Posted on 04/11/2004 6:26:12 AM PDT by paulsy
"He was not elected by a majority..."President Bush won under the existing election law, as it is currently written - NOT as you may LIKE for it to be at some point in the future.
Consider a FOOTBALL game in which ONE of the teams gains more yards, but the OTHER team scores more points:CERTAINLY it is, since "gaining more yards" (i.e. getting more total votes) is not the current determinant of victory; rather, "scoring more points" (winning in the Electoral College) is.Which team wins?Is it "fair" that the team which gained more yards lost?
If you and your friends would like to change the rules - and if you can get an amendment to the Constitution which will authorize this change ratified, then FUTURE candidates for president can compete using those NEW rules, and may the best man (or Hillary, God forbid!) win.
But, if these NEW election rules had in fact been the law of the land during the 2000 election, don't you think that both George Bush and Al Gore would have run different campaigns?While the merits of such a "most votes" rule may be debated, it is NOT the current law.Knowing that it is only the total of the POPULAR vote which matters, they would both have concentrated on those areas of our country with the greatest populations - ignoring all the smaller, less populated states.
George Walker Bush won the presidential election of 2000 by gaining more ELECTORAL votes, and thus is the legitimate winner - under our current election laws. :o)
Ask him how many times the number of deaths at Pearl Harbor we took fighting World War II? Or should we call it "FDR's dirty war"?
You might also ask him why he hates Iraqis so much, since clearly he'd be happier if Saddam was still imprisoning children, allowing his sons to rape and murder women, and using the populace as landfill. The left is so into the we're-no-better-than-anyone-else mentality; so why are the lives of some of our soldiers (who volunteered to put their lives on the line) worth more than so many more Iraqi civilians?
The Shrub you so blindly follow is a mean-spirited greedy idiot...
A working definition of "mean-spirited" might be real useful at this point.
Thank you. The hypocrisy of those who complain about the war casualties is astounding.
These are people who cared so little about human rights and Iraqi lives that they kept their mouth shut while Saddam filled mass graves with at least 300,000 of his own people.
When a person is this deceived, it is usually willful and they are too far gone to bring around.
You can however usaully at least shut them up by exposing their ignorance with the facts repeatedly.
I used to have a Bush hating woman at work who would come into our dept. and start bashing Bush over all kinds of things. After I openly embarrassed her before the entire dept. by showing she didn't know what she was talking about (like most Dems) she finally stop running her mouth around me.
She now only bashes Bush in front of people who won't challenge her.
I prefer to get right in and mix it up with liberals et al because... I don't know exactly why, but maybe because it's cathartic to give them a good a$$ whoopin' now and again. I know that, at least in my case, someone took the time to give ME a good, conservative a$$ whoopin' when I left Evergreen State College and it set me straight. I know I've been able to change a few peoples' minds since then, and there aren't too many witnesses more potent than reformed liberals; I intend to leverage my resources (I have access to many, many people) to change things for good.
Anyhow, thanks again everyone and feel free to keep adding to this thread.
Your Uncle is probably too far gone, but a good discussion can leave an impression on onlookers. Remain calm at all times, even smile and laugh when sees spews his ridiculous ideas. Then hit him with facts.
Uninformed people will listen. Give your relatives something to think about other than what Uncle has been saying.
Just listen to them talk. Nothing more than PC automatons repeating the same mind-numbing mantras over and over like a herd of malfunctioning Stepford wives.
He is a lost cause on every issue. At least you can use his "feeeeeelings" against him to turn him into a 2nd Amendment supporter!
Hmmm, half a million of our guys died in WWII, which was over 200 times as many as were killed at Pearl Harbor. Guess we shouldn't have fought that war, either. < /sarcasm >
The same "fiercely right wing" Supreme Court that recently trampled the 1st Amendment with so-called Campaign Finance Reform?
At that time, Saddam was needed to counter Iran, and keep the (then) delicate balance of power in the Mideast.
(Along with a copy of Hooked on Phonics.)
He was not elected by a majority, he was anointed by a fiercely right wing supreme court majority, most of whom owe their positions to the Shrub man's father and party, undermining the court's legitimacy and that of the Shrub's administration.
He was elected by a majority of the electoral college. As a lawyer, you know that is the way we count votes. The SC justices have lifetime appointments to protect them from political shenanigans. All were free to vote the way they thought was right. Motives could be assigned to all, but the position the court adopted clearly has a rationale. Sorry you don’t agree with it, but the position taken is valid, and most believe, correct.
He has kept the country in fear since 9/11 and sought to campaign as a WAR president, because most war presidents have an easier time passing legislation and getting reelected.
He campaigned as a war president because that is what he is. Haven’t you read the papers?
He even created a war for that purpose.
That comment doesn’t deserve a response. It is absolutely silly, and I cannot believe you would adopt that position.
Remember, it was leaked before the mid-term election, by a White House source, that the sudden irrational run up to the war with Iraq was a matter of "marketing".
I must have missed that. Who leaked it? What was the context? I can understand how a political operative would discuss the political implications of a war (that is the context they view everything through), but I don’t for a minute believe the war was started for this reason. (let alone that the war didn’t start until March, well after the election.
On the way to Iraq he undid decades' of diplomacy and alienated all of our traditional allies and others whose support we might have expected, except for those he bought or frightened into being "willing".
They alienated themselves. Many of our European allies were actively trading with Iraq, despite the UN sanctions, and the UN appears to have been involved in some shady business of its own. People who resent us will always resent us. That is the burden of being the best, richest, freest country in the world.
Now, as the biggest gunslinger on the block, we as a country can expect to be the target of every oppressed political animal in the world with weapons and imagination.
See above.
Oh yeah, we've also lost our position (as if we ever really held or deserved it) as the beacon of hope and freedom for the world. We are undeniably a world bully now, and there is no realistic chance of a meaningful international consensus on any issue while the Shrub Man speaks for us.
I disagree with your initial assertion. We are the beacon of freedom in the world. Only the socialists and the dictators of the world resent what we have accomplished.
You might be thinking of saying "well, Sadam was bad and his demise and capture are good things." (Shrub Man borrows from Martha Stewart, if you didn't notice.)
Nah, Martha was a huge liberal, and was not the first to say something was good.
The same thing could have, and I think would have, happened had Shrub Man not announced to the world that he was going to do it with or without international support.
The Whitehouse “announced” this in response to a barrage of questions from handwringers who kept worrying about a French veto. It was the right call. To say, “If the UN doesn’t agree, we will just let Iraq continue to threaten us and the rest of the world” would be pure cowardace. Although it is Kerry’s position, isn’t it?
Indeed, for many years even Arab countries wanted to get rid of him but we( R's and D's) helped put Sadam in power and protected him.
Iraq and Iran were part of the cold war. Both played the US and the USSR against each other. The superpowers permitted it because both were safe as long as they were occupied with each other. Dealings between killers is not always a pretty thing, but we did have to watch out for our national interest. Just as we have with Haiti, Kosovo, South Africa, and most of the southern half of the globe. They aren’t just like us, you know?
And just think, so far at least five times as many people have died in the Shrub's dirty little war as died in 9/11.
15,000? Are you counting enemies?
( Hell, the tobacco industry kills as many people as died in 9/11, EVERY 2 1/2 DAYS).
What does that have to do with anything… 40,000 people die in cars, too.
People continue dying every day in the war while Shrub Man hunkers down in the safest and most luxurious places on earth, bellowing "BRING IT ON !".
I disagree with your characterization of “bellowing.” Further, the military men and women absolutely supported this position. They were the key audience. What other actions would you advocate to reduce troop morale?
As for the different views on whether Shrub Man's tax policies add up, I certainly don't know whose math is right. I know the Washington Times is not considered by most people to be objective or main stream; it is decidedly right wing. (Wasn't it started up to punish the Washington Post for exposing Watergate?) I'm no fan of Newsweek either; with very few exceptions it repeats whatever the powers-that-be want it to.
As long as those powers are from the DNC, I would agree with you.
However, wasn't Newsweek reporting on the total federal income tax bills while the W. Times only mentions the effect of isolated provisions? If so, both of their math calculations could be correct, but the W Times is comparing apples to oranges. A more meaningful analysis would include the necessary increases in state, local and sales taxes.
Anyone in the US who pays taxes has seen a decrease compared to earlier tax programs. If state and local taxes have gone up, you should bring that up with the state and local governments.
The fact is Shrub Man
(this derisive term appears to be evidence that you won’t even consider an alternative point of view…)
has not only made the tax structure more regressive
no, he hasn’t. A larger number of people do not pay taxes AT ALL now than under previous administrations. How can that be regressive?
his wildly irresponsible spending …
I agree on spending, but not on the source. Lets elect people to congress that will cut spending.
and tax cutting for the rich
It is the “rich” that pay taxes. If you like, we can get the figures.
have greatly increased the tax burden for future generations, and put the economy in peril for the foreseeable future.
Clearly the size and breadth of this recovery can be traced to the tax cuts. Do you think the recovery would have been faster if we were all paying more taxes? I don’t see how you can make that case.
Paul, what I think is going on is that the mainstream media and a lot of the country have been giving Shrub Man "WAR president" status since 9/11, along with the benefit of every doubt, since that is what happens when a president is responding to an emergency. Shrub Man, and his shrubbers, took full advantage of this status to advance their political agenda (check out wages, health care, education, the environment, individual rights, or anything else they could sell out)
Wages are up. The govt provides more health care than ever before. Insurance reform is taking place. There is greater federal spending on education than ever before. Individual rights? Where are they being trampled? And what environmental assaults have occurred? There was one bit of gamesmanship left over from the Clinton administration, and ill-advised decrease in the acceptable level of some substance that was not scheduled to take place until Clinton was out of office. No technical expert in the country understood the basis for it, so Bush cancelled the proposal. No change to the environment occurred.
without the normal scrutiny radical changes would normally be subject to, and are running the country into the dirt.
You merely assert this. Surely you have specific examples of how these things were rammed through under the guise of “National Security.”
Shrub Man killed his golden goose by trying to crassly campaign as a "WAR president", and he's been called on it. He can't fool most of the people all of the time. Now, finally, the normal scrutiny is returning, eyes are opening, the emperor is nekkid, and he is only starting to get the attention he deserves. Open your eyes and get used to it. Julian is right and you seem so be looking for some sand to put your head in. I think there may be other explanations for your reduced tax bill, if you would be candid about it.
Go get the tax schedules for the last four years. Take this years earnings, income, and expense and do them for all four years. I guarantee you will be paying less taxes in the last two years than in the previous two.
I know my tax bill is down, but that's because as a lawyer representing poor and working people who've had their civil rights violated under a regime that favors only rich and corporate interests, my income is down.
See above.
I give Shrub Man full credit. I'm yellow dog with a full bladder who's found his Shrub. BRING IT ON!
I think is it clear that you have failed to establish any causality between your opinions and Bush’s actions. In a court of law, you would lose. You have only assertions, no evidence whatsoever. I think if you can view the world through lenses that see only facts and take Bush’s name out of it, you would be very pleased with the way you see the world.
If anything, I am the one who should be mad because of the spending at the federal level. If that is something you disapprove of, you’d better not vote for Kerry, as he promises even more. And no, he doesn’t know how he will fund it either.
Bush is not perfect, because there is no ‘perfect’. But America is better off with him as president than it would be had Gore won. And America will be better off in 4 years if he wins in November than if Kerry wins. I believe this. The facts support it.
Bush won every vote count, re-count and re-re-count in Florida. Gore ran to the Florida Supreme Court and got them to illegally wave election laws so that he could attempt to manufacture enough votes to overtake Bush by changing the definition of a vote several times and by recounts ONLY in specific overwhelmingly Democrat counties where he thought any "new votes" would average out in his favor.
Gore was a cheat. Most of the court cases he LOST against Bush in Florida were presided over by DEMOCRAT Judges, not Republicans.
The US Supreme Court decided 7-2 (that includes Dems) that what Gore was doing violated of Federal election laws and the the FLA SC was wrong for changing election laws AFTER the election.
Are 7 of the USSC judges all "fiercely right wing"?
Furthermore, the newspaper recounts after the election show that Bush would have won by even more votes, even under Gore's rules.
As far as those who claim Bush lost the popular vote; First of all the electoral college is how we elect presidents in this country. Secondly it is totally hypocritical for those who kept claiming every vote wasn't counted, to tell us on the other hand Bush lost the popular vote. How would they know?
He has kept the country in fear since 9/11 and sought to campaign as a WAR president, because most war presidents have an easier time passing legislation and getting reelected. He even created a war for that purpose. Remember, it was leaked before the mid-term election, by a White House source, that the sudden irrational run up to the war with Iraq was a matter of "marketing".
12 years of UN sanctions and unsuccessful inspections with Iraq shooting at our planes in the no-fly zones is a sudden irrational run up?
In the 1990s Clinton, Gore and many Dems made the case as to why Saddam was a threat and a case justifying military action against Iraq.
How did Bush cook this up when he wasn't even in the White House yet? That's idiotic.
The official US policy toward Iraq was REGIME CHANGE before Bush even became president. That policy was put in place when Clinton was in office.
Did Bush "create" that too?
With all due respect, your uncle's claims are uninformed and juvenile.
Thank you for your cheery letter, it made my day. First I have to express my concern over your full bladder. If you are half as full of piss as you are of sh!t, you may just explode and make a mess all over yourself. I hope you can take care of this soon or that trickle down in your pant leg won’t be economics.
You really shouldn’t be such a pessimist. It is Spring, the flowers are blooming and the birds are singing. The stock market is up and taxes are down. Saddam Hussein is out of his spider hole and Gray Davis is back in his. Republicans are in charge of the Executive branch, the House, the Senate, the Courts, most of the Governorships and state legislatures and your homeowners association. The war in Iraq has turned into quite a quagmire - for the jihadists. Life is good.
I see that you still haven’t gotten over your civics lesson from 2000. Come November you will have your choice of a rich white veteran with New England roots who went to Yale, was a member of the Skull and Bones, supported free trade and the Iraq war or a rich white veteran with New England roots who went to Yale, was a member of the Skull and Bones, supported free trade and the Iraq war. You won’t know where to hang your chad.
It bothers me somewhat that you are fixated on seeing the emperor Bush “nekked”. You may want to see someone about this. Or should we start calling you “Auntie”?
I’m so sorry to hear about your economic circumstance. There must be something that an underemployed shyster can do to pick up a little spending money. The President is pushing for more retraining programs. If you list your career ambitions as drug dealer or bank robber I’m sure they can accommodate you as you attempt to improve yourself.
I don’t quite understand your idea that our enforcing UN resolutions is worse than France and Germany not enforcing them. Maybe we should have waited for them to get their makeup on and come with us. They could have slapped Saddam with their purses.
Speaking of the UN, it is beginning to look like they are as corrupt as a meeting of the DNC. Or at least as corrupt as the Democrats pretend the Haliburton is. Before this is over France and Germany and the UN will be following behind us with their tails between their legs like whipped puppies. If they can’t decide whose side they are on, no matter. We know our way to Berlin and Paris. I think we’ve been there before.
As good as things are, they are going to get better. We can look forward to at least five more years with Bush at the helm. We are going to use a little known provision of the Patriot Act to put your little behind in John Ashcroft’s prayer meetings. We’ll save you a front pew.
In five years Dick Cheney will have all of Iraq’s oil pumped out and hidden in his swimming pool. In five years we can pump all of ANWR’s oil and build a theme park there.
In five years the rich will pay no taxes at all and Halliburton will rule the world.
Like I said; Life is good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.