Miserable Failure
- Thread starter 2fast4u
- Start date
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
pj64er said:
They are both just as real/fake as one another. You can't get a top link on google without having multiple (and I mean LOTS of) other webpages that link to the same thing and include the same context in the hyperlink.
Hence why I said "bunch of bushwhackers," because if you do the search without the "I'm Feeling Lucky," then you see nothing but a bunch of articles that are quoting a democratic presidential candidate named Dick Gephardt, whose entire campaign focuses on being anti-bush, and his campaign slogan is "Miserable Failure," in fact, his campaign website is called www.amiserablefailure.com, by which I think he is actually refering to the success of his campaign so far.
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
KingTom said:
Thats because they reference it, thats the way google works.
I don't understand why its so popular to hate the president of the US though, and not just Bush specifically. I deal with people from foreign countries on a daily basis, and the ones that like to complain about the way our system is run can't say anything without mentioning the president, and when I ask them how their own system does it better, they can never give a direct answer, and upon further questioning, they really don't even know anything about how their own system works.
Just food for thought.
Last edited:
OP
2fast4u
New member
- Thread Starter
- #17
AlphaWolf said:
good old stereotypes... :sleeping:
all countries in this world have their flaws and particularly my own one has a shitload of huge ones, i still dont run around teling all the world my country rocks and we are the best unlike some other people i know.
as for your president, he is a war mongering puppet run by junta of ultra conservative neo-liberal politicians and ceos who piss on international laws or democracy anyway and i hope he gets removed in 2k4. fingers crossed.
KingTom
aka "Passion"
i can criticize w/out naming
the current president was named even though he got less than fifty percent of the vote
less than fifty percent?
in canada, we have the minority government system. that means that we can have rep by pop even when the government in power does not have the majority vote
things do get done that way, and if the opp. doesn't like it, they can boot him out
and we have more than two possible candidates
and the list goes on
the current president was named even though he got less than fifty percent of the vote
less than fifty percent?
in canada, we have the minority government system. that means that we can have rep by pop even when the government in power does not have the majority vote
things do get done that way, and if the opp. doesn't like it, they can boot him out
and we have more than two possible candidates
and the list goes on
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
2fast4u said:
My country is not flawless...but who does a better job? And we pioneered the philosophy of democracy that you subscribe to, by the way.
2fast4u said:
Stereotypes indeed...You do realize that your last comment held no substance? Notice mine was first hand information; and I never said "all foreigners," because most of them don't do this actually, but the ones that do tend to also be the most clueless.
And so far as whether or not Bush gets removed in 2004....well, that is up for people like myself to decide - not you, so mind your own damn country's business
KingTom said:
Quite simple actually, first of all, neither of them had more than 50%, second of all, we are a democracy, not a republic. A republic is a mob rule, whereas a democracy is a balance between the wealthy and the poor. When people vote, they aren't actually voting for the president himself, they are voting for an elector that represents their region. Yes, that is right, votes are done by region, not by majority. This is the way the constitution defines it, it was part of the virginia compromise (I recommend you do a google search on that.) The idea behind the electoral college is that we don't have the heavy populated states have an iron fisted rule over the lighter populated states. As you can see nya, Bush had the majority vote based on the states themselves. But wait, theres more! If you look over nya, you'll notice that even in the states where Bush lost overall, (ESPECIALLY new york!) he actually only lost because the more densely populated counties were in support of Gore. Do you think that is honestly fair if the people in those small, yet densly populated counties get to bitchslap the rest around simply because they have more people? Hey, why not? Lets start a lynch mob and kill the infidels!
Now lets take this a step further. A lot of you guys like to set a stereotype that conservatives are just a bunch of corporate bastards who boss everybody else around. It's actually quite the opposite. If you'd care to notice, the counties that won Gores popular vote also happen to be where a lot of the corporate types work and live. Not only that, but the cost of living is also much higher there, and therefore, the wages they earn are much higher, which means they have more money than those who supported Bush.
KingTom said:
This sounds like our electoral college system, except the government has no influence on the votes.
Oh, and something that may interest you liberals...JFK, the democratiic president that all democrats loved above all other presidents that we have ever had, won the election exactly the same way Bush did. So according to the democrats, you can only steal an election if you are republican, but if you are democrat, then it's not considered stealing, its considered "giving the election to the poor needy guy that got less votes." :happy:
Last edited:
sytaylor
Sy
2fast4u said:
See thats a
aperbag: way of looking at things in my view. Fair enough you don't like his decisions but what does charachterising his person and government acheive but alienation and a feeling of "we hate them"? Surley you're more objective than that, there are polotics in this, its not just a big slagging match. Bush may not be the most internationally savvy president ever, btu the truth is, his duty is to the American people, not the worlds. When a leader pays too little focus to their domestic agenda (like blair) they are criticized, and when they pay too little to the international situation people demonize them.At the end of all the demonizing and characterisation, what is acheived but a distorted, hate filled and unrealistic view of what is really happening? NOTHING.