| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Montgomery 
"F**k!"
|
 Posted - 07/07/2007 : 15:39:29
|
I asked my husband last night if he could think of anything Bush and his adminstration had done in these 7 years that has been good for our country. And I asked him to be kind. Really think if there was anything. (He's a Liberal, too, so he needed that instruction). He said, "Well, since 9/11, there haven't been any more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil." Okay. True. But, some argue that Bush and his administration had the ability to possibility prevent the 9/11 attacks, had they just been paying attention to the warnings that had been given to them when Bush entered office, And, our enemies have had plenty of opportunity to hurt Americans (our soldiers) overseas.
So, I can't say that is much.
Anyone else have an example of something (anything) Bush has done that was beneficial to our country?
EM :)
|
Edited by - Montgomery on 07/07/2007 15:41:00 |
 |
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 07/07/2007 : 15:41:45
|
By the way, we saw Sicko last night. It was really good. Sad and disturbing, but good.
EM :) |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
|
|
turrell 
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 07/07/2007 : 19:46:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
Anyone else have an example of something (anything) Bush has done that was beneficial to our country?
EM :)
For a liberal I would assume they would like these things about The President:
- He handed over both houses of Congress to the Democrats through his ineptitude.
- Although flawed he undertook the largest reforms or education, senior prescriptions and immigration reform we've had in years. Most of these programs were ultimately killed by partisan interests - but he tried.
- American has 4.8% unemployment - likely because he was so distracted by the failed war in Iraq that he hasn't been able to muck up th eeconom,y too much in the short run.
- We all feel a little superior now - don't we?
My main point in these threads is that its difficult to label anyone as perfectly evil or pefectly perfect. I think all people are flawed in some ways and while Bush is seemingly more flawed than most US presidents, he doesn't plan his day around how much evil he can do - I think he is trying - just not suceeding.
|
Edited by - turrell on 07/07/2007 20:35:17 |
|
|
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 07/07/2007 : 22:17:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
I think he is trying - just not suceeding.
I think so too. He seems unable to adapt when outcomes show that a decision was the wrong choice. That is a characteristic that may, under more favorable conditions, be seen as a virtue (sticking up for what is 'right.')
|
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 07/07/2007 : 22:22:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Of course, if you really and truly believe that not telling the truth about an extra-marital affair is a worse crime than any of the reasons in these articles, that's your right!
I don't think Clinton should have been impeached or resigned either. Of course he was impeached on the same charge for which Libby was convicted. |
Edited by - turrell on 07/07/2007 22:23:05 |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 07/08/2007 : 03:17:54
|
| The only thing that scares me about finding a way to boot Bush out of office is who we would have left to run the country should he go. Good ole One-Shot Cheney..... |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 07/08/2007 : 06:06:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
The only thing that scares me about finding a way to boot Bush out of office is who we would have left to run the country should he go. Good ole One-Shot Cheney.....
Which is probably the real reason behind why no one is actually trying to impeach Bush. Bush had a total stroke of genius, choosing Cheney as his VP. Just pick someone who the whole American public could agree upon as being the worst person to take over for the President, and there you go - instant job security.
Of course, it ain't over until its over. And while I certainly don't wish any physical harm to Bush, there still is the 20 year curse...
|
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 05:34:28
|
| But we're running out of time.... |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 06:40:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
But we're running out of time....
So, whaddya waiting for ... if a couple million of you signed a petition for Oprah to run with Clooney as her veep ... betcha'll getcha votes! Or start a viral-net campaign for write-in votes for them. How else are you going to shake up what's become an entrenched, intransigent, ossified system that clearly doesn't do what it says on the label?
I've often wondered, of course, if no one voted or maybe only a handful of die-hards, how few would constitute a result that meant the electorate rejected all the candidates? Surely if ten people voted one way and eleven people voted another the candidate with that one extra vote couldn't be said to win in a country of how many million. Could s/he? Hmmmm ...
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 09:57:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
I've often wondered, of course, if no one voted or maybe only a handful of die-hards, how few would constitute a result that meant the electorate rejected all the candidates? Surely if ten people voted one way and eleven people voted another the candidate with that one extra vote couldn't be said to win in a country of how many million. Could s/he? Hmmmm ...
Well, it happened in 2000. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 10:30:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
I've often wondered, of course, if no one voted or maybe only a handful of die-hards, how few would constitute a result that meant the electorate rejected all the candidates? Surely if ten people voted one way and eleven people voted another the candidate with that one extra vote couldn't be said to win in a country of how many million. Could s/he? Hmmmm ...
Well, it happened in 2000.
But that's not really the point ... I'm talking about a legal, recognized way to actually question a system that clearly isn't working anymore. And, b4 you ask, no, I do not have the answers, why should I?
What I'm saying is there is no mechanism to discuss the matter. No serious platform for a discussion about how we are governed. Democracy I like. Representative democracy ... I'm iffy about. Demonstrably it's a mess, open to corruption, in the control of those whose interests are served by maintaining the status quo. Voting once every however many years is not, imho, enough to make me feel involved. I suggest ever-falling voting figures indicate I'm not alone here. My favorite graffito says: if voting changed anything they'd make it illegal.
What's happened is that the majority of votes cast are in safe districts, so the electoral focus is on those marginal areas that have any chance of swinging the results. That's why what happened in Fla and Ohio and in a range of districts throughout the UK ... that's why they mattered so much. That's not democracy --- but it sure is politics.
Those in power do not want to give up power. Why should they? Even if it means that wildhartlivie has seen her living standards fall and her right to health erroded? They don't really care. They're all right, Jack!
Personally I find the concept of a political system anathema. Systems too soon and too often become shibboleths, dogma to be followed and cheered and supported like foot/baseball teams. They encourage Us vs Them mind-sets, when everything around us indicates the problems of the world are just that ... of the world. They affect us all, we're all connected. Systems don't encourage a recognition of our commonality, they almost all require that we exacerbate our differences.
All I'm asking is where, in all these quasi-democracies, is the legal, recognized mechanisms to discuss alternatives, to take the socio-political temperature of the people who are supposed to be represented? Because elections don't do it. Subscribing to newspapers with which we already agree, listening to radio stations with which we already agree ... that doesn't do it. Posting on bulletin boards, or streaming a rant on YouTube ... that doesn't do it ... YET!
It's just possible that the Net provides the only viable means to encourage genuine discussion, but programmers need to devise better means than the existing functional design of boards or self-pages or even 2nd Lives.
So I'm disgruntled and disappointed. But I have this unfailing hope in people to solve their common problems. Eventually. But, as WHL noted ... we're running out of time.
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 10:37:08
|
| If you ask me, they shouldn't accept the results unless there's over 65% of the registered, eligible voters who actually vote in that election. This should be the case in ALL democratic elections. No clear majority of voters voting, no clear winner. Period. |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 10:42:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
I've often wondered, of course, if no one voted or maybe only a handful of die-hards, how few would constitute a result that meant the electorate rejected all the candidates? Surely if ten people voted one way and eleven people voted another the candidate with that one extra vote couldn't be said to win in a country of how many million. Could s/he? Hmmmm ...
Well, it happened in 2000.
It happens more often than not. The last satistic (as we say in Indiana) I heard from the US Census Bureau is gray and shady, as it gives percentages of registered voters who reported having voted, but they numbers didn't jive with actual votes cast reported elsewhere. The numbers said that 86% of registered voters did so, which was around 63% of the total eligible voting population. In any case, elections aren't determined by a majority by a long shot!
|
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 10:54:32
|
When someone noted earlier in one of the threads that the electoral college system needed to be chucked, I was a little skeptical about it. Having given it some thought, I agree with that assertion. It nullifies the process these days. Since the only votes that count from a given state are the ones for that state's winner, the votes of the others don't count (unless you're in Florida). I think it's high time we moved to a system wherein all the votes are tallied and the winner is the one with the most votes, period. It doesn't change the process at all, the winner is... the winner. It would make my (usually wasted) vote speak and I believe in the end, it would be a more equitable system.
If we can use computers to discuss this situation, we certainly should be able to use them to determine the outcome. Without the added expense and wasted time of gathering an electoral college. We all know who wins well before those votes are cast in either case. It may also serve to take a BIT of power from the local two party machines. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
I love Keith Olbermann
