of "honours." The difference is that the HoL has absolutely no real authority.
The British Prime Minister is directly elected by his or her constituents as a Member of Parliament. He or she is the Party Leader of whichever party has the majority of seats in the House of Commons (unless it is a minority or coalition Government which is a very rare circumstance). The difference is that the Westminster system is fundamentally different from the American system. Paliament is the sovereign entity of the Westminster system. There is far much more room to make major changes through the British Parliament than the American Congress. Moreover, the Prime Minister is an MP - he is a "first among equals" of his cabinet which are also made up of MP's (with some peers). He answers to MP's as does the cabinet. They have set Question Time, where they lawfully must provide answers to Parliament's questions.
You're comparing apples and oranges. For what he is, the British PM is directly elected by his constituents.
The American President is not. Why not?
And, it should be mentioned that many of the 18th century institutions that protected the aristocracy from too much democracy in the UK have been removed, unlike in the United States.
China? Seriously? We have to be compared to an undemocratic nation. I think that only proves my point.
-
<<Plane, didn't you get the memo? Bush wasn't chosen by the electorate, he was chosen by the Far Right Supreme Court Wink>>
Minus the wink, sirs, you sure got THAT right.
Actually, with the wink, I'm dead on accurate with how much a joke the idea is. Borders the Elvis Factor. But as long as you feel better, that's the important thing ;D
As I recall Sirs, the electorate chose Al Gore. The electoral college chose George W. Bush.
Gee, isn't that the way it has been done for two centuries, e.g. the electoral college setles it? Whining after the fact is immature. If Gore & Co. don't like this Inconvenient Truth, then they should go about changing it.
I wasn't "whining," just correcting Sirs poor word choices.
And yes, we've used it for two centuries, before women and non-whites could vote. But slaves counted 3/5ths!
-
<<Plane, didn't you get the memo? Bush wasn't chosen by the electorate, he was chosen by the Far Right Supreme Court Wink>>
Minus the wink, sirs, you sure got THAT right.
Actually, with the wink, I'm dead on accurate with how much a joke the idea is. Borders the Elvis Factor. But as long as you feel better, that's the important thing ;D
As I recall Sirs, the electorate chose Al Gore. The electoral college chose George W. Bush.
Gee, isn't that the way it has been done for two centuries, e.g. the electoral college setles it? Whining after the fact is immature. If Gore & Co. don't like this Inconvenient Truth, then they should go about changing it.
I wasn't "whining," just correcting Sirs poor word choices.
And yes, we've used it for two centuries, before women and non-whites could vote. But slaves counted 3/5ths!
Sorry, I meant Gore & Co, sounded like whiners when they complained about it.
Again, if someone doesn't like the current system, then they need to go through the proper channels to see about changing it.
-
The American President is not. Why not?
And, it should be mentioned that many of the 18th century institutions that protected the aristocracy from too much democracy in the UK have been removed, unlike in the United States.
As I said, the President is the leader of the various states, and therefore he is elected by the states. Each state sends delegates (called "Electors") to vote. As a matter of fact, the original system had Congress directly elect the President. The electoral college was developed to put the vote closer to the citizens (after all, Senators had 6 year seats, so they would vote for two presidents, even if their constituency had shifted in the meantime) - that is why the number of electors matches the number of congressional delegates.
And, BTW, the PM is selected by the monarch, then approved by the House of Commons. Though most monarchs would see the futility of selecting someone that would not be approved...
-
And, BTW, the PM is selected by the monarch, then approved by the House of Commons. Though most monarchs would see the futility of selecting someone that would not be approved...
=======================================================
The Queen of the UK, and the monarchs of Spain, Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway would never think of not approving of the PM. I doubt that they would continue to rule if they did.
The fact is that many EU governments, and even some Latin American governments (Chile and Costa Rica in particular) are more democratic, meaning more responsive to the people, than the present government of the US.
-
The fact is that many EU governments, and even some Latin American governments (Chile and Costa Rica in particular) are more democratic, meaning more responsive to the people, than the present government of the US.
That's because the system was designed so that the government most responsive to the needs of the people is the one they directly vote for - local and state governments. Many states in the US are larger than entire countries in the EU.
-
As a matter of fact, the original system had Congress directly elect the President. The electoral college was developed to put the vote closer to the citizens (after all, Senators had 6 year seats, so they would vote for two presidents, even if their constituency had shifted in the meantime).
BINGO
-
As a matter of fact, the original system had Congress directly elect the President. The electoral college was developed to put the vote closer to the citizens (after all, Senators had 6 year seats, so they would vote for two presidents, even if their constituency had shifted in the meantime).
BINGO
Make up your mind Sirs, I thought it was because the evil city dwellers may skulk out at night and devour the pastoral puritans of the saintly rural dominions.
-
Get back to me when you want to have a civil dialog
-
The American President is not. Why not?
And, it should be mentioned that many of the 18th century institutions that protected the aristocracy from too much democracy in the UK have been removed, unlike in the United States.
As I said, the President is the leader of the various states, and therefore he is elected by the states. Each state sends delegates (called "Electors") to vote. As a matter of fact, the original system had Congress directly elect the President. The electoral college was developed to put the vote closer to the citizens (after all, Senators had 6 year seats, so they would vote for two presidents, even if their constituency had shifted in the meantime) - that is why the number of electors matches the number of congressional delegates.
And, BTW, the PM is selected by the monarch, then approved by the House of Commons. Though most monarchs would see the futility of selecting someone that would not be approved...
You know as well as I do that the Queens role is ceremonial. Unlike the electoral college, the Queen is permitted to act on these duties for traditional purposes. They are relics of the past, but the British, who understand tradition far better than we, know to place tradition in a context that does not interfere with modernity.
Your paragraph explains why the electoral college was developed. Yet, I've still to hear why it is needed today.
-
Get back to me when you want to have a civil dialog
Ah, 'twas just a joke.
OK.
Why shouldn't urban areas have more say since they have more people? Isn't that how democracy works, one man = one vote regardless of where he lives?
-
When it ain't broke don't fix it.
When it ain't broke and it has been reliable for the performance of a vital function for a long time , don't meddle with fixes that change the known into the untried.
-
Get back to me when you want to have a civil dialog
Ah, 'twas just a joke.
OK.
Why shouldn't urban areas have more say since they have more people? Isn't that how democracy works, one man = one vote regardless of where he lives?
Because the rural people have a vital role and could not perform it if subject to the tyrany of the mass who do not know which end of a chicken gets fed.
-
Why shouldn't urban areas have more say since they have more people?
Because this is the United States of America. Not the United states of California/New York/Texas, or the United State of Urban America.
Because it's far too easy for politicians to pander to those urbanites, and with a quid-pro-quo, push legisative and executive decisions completely contradictory to the welfare and needs of those evil pastural puritans.
The President is the President of ALL the states, even the rural ones, and as such rural America should have just as much representative say as urban America....which the Electoral College does to a fair degree.
And as Professor has already referenced, by all means initiate a Constitutional convention to amend the Constitution, if you don't like it. And while you're at it, best use the time to add how the Fed should provide Universal healthcare, so that there's no longer any confusion as what the Fed should be providing vs simply promoting
Isn't that how democracy works, one man = one vote regardless of where he lives?
Yea, it does quite well, at the state & local level, where one's constituencies are much more specific. Thankfully, we don't run this country via mob rule
-
Your paragraph explains why the electoral college was developed. Yet, I've still to hear why it is needed today.
Because the President remains the president of the states. While he's been given more power over the years, the basic position hasn't changed. Even many nominally federal programs are administered via the state.
-
Isn't that how democracy works, one man = one vote regardless of where he lives?
Yea, it does quite well, at the state & local level, where one's constituencies are much more specific. Thankfully, we don't run this country via mob rule
So rural votes should count more than urban votes? To make it "fair."
-
So rural votes should count more than urban votes? To make it "fair."
The votes are allocated among the states based on population plus an additional two for each state.
-
So rural votes should count more than urban votes? To make it "fair."
The votes are allocated among the states based on population plus an additional two for each state.
Thank you Ami
-
<<Your paragraph explains why the electoral college was developed. Yet, I've still to hear why it is needed today.>>
The short answer is that it isn't. I've watched the defences of the Electoral College in this thread, and they are really lame. They're basically a negation of the "one person one vote" rule and designed for smaller interest groups to be protected from larger interest groups. I suppose it's impossible for a Presidential candidate to present a plan to the electorate that balances out the competing interests of rural vs. urban populations, and let the electorate decide themselves - - but they are too dumb to make a good choice, so we have the Electoral College. The alternative to an Electoral College (one person one vote for President) is variously described as "mob rule" or "letting people vote on farm issues when they don't know which end of a chicken to feed." Well, that's the problem with democracy, isn't it? If they're too fucking dumb to know which end of a chicken gets fed, why give 'em the vote at all?
-
They're basically a negation of the "one person one vote" rule
Where is this "rule" stated?
For that matter, why is Congress allowed to stand? After all, the delegation to Congress is just as "unbalanced" as the Electoral College...
-
<<Your paragraph explains why the electoral college was developed. Yet, I've still to hear why it is needed today.>>
The short answer is that it isn't. I've watched the defences of the Electoral College in this thread, and they are really lame. They're basically a negation of the "one person one vote" rule and designed for smaller interest groups to be protected from larger interest groups.
Despite the twisted logic, what a stunning hypocratic revelation coming from the party that supposedly prides itself in protecting the weak from the strong. I guess it depends on who the weak are. If they're likely to vote Republican, by all means, throw them to the side of the road.
-
<<Where is this "rule" stated?>>
I don't know where it's stated. During the Civil Rights era, it was "one man one vote" so I guess the version I just gave is the more PC one. It's a principle by which a lot of people evaluate how democratic an institution really is.
<<For that matter, why is Congress allowed to stand? After all, the delegation to Congress is just as "unbalanced" as the Electoral College...>>
Well, I guess Congress is more obviously a relic of the Federal system. Seems to work pretty well as it is, so "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The Electoral College is also a relic, but obviously a broken one if we look to the 2000 Presidential election, which was a catastrophe. The people didn't get what they wanted, they got what the System wanted, and the result was a disaster, compounded by the fact that most people didn't vote for the idiot who represented the minority of voters but managed, due to the System, to foul the nest that they all lived in.
-
<<Despite the twisted logic, what a stunning hypocratic revelation coming from the party that supposedly prides itself in protecting the weak from the strong. I guess it depends on who the weak are. If they're likely to vote Republican, by all means, throw them to the side of the road.>>
The "weak" in this case being the upper-income white suburbanites and the Fortune 500 corporations forming the backbone of the Republican Party.
-
<<Despite the twisted logic, what a stunning hypocratic revelation coming from the party that supposedly prides itself in protecting the weak from the strong. I guess it depends on who the weak are. If they're likely to vote Republican, by all means, throw them to the side of the road.>>
The "weak" in this case being the upper-income white suburbanites and the Fortune 500 corporations forming the backbone of the Republican Party.
Half of the country is upper income?
I think you have learned the Republican secret weapon , since the poor vote Democra , lets enrich them.
-
<<Half of the country is upper income?>>
No they're not, but they're dumb enough to vote against their own economic interests, thanks to the snake-oil salesmen of a party representing the upper-income sector, selling a heady brew of racism, fascism and militarism. Don't ever fall into the trap of thinking that the beneficiaries of Republican administrations are the vast majorities of Republican voters.
-
I don't know where it's stated.
Probably because it's not.
Well, I guess Congress is more obviously a relic of the Federal system. Seems to work pretty well as it is, so "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The Electoral College is also a relic, but obviously a broken one if we look to the 2000 Presidential election, which was a catastrophe.
The votes in the Electoral College are calculated the same way the votes in Congress are calculated1 so I guess if Congress "ain't broke" neither is the Electoral College. And what happened in 2000 is no different than what happened in a number of other elections going back to the early 1800s; except that the loser filed a court case.
This is all really silly. I mean, we even have JS making the claim that "no other [democratically elected] government uses a board to elect their leader." Actually, in most Parliamentary systems (which most democracies use), it's worse than in the US system. In those systems, the head of state is the Prime Minster, and that office is usually voted on by only the majority party (or coalition), therefore denying a vote to everyone who is not affiliated with the majority party. The US system allows everyone to vote for an Elector (and the number of electors are based on population), so it is "defacto" more representative of the population. The several times the Electoral College vote did not match the popular vote were statistical quirks, mostly based on large population moves just before a census (as was the case with the late 90s and the 2000 election).
1 - With one exception: DC gets 3 votes in the Electoral College, but gets no votes in Congress. Though, if this is the point where the Electoral College is broken, it would be an easy fix to remove those 3 votes.
-
<<Half of the country is upper income?>>
No they're not, but they're dumb enough to vote against their own economic interests, thanks to the snake-oil salesmen of a party representing the upper-income sector, selling a heady brew of racism, fascism and militarism. Don't ever fall into the trap of thinking that the beneficiaries of Republican administrations are the vast majorities of Republican voters.
Govenor Corzine of New Jersey holds the record for most dollars spent for each vote.
Snake oil is not patented for the Republicans, nor does facism have any real place in American politics , militarism on the other hand is quit popular with Republicans, many of us have been members ofthe Armed forces and or some of us the military was the best grade in the school of life , so your accusation of militarism I do accept as having a grain of truth.
The Wealthy of the Democratic Party do not actually number less than the wealthy of the Republican party, but Democrats seem to be ashamed of their wealth . I speculate that the wealthy join the Republicans when they have provided service to the community and become wealthy as a result , wealthy join the Democrats when they feel a need for shame and atonement because they didn't really earn their wealth.
-
So rural votes should count more than urban votes? To make it "fair."
The votes are allocated among the states based on population plus an additional two for each state.
So that in Wyoming and Alaska, the votes are worth more individually than in populous states like Texas. Do you disagree?
-
<<Despite the twisted logic, what a stunning hypocratic revelation coming from the party that supposedly prides itself in protecting the weak from the strong. I guess it depends on who the weak are. If they're likely to vote Republican, by all means, throw them to the side of the road.>>
The "weak" in this case being the upper-income white suburbanites and the Fortune 500 corporations forming the backbone of the Republican Party.
That's strange.....the rural America that Js & I have been referencing (at least I have) are pretty much middle-low income folks, spread all across the central & southern portions of the country. I think you refer to them as rednecks. Rednecks are now running Fortune 500 Corporations?? Pretty lame redirection effort their, Tee. I realize the pickle you put yourself into. Let's watch more of that wiggling
-
So that in Wyoming and Alaska, the votes are worth more individually than in populous states like Texas. Do you disagree?
Aye, and they are worth more in Congress as well.
As I said, the system was setup so that the most representative government (the state) was closer to the people. The federal government is supposed to represent the states, not the people.
-
I don't know where it's stated.
Probably because it's not.
Well, I guess Congress is more obviously a relic of the Federal system. Seems to work pretty well as it is, so "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The Electoral College is also a relic, but obviously a broken one if we look to the 2000 Presidential election, which was a catastrophe.
The votes in the Electoral College are calculated the same way the votes in Congress are calculated1 so I guess if Congress "ain't broke" neither is the Electoral College. And what happened in 2000 is no different than what happened in a number of other elections going back to the early 1800s; except that the loser filed a court case.
This is all really silly. I mean, we even have JS making the claim that "no other [democratically elected] government uses a board to elect their leader." Actually, in most Parliamentary systems (which most democracies use), it's worse than in the US system. In those systems, the head of state is the Prime Minster, and that office is usually voted on by only the majority party (or coalition), therefore denying a vote to everyone who is not affiliated with the majority party. The US system allows everyone to vote for an Elector (and the number of electors are based on population), so it is "defacto" more representative of the population. The several times the Electoral College vote did not match the popular vote were statistical quirks, mostly based on large population moves just before a census (as was the case with the late 90s and the 2000 election).
1 - With one exception: DC gets 3 votes in the Electoral College, but gets no votes in Congress. Though, if this is the point where the Electoral College is broken, it would be an easy fix to remove those 3 votes.
It isn't "worse" and you are knowingly distorting what I said Ami.
You are comparing apples and oranges. The Westminster System is entirely different as I've explained. The Cabinet and the Prime Minister are ALL from Parliament. They are sitting MP's or peers. As sitting MP's they are directly elected.
You're best effort was at laying it at the monarch's feet, which was another distortion of the truth. While technically correct according to tradition in the UK, it is not the reality of the situation. You know this as well.
-
So that in Wyoming and Alaska, the votes are worth more individually than in populous states like Texas. Do you disagree?
Aye, and they are worth more in Congress as well.
As I said, the system was setup so that the most representative government (the state) was closer to the people. The federal government is supposed to represent the states, not the people.
So, then you'll agree that it is NOT one man = one vote due to the electoral college. It is instead, in some states one vote is worth more than in other states - correct?
-
So, then you'll agree that it is NOT one man = one vote due to the electoral college. It is instead, in some states one vote is worth more than in other states - correct?
I never claimed that "one man = one vote" was ever the system in the US, nor did I ever claim that it was an ideal. It's not true for any federal position; never has been, never will be. As I pointed out, this is not true in Congress, and it's not true for the Presidential election. The federal government was never intended to be representative of citizens, it's a place for the states to get their say.
-
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Then why did you bring it up?
-
As I said, the system was setup so that the most representative government (the state) was closer to the people. The federal government is supposed to represent the states, not the people.
BEST summation to date. Knocked that one out of the park, Ami
*golf clap*
-
You are comparing apples and oranges. The Westminster System is entirely different as I've explained. The Cabinet and the Prime Minister are ALL from Parliament. They are sitting MP's or peers. As sitting MP's they are directly elected.
And the Electors are directly elected as well.
So, you got one system where a bunch of guys are directly elected, and they vote one of their own as the head of state. And you got another system where a bunch of guys are directly elected and vote someone outside of their group as head of state.
They're not so different, are they?
-
You are comparing apples and oranges. The Westminster System is entirely different as I've explained. The Cabinet and the Prime Minister are ALL from Parliament. They are sitting MP's or peers. As sitting MP's they are directly elected.
And the Electors are directly elected as well.
So, you got one system where a bunch of guys are directly elected, and they vote one of their own as the head of state. And you got another system where a bunch of guys are directly elected and vote someone outside of their group as head of state.
They're not so different, are they?
Our system and Westminster?
Yes, they are very different.
-
As I said, the system was setup so that the most representative government (the state) was closer to the people. The federal government is supposed to represent the states, not the people.
BEST summation to date. Knocked that one out of the park, Ami
*golf clap*
Then at least be honest Sirs and state that you do not support one man = one vote, but instead support a system where people in Wyoming and Alaska have votes that are worth more than your vote and my vote.
I'm not attacking that system, I'd just like some straight-forward honesty for once.
-
I'm not attacking that system, I'd just like some straight-forward honesty for once.
I believe the only people here claiming "one man = one vote" are arguing on your side.
"Allocated based on population" is not the same as "one man = one vote" - in this system or any other.
-
Allocated based on population would mean that one vote in one region should be equal in weight to one vote in another region.
Granted that no system can be perfect and actual voters are not equal to population of course.
Hey, maybe one man = one vote is a bit cliche, but your side has used "if it ain't broke don't fix it" :P
-
Allocated based on population would mean that one vote in one region should be equal in weight to one vote in another region.
Granted that no system can be perfect and actual voters are not equal to population of course.
Hey, maybe one man = one vote is a bit cliche, but your side has used "if it ain't broke don't fix it" :P
So what is broke about it?
In the constitional convention where the constitution was written the big states like New York wanted one man one vote but the more rural states would refus to join the club under cicumstances that ensured that practicly all decisions to be made in New York City , simularly Southern states wanted indians and slaves to be counted in the census but northern states objected that this wouldn't be fair since these people were not allowed to vote.
I don't know why Rode Island would ever join a club in which it had no influence , or why New Hampshire should have to put up wih a Slaves ficticious right to vote carrying representation in congress.
So to get the club together comprmises were made. The contract got signed .
-
Hey, maybe one man = one vote is a bit cliche, but your side has used "if it ain't broke don't fix it"
Mikey is not on my side. And he used that to declare that the representation in Congress was ok. Since the representation in Congress "ain't broke" then why is the representation in the Electoral College "broke"?
-
As I said, the system was setup so that the most representative government (the state) was closer to the people. The federal government is supposed to represent the states, not the people.
BEST summation to date. Knocked that one out of the park, Ami
Then at least be honest Sirs and state that you do not support one man = one vote, but instead support a system where people in Wyoming and Alaska have votes that are worth more than your vote and my vote.
If you're asking do I support that the President be representative to ALL states, and not just the one I happen to be living in, then, yea. That is how our Country was founded and is represented. And it works, thank God, so that mob rule isn't the SOP
-
Allocated based on population would mean that one vote in one region should be equal in weight to one vote in another region.
Granted that no system can be perfect and actual voters are not equal to population of course.
And, BTW, "allocated based on population" is the system used for Congress and the Electoral
College.
-
That the Electoral College system is broken was apparent from the fiasco of the 2000 election, when the President was chosen with a minority of the popular vote. Although the same representational inequities may exist in Congress, there is never such a clear-cut and obvious flouting of the popular will as was seen in the election of the "President."
Although the fiction of the President being the "President of the States" works in theory, in real life, states aren't people and can't feel the connection to the President that the people feel. To the majority of the people of the U.S.A., their choice was flouted. That the choice of "the states" was honoured is small consolation. Democratic principles require that the President be the president of all the people of the country, elected by all the people on a one-person-one-vote basis, otherwise he or she will lack democratic validation. The validation of "the System" as opposed to the validation of "the people" is a pathetically inadequate substitute. As the quote from Alexander Hamilton, posted earlier in this thread, clearly shows, the real motivation for the Electoral College is the elitist notion that the people left to their own devices, are just too fucking dumb to elect a good President.
If the Electoral College system really worked as the Constitution intended, the Electors would be left on their own, without prior commitments, free to change their opinions at will, to vote for whomever the hell it pleased them to vote for, once elected.
-
Hey, maybe one man = one vote is a bit cliche, but your side has used "if it ain't broke don't fix it"
Mikey is not on my side. And he used that to declare that the representation in Congress was ok. Since the representation in Congress "ain't broke" then why is the representation in the Electoral College "broke"?
Who says the representation in Congress ain't broke?
-
As I said, the system was setup so that the most representative government (the state) was closer to the people. The federal government is supposed to represent the states, not the people.
BEST summation to date. Knocked that one out of the park, Ami
Then at least be honest Sirs and state that you do not support one man = one vote, but instead support a system where people in Wyoming and Alaska have votes that are worth more than your vote and my vote.
If you're asking do I support that the President be representative to ALL states, and not just the one I happen to be living in, then, yea. That is how our Country was founded and is represented. And it works, thank God, so that mob rule isn't the SOP
That isn't what I asked.
You support a system where an Alaskan voter is worth more than a Texan voter.
Correct?
-
As Ami has already expertly articulated, the Fed represents the states, not the people. Populations are properly represented, and the more populated states have far more electoral votes than the lesser populated ones. Yet, under such a system, Candidates can't simply ignore those lesser populated states, but as you can see, don't provide near the # of electoral votes than what California, NY, and Texas provide. So, I really don't understand your beef. Tee, I can.....mob rule and more powerful lobbying voices are perfectly acceptable, if it benefits the left's agenda
-
I think it's appropriate in Congress but not the Electoral College. Basically, it's because there is still some point to having the states represented as states in Congress, whereas the President really is the President of the people more than of the states. He represents a national power, not the culmination of the power of the power of the states, and as such should be directly elected by the people.
Let the marketplace of ideas govern Presidential elections - - I've never seen a Presidential election yet where one candidate says, "I'm gonna do what's good for the manufacturing states and fuck the farm states." People today realize the President is a national president and would reject one who stood too one-sidedly for regional interests.
Also this stuff about "mob" rule is just inflammatory and ludicrous in the circumstances. Mob psychology doesn't govern presidential elections. All the exit polls show that the voters are deciding on national issues anyway.
-
Also this stuff about "mob" rule is just inflammatory and ludicrous in the circumstances.
Yea, I'm sure that's what the slaves were thinking, in the late 1700's. Majority then thought it perfectly acceptable....so obviously, it must have been ::)
-
The Electoral College is probably doing what was intended for it to do. The thing is that this is not necessary and actually detrimental to America Democracy. It is an anachronism and should be eliminated.
-
It's called a Constitutional Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution). Knock your socks off
-
Let the marketplace of ideas govern Presidential elections - - I've never seen a Presidential election yet where one candidate says, "I'm gonna do what's good for the manufacturing states and fuck the farm states." People today realize the President is a national president and would reject one who stood too one-sidedly for regional interests.
Yes that is theexcellence of the present system.
-
That the Electoral College system is broken was apparent from the fiasco of the 2000 election, when the President was chosen with a minority of the popular vote. Although the same representational inequities may exist in Congress, there is never such a clear-cut and obvious flouting of the popular will as was seen in the election of the "President."
Except, of course, the three other times it happened...
-
Democratic principles require that the President be the president of all the people of the country, elected by all the people on a one-person-one-vote basis, otherwise he or she will lack democratic validation.
So, it's bad here, but it's ok in other countries? Like Canada?
-
If the Electoral College system really worked as the Constitution intended, the Electors would be left on their own, without prior commitments, free to change their opinions at will, to vote for whomever the hell it pleased them to vote for, once elected.
Hate to tell you this, but that is exactly how it works. The Electors can vote for anyone they choose - they are called "faithless electors" and most elections see one or two of them.
-
Who says the representation in Congress ain't broke?
Mikey.