Your opinion of Thailand overthrowing there government

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:21 pm

P Gizzle wrote:We're a new country, we're trying to get our act together

We are huh...I'd say we're doing OK so far. :lol:

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:26 pm

Backglass wrote:
P Gizzle wrote:We're a new country, we're trying to get our act together

We are huh...I'd say we're doing OK so far.

what are you trying to say?

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:42 pm

P Gizzle wrote:what are you trying to say?

I'm saying that comparing 2006 USA with 1600 Europe is just f'in stupid.

We arent "trying to get our act together". As a country, we "have it together" pretty well...even if our president IS a blithering idiot. :lol:

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:01 pm

wow! f'ing stupid! that's pretty harsh. well, anyway, what i meant was that everyone spends their time dissing the US when we are really the newwest country with this kind of power. Look at England when they wer young and had power. Eventually, we'll get better leaders and not have the probalems we have today. that's what i meant

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:59 am

P Gizzle wrote:wow! f'ing stupid! that's pretty harsh. well, anyway, what i meant was that everyone spends their time dissing the US when we are really the newwest country with this kind of power. Look at England when they wer young and had power. Eventually, we'll get better leaders and not have the probalems we have today. that's what i meant

I hate to be a grammar nazi here, but is it too much to ask that you take a moment and make sure that what you're saying is A) coherent and B) comprehensible? Correct sentence structure isn't a law, it's just a good idea.

Backglass wouldn't have been confused had you taken the time to make sure that your ideas were presented in a clearer and more concise form.

owheelj · Post by **owheelj** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:55 am

P Gizzle wrote:
hitandrun wrote:
Backglass wrote:The majority of Americans dont like Bush at the moment, but we wouldnt jeopardize our election process and stability by tossing him out with military force!

It just sounds strange to me. More to the story I am sure.

The American election process is a complete and utter farce, a two party system is not democracy.

The majority of Americans didn't even vote for Bush, either time, he still got in. Ahh, the wonders of yanky politics!!!!

uh.....yeah, a majority did vote for bush the second time. and we dont have a two party system. we have a many party system. that's why we ave ralph nader and jesse ventura. Besides our democracy has worked a lot better that anyon else's, we're not the ones who had a king who killed all of his wives, no?

Actually in the 2004 US election only 73.8% of eligible voters voted. Of which 50.7% voted for Bush. That means that approximately 36.9% of eligible voters in the US voted for Bush and 63.9% of eligible voters did not vote for Bush.

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:21 am

well, that their problem if they didnt vote, not mine. it's a patriotic duty.

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 11:16 am

P Gizzle wrote:well, that their problem if they didnt vote, not mine. it's a patriotic duty.

Yeah, but when there's no real difference between the Republican and Democrat candidates (or no clear choice) then why waste the gas? Sure we can vote for a third party (That's what I did last election) but no third party will ever get enough votes to be a real choice since no third parties are allowed in the debates.

I find it interesting that in the land of choice, all of our choices aren't given equal time.

I'm writing in a candidate for 2008, probably Cobra Commander or Jon Stewart, depends on my mood.

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 11:47 am

i say vote for the best out of the bi partisan candidates. i know they arent very good, but at least you didnt waste gas or votes

hitandrun · Post by **hitandrun** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 11:48 am

The same problem exists in UK politics. We have two (possibly three) main parties and votes for anyone else are wasted votes.
Defacing ballot papers is my choice. It shows you want to turn up to vote but are not willing to be forced into voting for one of the main candidates or waste a vote on someone with no chance.

NO MATTER WHO YOU VOTE FOR THE GOVERNMENT ALWAYS GETS IN

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 11:50 am

well, i dont know. i mean, not voting is retarded, but voting for someone you dont like is also retarded. here's my answer vote for the bi partisan candidate that you think will do the better job.

owheelj · Post by **owheelj** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:00 pm

In Australia we have a prefernce system. You number the candidates from 1 - whatever. They count all the number one votes and the person with the least amount is cut out of the vote. They then count all that persons number 2 votes and add that number onto the respective other candidates tally. They then cut out the next lowest person. This continues until only one person has over 50% of the vote - they are then declared the winner (they actually continue to work out the results until they get a 1 and 2 but they announce the winner as soon as it is clear).

The advantage of this system is that you can vote for who ever you want without fear of "wasting your vote".

For example at the last federal election I put the two major parties last and second last respectively. I voted for all the minor parties before I voted for either of the major parties - I even voted for the hardcore Christian party that suggested we burn lesbians at the stake before voting for either of the major parties. This is because I knew that party would not be elected and I knew that one of the two major parties would be, but I wanted to make a statement that I was completely unhappy with both. My vote would have been continually recounted until it went to the major party that I was least dissatisfied with (Labor).

In my opinion this is a much much better system as it creates no disincentive in voting for minor parties. The only problem is that so many Australian's are too stupid to understand the system and you constantly hear people talking about being afraid of 'wasting their vote'.

Although I wouldn't support the idea for moral reasons, I still am very fond of the idea of having a set I.Q. for elections. Or better yet - a political knowledge test to be allowed to vote. Of course that would disrupt the democratic system entirely but that's ok.

hitandrun · Post by **hitandrun** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:06 pm

Sounds like a good system.
The IQ test idea scares me, people all over the world have fought for Votes For All. Where would it stop? I'm sure there are people out there who think women shouldn't vote.

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:38 pm

im a big fan of the US democracy mostly because it's the original and has had few kinks in the system. i think that most politicians arent very good, but i dont complain cuz i know i wouldnt be able to do a better job.

hitandrun · Post by **hitandrun** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:50 pm

The original? Please tell me you're joking!
The very first democratic government was French. Let me guess you got your facts from an American history book!

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:56 pm

owheelj wrote:In I even voted for the hardcore Christian party that suggested we burn lesbians at the stake before voting for either of the major parties.

Would that be televised and they didn't want to restrict it to just them did they?

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:01 pm

hitandrun wrote:Sounds like a good system.
The IQ test idea scares me, people all over the world have fought for Votes For All. Where would it stop? I'm sure there are people out there who think women shouldn't vote.

Now we're getting somewhere. They shouldn't be out stealling jobs either.

Lats get them back in the kitchen making dinner for the men and the kids.

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:03 pm

oh, it was french? im sorry, i didnt major in history. I just always figured it was the original cuz Europe had all the kings, and etc.

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:45 pm

P Gizzle wrote:i say vote for the best out of the bi partisan candidates. i know they arent very good, but at least you didnt waste gas or votes

Might as well vote for Cobra Commander if we're voting based on nothing but a motivation to get a ballot in a box. I mean, sure the president has been voted into office by one electoral vote (Rutherford B. Hayes) but there's never been a situation where a state was swung by just one popular vote.

That's kind of a funny term. The Popular Vote. Shouldn't it be called "The People's Vote"?

Popularity seems to be somewhat insignificant versus a person's ability to perform at a task. *shrugs* Ah well, perhaps it is all based on popularity. No wonder Kerry lost the last election, he was as likeable as a dead raccoon wearing a pink ribbon.

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:11 pm

vtmarik wrote:
P Gizzle wrote:i say vote for the best out of the bi partisan candidates. i know they arent very good, but at least you didnt waste gas or votes

Might as well vote for Cobra Commander if we're voting based on nothing but a motivation to get a ballot in a box. I mean, sure the president has been voted into office by one electoral vote (Rutherford B. Hayes) but there's never been a situation where a state was swung by just one popular vote.

That's kind of a funny term. The Popular Vote. Shouldn't it be called "The People's Vote"?

Popularity seems to be somewhat insignificant versus a person's ability to perform at a task. *shrugs* Ah well, perhaps it is all based on popularity. No wonder Kerry lost the last election, he was as likeable as a dead raccoon wearing a pink ribbon.

he wasnt very exciting either. Personally, i think everyone whould watch Saturday Night Live to decide who they vote for. SNL is great at impersonating the flaws of politicians. I like Will Ferrell's George W. and Dana carvey's George Sr.

w3a2 · Post by **w3a2** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 10:33 pm

hitandrun wrote:I'm sure there are people out there who think women shouldn't vote.

we do, but their vote only counts for half.

hitandrun · Post by **hitandrun** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:25 am

Women know your place.

Chained to the kitchen sink with enough slack to reach the cooker! :lol:

Freetymes · Post by **Freetymes** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:27 am

Agreed however historically the budists get walked all over in military situations. Time will tell...

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:55 am

P Gizzle wrote:he wasnt very exciting either. Personally, i think everyone whould watch Saturday Night Live to decide who they vote for. SNL is great at impersonating the flaws of politicians. I like Will Ferrell's George W. and Dana carvey's George Sr.

Very true, considering that it's the flaws that we'll be confronting when these idiots are in office.

eragon123 · Post by **eragon123** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:06 pm

you guys sure love to argue :roll: