Re: ELECTION 2004 -- James' Cool Message Board About Stuff!

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ]

Subject: Re: ELECTION 2004

Author:
James

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 05:16:03 03/25/04 Thu
In reply to: Crackpot 's message, "Re: ELECTION 2004" on 01:11:57 03/25/04 Thu

>As for the electorial college, why on earth haven't
>they gotten rid of that? It makes no sense. You'd
>think the man or woman who got most of the votes from
>the people (not the states) that they'd win, correct?
>Again, it makes no sense.

I think the Electoral college was put in place to keep a "mob rule" mentality from running the country. The president is the only nation wide elected official. So I guess the founding fathers wanted to place a control measure in there. Just think if the majority of people voted for a nazi of some white supreamist. Wouldn't be very good for minorities would it. The electoral college I think is to prevent some kind of crap like that. Kind of funny though with all the conspiracy theories and shit.

>
>No, there needs to be public control and no censoring
>of, at least, the news. Further more, no commercials
>during the news. I'm tired of reading that the
>mainstream media is sucking the ass of their
>advertisers. That needs to be eliminated; that way we
>get longer sound bites. Many alternative news sources
>thrive today through public funding. Why can't we do
>that with all news outlets?

Because if we required that for all news and media it would limit free speech. If I can pay money for my comercials to be put over the airwaves then that is my business. It should not be limited.
>
>
However, I'm way
>more concerned with what the Pentagon said about our
>ecological situation more than anything.

What did it say. I can't imagine it was very good.
>
>
>>But anyways, we should have given the weapons
>inspectors more time. I'm not saying that getting rid
>of Saddam isn't a good thing, but we could have at
>least gone in the way we got Milosevic, so this way,
>at least, the international community would have
>helped us a lot more, and we wouldn't have alienated
>most of the world because of all this.

Look all this would be moot if we just said the real reason we went in there in the first place. If we just said. Hey we want Saddam out of power because we fucked up and put him IN power and now he's murdered many innocent people. He needs to be removed.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Re: ELECTION 2004	Crackpot	18:52:28 03/27/04 Sat