"The rule of the people"

The US is NOT a Democracy. Therefore, your thesis is in error.

The US is a Constitutional Republic. According to the Constitution, GW was elected peruant to the Constitution in 2000.

0 Replies

Now we dig this old topic up again? Of course he was elected the first time, he was elected according to the laws of our country as per how elections are handled.

The reason the United States is not a Democracy, but rather a Republic is that our forefathers knew the problems that a 'True Democracy' can have.

Or, to quote Mr. Tommy Lee Jones from the film Men in Black:

A person is smart; people are dumb panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

We have to give kudos to the Founding Fathers in planning the system to prevent the panicky animals from stampeding.

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

The reason the United States is not a Democracy, but rather a Republic is that our forefathers knew the problems that a 'True Democracy' can have.

Our founding fathers were wrong! A true democracy is better. Gore was Democratically elected and would have been president if we were a democracy. You honestly think it's better to have a president that was appointed by judges that ignored the will of the people?

Russia is now more democratic that us! It's time to get rid of the outdated electorial college.

And how can we be fighting for Democracy around the world if we aren't even one. If we're fighting for it than our government obviously knows that it's a better format.

We will never become a true democracy because the government would loose it's grip over it's people. The people would actually be in charge and the corrupt warmongers in Washington can't handle that. Just like red china, we're no better.

0 Replies

roverroad wrote:

Fedral wrote:

The reason the United States is not a Democracy, but rather a Republic is that our forefathers knew the problems that a 'True Democracy' can have.

Our founding fathers were wrong! A true democracy is better. Gore was Democratically elected and would have been president if we were a democracy. You honestly think it's better to have a president that was appointed by judges that ignored the will of the people?

Russia is now more democratic that us! It's time to get rid of the outdated electorial college.

And how can we be fighting for Democracy around the world if we aren't even one. If we're fighting for it that out government obviously knows that it's a better format of government. But we will never become a true democracy because the government would loose it's grip over it's people. The people would actually be in charge and the corrupt warmongers in Washington can't handle that.

Did you consider Clinton a warmonger? He had the US military involved in at least 4 different actions during his years as president. Was he warmongering?

I'm looking for consistency here.

0 Replies

It would have been a lot better if Clinton refrained from any military action. His actions are far less severe than what Bush has done. And Clinton is generally liked by the international community where as Bush is viewed as a Hitler.

And for once I'd like to have a discussion with a Republican without having the conversation turned on Clinton. Is that at all possible? OK, Get it all out... Let's talk about Monica Lewinski next. Don't forget to mention that he was a draft dodger! Oh, and don't forget that he smoked pot but never inhaled. Let's cover all of the Clinton basis so that we can get on with the real issues on the guy who is acually the President right now!!!

0 Replies

I'm looking for some consistency here. I only mention Clinton when people start complaining about Bush when Clinton did some of the same things.

0 Replies

The only consistency is Baldimo changing the subject every time the word Bush is mentioned on every thread he visits.

0 Replies

roverroad wrote:

Fedral wrote:

The reason the United States is not a Democracy, but rather a Republic is that our forefathers knew the problems that a 'True Democracy' can have.

Our founding fathers were wrong! A true democracy is better. Gore was Democratically elected and would have been president if we were a democracy. You honestly think it's better to have a president that was appointed by judges that ignored the will of the people?

The election conducted was according to the Constitution as it is written, not as it might have been. In the actual version, we have an electoral college. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled according to law. If you disagree with their decision, quote the portion of their logic that you find fault with and point out why it is a false interpretation.

0 Replies

roverroad wrote:

It would have been a lot better if Clinton refrained from any military action. His actions are far less severe than what Bush has done. And Clinton is generally liked by the international community where as Bush is viewed as a Hitler.

And for once I'd like to have a discussion with a Republican without having the conversation turned on Clinton. Is that at all possible? OK, Get it all out... Let's talk about Monica Lewinski next. Don't forget to mention that he was a draft dodger! Oh, and don't forget that he smoked pot but never inhaled. Let's cover all of the Clinton basis so that we can get on with the real issues on the guy who is acually the President right now!!!

All of Bush's judicial nominations would also go through if this were a true democracy.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

The only consistency is Baldimo changing the subject every time the word Bush is mentioned on every thread he visits.

gets paid for every time he types "clinton", i guess.

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Will of the people, will o' the wisp. Have you noticed how often the abolition of the Electoral College is discussed and how often action is taken to dismantle it?

0 Replies

I for one, hope that it is not ever dismantled. The Senate and the electoral college assure that the nation is not continuously dominated by the urban centers of the right and left coasts.

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

Of course he was elected the first time, he was elected according to the laws of our country as per how elections are handled.

If this is the case, if the 2000 selection by the Supremes of Bush as our President was based on the Constitution why did they SPECIFICALLY state that their decision was for this one particulr election only and was not to ever be used as precedent?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

All of Bush's judicial nominations would also go through if this were a true democracy.

If this were a true democracy, Bush wouldn't have won his first term and congress would have been approving Gore's nominations because Gore would likely be on his second term.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
The only consistency is Baldimo changing the subject every time the word Bush is mentioned on every thread he visits.

gets paid for every time he types "clinton", i guess.

Are you afraid to answer the question? The thread didn't start out about Bush, someone made it that way. I was asking a question that I guess you are all afraid to answer. Embarrassed

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
The only consistency is Baldimo changing the subject every time the word Bush is mentioned on every thread he visits.

gets paid for every time he types "clinton", i guess.

Are you afraid to answer the question? The thread didn't start out about Bush, someone made it that way. I was asking a question that I guess you are all afraid to answer.

I thought it got answered. You just won't accept the answer. The military actions by Bush and Clinton are miles apart. What Bush has done has cost a lot more lives and it was based on a lie. Clinton didn't lie to get his war. There are huge differences!

0 Replies

roverroad wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
The only consistency is Baldimo changing the subject every time the word Bush is mentioned on every thread he visits.

gets paid for every time he types "clinton", i guess.

Are you afraid to answer the question? The thread didn't start out about Bush, someone made it that way. I was asking a question that I guess you are all afraid to answer.

I thought it got answered. You just won't accept the answer. The military actions by Bush and Clinton are miles apart. What Bush has done has cost a lot more lives and it was based on a lie. Clinton didn't lie to get his war. There are huge differences!

How many mass graves did they find in Bosnia? Didn't we go to war because of mass killings of Muslims? Didn't that turn out to be false? You claim Bush lied well so did Clinton.

The only reason you care now is because you don't like Bush. I am trying to expose the hypocrisy of the left.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

roverroad wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
The only consistency is Baldimo changing the subject every time the word Bush is mentioned on every thread he visits.

gets paid for every time he types "clinton", i guess.

Are you afraid to answer the question? The thread didn't start out about Bush, someone made it that way. I was asking a question that I guess you are all afraid to answer.

I thought it got answered. You just won't accept the answer. The military actions by Bush and Clinton are miles apart. What Bush has done has cost a lot more lives and it was based on a lie. Clinton didn't lie to get his war. There are huge differences!

How many mass graves did they find in Bosnia? Didn't we go to war because of mass killings of Muslims? Didn't that turn out to be false? You claim Bush lied well so did Clinton.

The only reason you care now is because you don't like Bush. I am trying to expose the hypocrisy of the left.

what is your source that clinton lied about bosnia ?

according to all i've read or heard, no american soldiers killed in hostile fire in bosnia. most notably it was attested to by general clark, the nato commander.

btw, it was george h.w. bush that sent troops to somalia. dec. 1992, remember ? i believe we've gone over this before.

the aspirin factory ? more than bush did in the 1st 9 months of his term to find obl. funny, you don't seem to hold the same disdain for the current admin's foul up in bombing the restaurant where saddam was supposed to be the day or so before gulf II started. innocent people killed there as well.

why is that ?

wanna talk about lies ? surely you've seen the footage of powell and rice both saying that there was no indication that iraq had nukes.

as far as bush's 1st election. popular vote, he lost. electoral vote, he won. if you believe that there was no hanky panky going on. i believe that there was. but i don't give a $hit at this point.

i'd rather spend my time focusing on making sure that none of the nimrods currently leading the gop wind up there in 2008.

you must have noticed by now that the last thing in the world i'm afraid of is answering anybody's question on a2k. least of all yours.

also, the thread did start out about bush. here's the original post to the thread:

paul andrew bourne wrote:

If by definition democracy is the rule of the people, was the American President, George W. Bush, democratically elected on his first presidential win?

but none of this explains why you start going off about clinton in just about every thread.

it's history. get over it and move on.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

How many mass graves did they find in Bosnia? Didn't we go to war because of mass killings of Muslims? Didn't that turn out to be false? You claim Bush lied well so did Clinton.

The only reason you care now is because you don't like Bush. I am trying to expose the hypocrisy of the left.

What would it prove to find mass graves in Bosnia? Milosevic was guilty of war crimes and convicted. Even so, I said it would be better if Clinton hadn't gotten us into those wars, so where does that make me a hypocrite? There's also a big difference in the wars that Bush has gotten us into vs Clintons wars. Major differences in the way they were planned and carried out.

I for one think we were justified in going into Afghanistan because they had Bin Laden. But Bush failed us by giving up on Bin Laden. So I have reason to hate Bush because his lies cost many lives and don't look out for the best interest of my country.

0 Replies

"The rule of the people"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know