| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/21/2007 02:55:26 PM · #176 |
| Voting in the USA changes. Now (primaries)votes are on who you like. When it really counts (election)people vote on who they think can win. A real big difference in thought process. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 03:02:41 PM · #177 |
Sooooo you would exclude all women from contention that have ever been to a barroom in their college days?
Originally posted by bmartuch:
Originally posted by Gordon:
maybe Jenna will be the first woman president some day. |
She could run the country from inside a bar. |
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 07:17:11 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by krafty1:
Adding two states to the union wouldn't compromise our sovereignty. Those states would come under the perview of our constitution. A merging of Canada and Mexico into a new entity would essentially trash our constitution as we would no longer self determine our fate. The UN has been trying to weaken the sovereign nature of countries for years with proposals like the Law of the Sea Treaty, etc.
The day we sacrifice the constitution for the sake of the economy is the day the US as we have all known it will cease to exist. |
I believe there are 31 states and a federal district in Mexico. Canada has ten provinces and three territories...Perhaps accurate facts would lead you to a different, less morbid prognosis....The purpose of The Law of the sea treaty is very different from our constitution. I couldn't ever see how it would supercede it.... |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 08:47:46 PM · #179 |
I was, of course, referring the Mexico as one and Canada as a second state to make a point
The Law of the Sea Treaty gives a UN related body controlling authority over almost 3/4 of the surface of the earth. This agency gets the power to levy fees and royalties on us. They also would get the power to settle disputes via a court authority which would likely not be friendly toward us. And, we have no veto power over rule changes.
Rights we currently enjoy would be superceded by the authority of this agency if it were signed by us. That is a loss of sovereignty. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 09:02:12 PM · #180 |
| I'm not sure, but I believe we unfortunately only are entitled to our rights within our borders. If not, someone needs to talk with some unfriendly federales we ran into south of the border. I also believe that The Treaty is more about economic redistribution and affording landlocked countries a piece of the benefits of ocean commerce. It allows fror an extention to 200 miles of our exclusive economic zone. We'd actually be better off. Another advance in the name of globalization that bound to create growing pains. |
|
|
|
12/24/2007 11:10:14 AM · #181 |
Originally posted by Mr_Pants:
Originally posted by JayA:
Me |
I can't believe that no-one's nominated Chuck Norris! |
pshhh, Chuck Norris has nothing on Mr. T! |
|
|
|
01/06/2008 10:38:13 PM · #182 |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 05:59:35 PM · #183 |
| Well the New Hampshire Primaries are chugging along. I like the polls that I saw yesterday. :-) |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 06:02:52 PM · #184 |
No matter who it is... they will fit well into the current Clown challenge......
|
|
|
|
01/08/2008 06:05:46 PM · #185 |
My biggest question is whether the country is so cynical that it won't recognize a JFK if we are blessed with one...
|
|
|
|
01/08/2008 06:15:39 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My biggest question is whether the country is so cynical that it won't recognize a JFK if we are blessed with one... |
I am sorry for being ignorant, but who are you referring to? |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 06:16:18 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My biggest question is whether the country is so cynical that it won't recognize a JFK if we are blessed with one... |
I am sorry for being ignorant, but who are you referring to? |
I think Doc has a thing for Hillary. |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 06:20:26 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My biggest question is whether the country is so cynical that it won't recognize a JFK if we are blessed with one... |
I am sorry for being ignorant, but who are you referring to? |
I was referring to Obama. He has been likened to Kennedy as a young democrat full of optimism and a message of change. If you Google news "obama kennedy" you get 2,700 articles in which those two names are at least mentioned. But my question is whether the country has changed too much. Are we beyond some point of no return where politicians are despised as mouthpieces for various special interests? Can optimism return to our collective psyche?
I'm not even saying that Obama is this return to Camelot, but I can say I feel invigorated that he may become the democratic candidate. The candidates I like never make it through. It would be nice for a change.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2008 06:22:26 PM · #189 |
| Jason, I have been following the democratic candidates with a small amount of interest. I feel hopeful when I hear Obama speak, and I thought for sure your country would not receive him well, but its nice to see he's the formost candidate (for now) for the dems. |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 06:43:13 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My biggest question is whether the country is so cynical that it won't recognize a JFK if we are blessed with one... |
I am sorry for being ignorant, but who are you referring to? |
I was referring to Obama. He has been likened to Kennedy as a young democrat full of optimism and a message of change. If you Google news "obama kennedy" you get 2,700 articles in which those two names are at least mentioned. But my question is whether the country has changed too much. Are we beyond some point of no return where politicians are despised as mouthpieces for various special interests? Can optimism return to our collective psyche?
I'm not even saying that Obama is this return to Camelot, but I can say I feel invigorated that he may become the democratic candidate. The candidates I like never make it through. It would be nice for a change. |
Doc, I think the days of people from one politcal party accepting or respecting the people from the other political party are loooong gone. This country has progressivly become more and more polerized each election period. Each side spends more time, energy and money dragging the other side or canidate through the mud than they do stating their own position. I shudder to think what the presidential election will turn into when the dust settles after the primary. |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 07:17:46 PM · #191 |
| Anyone care to explain to a non-American how this nomination thing works, in two sentences or less? Only two states elect the party leaders? (Are they even thought of as party leaders?) |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 07:21:04 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Anyone care to explain to a non-American how this nomination thing works, in two sentences or less? Only two states elect the party leaders? (Are they even thought of as party leaders?) |
Basically all the states vote until all but one of each party gets tired of the whole thing and gives up or until the voters have had enough and tell them to give up. |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 07:21:44 PM · #193 |
| Oh and then we vote on the left overs! |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 07:40:36 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not even saying that Obama is this return to Camelot, but I can say I feel invigorated that he may become the democratic candidate. The candidates I like never make it through. It would be nice for a change. |
I'm with you on this one Doc but I'm afraid that if he receives the nomination, Rove and company will have a field day with him. I'm afraid that he will be linked to terrorists because his last name is Obama. Remember, if a lie is told enough times, people start to believe it. |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 07:56:26 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Anyone care to explain to a non-American how this nomination thing works, in two sentences or less? Only two states elect the party leaders? (Are they even thought of as party leaders?) |
The military industrial complex and our corporate overlords use their media outlets to present the options they have chosen for us. We are deluded into believing that it matters which one of these pawns is selected, and run to the polls to have our "vote counted". Rinse and repeat. |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 08:01:22 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Anyone care to explain to a non-American how this nomination thing works, in two sentences or less? Only two states elect the party leaders? (Are they even thought of as party leaders?) |
it's like bars. oh sorry, pubs. people go to the crowded pub because it must be good. look, it's crowded! gotta be good!
A candidate who does well in the early primaries is like a crowded pub and everybody starts voting for him. The two-party system in the U.S. has trained people to vote for the winnable, not the best. It creates an atmosphere of valuing conformity. I don't like it. And there's nothing in the Constitution about a two-party system, either. No legal basis for it at all. It's just a powerful institution with its own inertia.
Obviously, the vote should take place in all the states at once, just like in the general election. Much like the electoral college, this complicating of the process allows the parties to manipulate elections more. |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 08:04:35 PM · #197 |
| does anyone know why such a complicated (and arguably undemocratic) system has developed? It certainly makes it appear that its not really one citizen, one vote since some votes are weighted more heavily than others. |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 08:52:04 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you Google news "obama kennedy" you get 2,700 articles in which those two names are at least mentioned. |
Its true, but most of those articles say 'not like kennedy' or 'his campaign keeps saying he's like kennedy but it isn't true' or references to robert & ted kennedy.
There's a few genuine comparisons in there, but it seems to be part of his hype/ spin of his own team to draw those parallels. |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 08:54:16 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by frisca:
does anyone know why such a complicated (and arguably undemocratic) system has developed? It certainly makes it appear that its not really one citizen, one vote since some votes are weighted more heavily than others. |
//www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 09:06:18 PM · #200 |
Joining in late here...
I watch all the election stuff and try to catch some debates so that I know who I want to vote for, and who scare the living hell out of me, and who the real idiots are.
this time around we have some really good choices, and as usual, some i'd not want elected dog catcher.
My problem with the whole primary deal, and I don't have a fix for it, is that by the time I actually get to vote it's been decided. I'm in PA, and our primary is in May! Most of the candidates have folded their circus's up and gone home by the time they get here.
Who will win in November? Too early to tell IMO. I think Barack or Hillary will be on the ticket for the Dems, and honestly, as far as the US has come and regardless of what polls may say, i don't see america at large, when their vote will actually put that person in the white house, picking either over ye old white man.
So barring unforeseen events, the republicans look to be keeping control of the whitehouse. As to who the leading repiblican will be, again, too early to tell.
I liked Guiliani more than I thought I would, I'm a Libertarian at hear so I'd like to see Ron Paul win, but I could probably live with Romney. Huckabee won't make it, which is fine with me, and I hope McCain falls along the wayside as he's more of the same old same old. At least I don't think the wacko scary guys are gonna be an issue.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 10:15:32 AM EDT.
