instincts (Political)

Reply

  #1  
Old 10-18-04, 08:50 AM
hnsez
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
instincts (Political)

instincts are something you use when you cast a fishing lure

...not what you use to run the united states government ... Without a Doubt

"I was in the Oval Office a few months after we swept into Baghdad, and I was telling the president of my many concerns - concerns about growing problems winning the peace, the explosive mix of Shiite and Sunni, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and problems securing the oil fields.

President Bush, just looked at me, unflappably sure that the United States was on the right course and that all was well. 'Mr. President,' I finally said, 'How can you be so sure when you know you don't know the facts?'

Bush stood up and put his hand my shoulder. "My instincts," he said. "My instincts."

I said, 'Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough!"

=======

Web Site Host & Forums Monitors Note:
Off Topic Post.

This post has been moved from topic it was originally posted in, into this topic. Basedonly the content of the post. Off topic, in it's original forum topic, post was moved here.

Sharp Advice
Web Site Host & Forums Monitor

Personal Reminder:
Buckle Up & Drive Safely.
"The Life You Save, May Be Your Own."
 

Last edited by Sharp Advice; 10-18-04 at 09:45 AM.
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 10-18-04, 02:16 PM
tae's Avatar
tae
tae is offline
Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,469
The democrat Biden and the Republican Bartlett are trying to make sense of the same thing - a president who has been an extraordinary blend of forcefulness and inscrutability, opacity and action.
LOL...that whole article was pretty much about religion. I believe the last debate was where Kerry said that religion would play a part in all his decision making.

There is alot going on behind the scenes, as there always have been, where a president knows more than most. I think thats especially true right now. Alot of changes, and most people are afraid of change.
 
  #3  
Old 10-20-04, 09:21 PM
jt45
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Politics....

Just my opinion.....
This election is going in the completely wrong direction as far as I am concerned. {what else is new?]
I really wish someone could change the vote, so you had a choice to NOT vote for either candidate.
Simply a box to check stating "neither one".
It would be very interesting to see what the results would be.
EVERYONE I know dislikes both Bush and Kerry, but you have to vote for one of them......................
 
  #4  
Old 10-21-04, 12:28 AM
tae's Avatar
tae
tae is offline
Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,469
actually you dont have to vote for either one of them. There are many "3rd parties" out there.

American Party
Diane Templin (Presidential Nominee)
Al Moore (Vice Presidential Nominee)

Constitution Party
Michael Peroutka (Presidential Nominee)
Chuck Baldwin (Vice Presidential Nominee)

Green Party
David Cobb (Leading Candidate)
Peter Camejo (Closest Contender)

Libertarian Party
Michael Badnarik (Presidential Nominee)
Richard Campagna (Vice Presidential Nominee)

Peace and Freedom Party
Leonard Peltier (Presidential Nominee)
Barry Bachrach (Vice Presidential Nominee)

Personal Choice Party
Charles Jay (Presidential Nominee)
Marilyn Chambers (Vice Presidential Nominee)

Reform Party
Ralph Nader (Presidential Nominee)
Jan Pierce (Probable Vice Presidential Nominee)

Socialist Party USA
Walt Brown (Presidential Nominee)
Mary Alice Herbert (Vice Presidential Nominee)
 
  #5  
Old 10-21-04, 05:01 PM
WorldBuilder's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,471
Not to mention the fact that you can write in anyone you want.

Besides, if there was a "no one" box on the ballot, and that won, who would be president? The election runner up? What kind of a system would that be? Pretty much the same one we have now...

What needs to happen is this. Popular vote exclusively. Get rid of the Electoral College. The EC was a GREAT system and it has certainly been one of the best parts of democracy. However, with today's technology, it is absolutely doable to have the popular vote be the one and only deciding factor in elections.

Up until recently, the EC was the best option, but because of what can be done technologically, it's time has ended, I believe.

Chris
 
  #6  
Old 10-21-04, 09:00 PM
jt45
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Yeah, you can vote for a third party, or write anyone in, but we all know it really comes down to the two candidates.
It would be great if it would go by popular vote.
 
  #7  
Old 10-22-04, 03:50 AM
the_tow_guy's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SW Fla USA
Posts: 11,518
Except under the popular vote system the candidates would campaign (and worry politically) in about 10 states - California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and a half dozen other high-population centers. Same reason the Congress is set up the way it is. Not a BIG fan of the electoral college, but not sure going the popular vote route would be an improvement.
 
  #8  
Old 10-23-04, 10:37 AM
WorldBuilder's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,471
Originally Posted by the_tow_guy
Except under the popular vote system the candidates would campaign (and worry politically) in about 10 states - California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and a half dozen other high-population centers.
As opposed to the 10 or so states they heavily campaign in now? Trust me, it would help. Has to, because then Democarcy would TRULY be used. The vote of the many...

Chris
 
  #9  
Old 11-01-04, 05:13 AM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dearborn Heights, MI
Posts: 506
It's not just the fact that the candidates would only campaign in certain states, but that the popular votes of the 3 or 4 American metropolises would, essentially, be making the decision, and the votes of the other 90 percent of "Flyover Country" would basically be irrelevant.

The non-homogeneous nature of the US must be taken into account when voting for President - it would be completely unfair for the decision to be made almost completely by those living in big cities. Popular vote works fine in local elections, where (it is assumed) the voters all have more in common, but would be disastrous on a national scale, IMHO.
 
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes
'