tigerthelion Wrote:Yeah, whatever happened to Alec Baldwin? I was sure he said that he would be moving to Canada last election. haha
That was great. I remember seeing a clip of Jeb Bush after the 2000 election saying something along the lines that he saw Alec in Florida and couldnt believe his eyes since he was sure Alec was suppose to move out of the US.
prz Wrote:grooveless touque Wrote:Yes, analysts concluded if the statewide recount had been done, as Democrats wanted but the Republicans in Florida managed to prevent, Gore would have won by AT LEAST several thousand votes, not 537 in favour of Bush.
Skippy, I can just picture Bush trying to tie a noose...calling up Cheney and asking "Does the rabbit come up out of the hole or go back down into it after he runs around the tree?" :lol:
I imagine once the frustration wears off, there will be an eternal sadness that pervades. Bush will never be forced to answer for anything ever again, having a massive majority in the Senate and House. I hate to wish harm to Americans, because many of my friends are Americans, but I hope the 51% who voted for him have to pay for it...in this life or in the next.
I am happier than ever with Canada's electoral system. The 54 million Americans who voted for Kerry wasted their vote. It counts for nothing. 1 person could have voted for Kerry and 100 million could have voted for Bush and it wouldn't have made a difference. In our system those 54 million votes - for the parties, not the people - would have been well represented in Parliament.
Really a better vote in Canada? Hmm ok, lets look back at the last few elections. When chretien was in power were the votes of the PC party really heard from Ontario?
At least in the states you can vote for senators and House of Rep members. You really need to go back and look at some canadian elections before making a comment like that and just dismissing the American system.
Exactly, one of the problems I see with the Canadian parliamentary system is the appointment of Senators and the ability of party leaders to appoint their chosen rep in the primary system (ie Martin's Health Minister Doshanee(apologies if i spelled his name wrong))
grooveless touque Wrote:Skippy, I can just picture Bush trying to tie a noose...calling up Cheney and asking "Does the rabbit come up out of the hole or go back down into it after he runs around the tree?" :lol:
Damn, Touque, you and Skippy are on a roll...that's too f#&%ing funny!
grooveless touque Wrote:...I hope the 51% who voted for him have to pay for it...in this life or in the next....
Unfortunately, we'll all pay; if not with our own lives, then with the lives of our children.
*buuuuurp*
Oh yeah...that's the stuff.
VioletlightHeron Wrote:Exactly, one of the problems I see with the Canadian parliamentary system is the appointment of Senators and the ability of party leaders to appoint their chosen rep in the primary system (ie Martin's Health Minister Doshanee(apologies if i spelled his name wrong))
Ujjal Dosanjh, for the record.
What do you mean by you object to party leaders being able to appoint their ministers? Nobody elected Karl Rove, Tom Ridge or Richard Asscroft, and yet they are in the President's cabinet, or whatever you call it...
Oh, and I've always been in favour of an elected Senate. But I think our Parliamentary system works way better than voting for a seperate President.
[quote="grooveless touque"]Yes, analysts concluded if the statewide recount had been done, as Democrats wanted but the Republicans in Florida managed to prevent, Gore would have won by AT LEAST several thousand votes, not 537 in favour of Bush.[quote]
Sorry Neil, but your information is not correct. The Democrats didn't choose a statewide recount when they had the option to (as the loser in the preliminary round of voting in 2000) but focused on the 4 Democratic leaning counties I mentioned earlier. There were numerous questions about flawed butterfly ballots in 6 counties in the Florida panhandle area(Republican-leaning areas) that were excluded by the Gore team and consequently never adressed.
grooveless touque Wrote:VioletlightHeron Wrote:Exactly, one of the problems I see with the Canadian parliamentary system is the appointment of Senators and the ability of party leaders to appoint their chosen rep in the primary system (ie Martin's Health Minister Doshanee(apologies if i spelled his name wrong))
Ujjal Dosanjh, for the record.
What do you mean by you object to party leaders being able to appoint their ministers? Nobody elected Karl Rove, Tom Ridge or Richard Asscroft, and yet they are in the President's cabinet, or whatever you call it...
Oh, and I've always been in favour of an elected Senate. But I think our Parliamentary system works way better than voting for a seperate President.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Ministers of Departments in Canada are also legislators in Parliament(unlike US) and Martin shoved aside a local politican in BC to hand the nomination to Dosanjh. Say what you will about the American primary system, but I don't think we can do that in our political system.
scottitude Wrote:Unfortunately, we'll all pay; if not with our own lives, then with the lives of our children.
Scott, I
somewhat understand your trepidation, but that statement's a tad melodramatic, don't you think?
Not for 1,124 pairs of parents so far...
Umm, as tragic as the body count has been and I can't pretend to understand the grief the parents must be going through, they volunteered to serve in the armed forces and were aware of the possibility that they would die in combat.
"Volunteered"? Maybe "coerced" into it by economic conditions that make them think it's one of their only options. Yes, that's lifted directly from Fahrenheit 9/11, but Michael Moore did not hand those kids a script. The troops on the ground are more likely to be poor or minorities than any given sample population of the same size in the US.
grooveless touque Wrote:"Volunteered"? Maybe "coerced" into it by economic conditions that make them think it's one of their only options. Yes, that's lifted directly from Fahrenheit 9/11, but Michael Moore did not hand those kids a script. The troops on the ground are more likely to be poor or minorities than any given sample population of the same size in the US.
Fact of the matter is, no one made them join the army. So they go out and try to get people. It was still their choice.
I guess that's the unsympathetic selfish view of a Bush supporter. It's hard to imagine the lower-class black view of the world, and the Army starts sounding like a good choice to people who do not have the opportunities to realize it's not. Many of these people disagree with the idea of warfare, but since they see no other way out (thanks to policies that keep the rich rich and the poor poor) they blindly stumble into the Army. The Democratic party's mentality is more conducive to understanding these issues plaguing less well-off minorities. Bush's camp is perfectly happy with poor black kids filling up the Army so their own white kids don't have to.
Besides, whether poor blacks or rich whites, don't you think 1,124 lives is 1,124 too many considering the government, and the President specifically, lied and used selective editing when pleading their case to the people to support the invasion of a sovereign nation that never presented a threat to US citizens on US soil? Even if you really believe they freely volunteered their lives to the Army, don't you think it's a national tragedy that they're dying unnecessarily? It makes a soulless mockery of these kids' "choice".
The Horrible Esthete Wrote:Scott, I somewhat understand your trepidation, but that statement's a tad melodramatic, don't you think?
Nope, not at all. It's an absolute unvarnished fact. Anyone who believes there won't be a draft is sorely mistaken.
I have a 21 year old daughter. If she is drafted, she will go; that's who she is. If she goes, she may die, or
worse! It sickens me that she may have to risk her life in pursuit of Bush's delusional dream of world domination.
Of course, you will argue that she
may not die, and you'll be right. But if that's your argument, convince the Bushes and the Cheneys and the Ashcrofts and the Senators and the Representatives to send their children, (like that'll
ever happen...Jenns Bush eating MREs and taking fire in an unarmored HUMVEE...puh-leeze) and I may feel differently. Why should I or my offspring fight a war that will only benefit our self-proclaimed king and his cronies?
He's a total idiot...
come on, he says "nook-yu-ler" for christ's sake! How can
anyone respect such ignorance?
He will (continue to) be the undoing of our once great nation! Now
that's melodrama. :thumb:
grooveless,
Its not just poor people in the army. Check your numbers on that. In addition, you mention all the negatives which is fine. But what about the positives? The free education they can get. There are other points you are missing while having tunnel vision on the Michael Moore view.
Is the military perfect, of course not, but if you are going to present the bad side, you have to acknowledge the positives. If you want an example look at someone like Colin Powel.