Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War

[primitive]

Originally posted by Randallw:
I see so the spanish weren't so much angry that they had been made a target but that the PM tried to say "Oh no, see it wasn't terrorists because of Iraq it was ETA"

Sarcasm doesn’t become you Randall

Being targeted by terrorists or other outside aggression tends to make people band together and strengthen their resolve, not weaken it.

[Randallw]

Originally posted by primitive:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randallw:
I see so the spanish weren't so much angry that they had been made a target but that the PM tried to say "Oh no, see it wasn't terrorists because of Iraq it was ETA"

Sarcasm doesn’t become you Randall

Being targeted by terrorists or other outside aggression tends to make people band together and strengthen their resolve, not weaken it.

---

I'm sorry I wasn't trying to be sarcastic at all. I said, i see (because I see what he means) then, Q: it wasn't what I thought but instead that the PM apparently tried to accuse ETA instead of AQ. I apologise for not realising that the way I organised my reply might be misconstrued. Should I have placed an emote to show I wasn't being sarcastic?. sorry

edit: just saw the mistake. I should have said "the spanish people were angry not because" not "weren't so much angry"

[ July 08, 2004, 13:43: Message edited by: Randallw ]

[primitive]

No worries

[Fyron]

You say Bush didn't get a majority?. Well them I'm sorry but it doesn't sound as if your democracy is organised correctly. At least in accordance to my idea of it.

Actually... the electoral college system in the US is set up to provide checks and balances for the minority (low population states) against dictatorship by the majority (high population states). This ranges from electing the President to the composition of the Congress. As Mephisto said, such checks and balances are needed in a democracy... this was how the people that set up the government of the US balanced it. That, and it was the only way to get the small states and large states to agree to be part of the same union and not have two separate nations after the secession from the British empire...

[Randallw]

I see so the spanish weren't so much angry that they had been made a target but that the PM tried to say "Oh no, see it wasn't terrorists because of Iraq it was ETA"

Also what I meant was surely the point of voting is that the person or party who gets the most votes (ie the majority of voters) is the one elected. All citizens of a country deserve equal rights, but surely, at least in a 2-party system, one viewpoint receives the majority of support. I'll avoid using the US system which I don't know much of, but in Australia we have 2 major parties, the Coalition (which technically is 2 parties but they merge) and labour. If we held an election either one or the other gets the most votes, and thus a majority membership in parliament. Then for the term of government it is the "winning" parties agenda that runs the country, and even then the opposition may have power in the upper house opposing government. This may be effected by independents, the greens or the democrats who, if their small number of elected memebrs vote with the opposition may outweigh the government, stopping the Governments policies.
I said I disagreed with Democracy. My major irritation with it is that instead of getting to the business of running the country in the most beneficial way for the advancement of the state and the people, politicans spend alot of time trying to cosy up to people because they depend on getting people, who don't so much study politics as like which "nice politician goes around shaking hands and kissing babies", to vote for them. Also they spend almost all the time competing with the opposition, and the opposition almost has to oppose anything the government does not just because they have a differing political or economic viewpoint (except when they can't risk alienating the electorate by opposing moral decisions eg. if another country is attacked and our government sends aid the opposition can't be heartless and oppose it) , but because if they agree with everything the government does whats the point of having different parties. Normal opposition is part of the system but it seems these days politicians are getting nastier towards each other, not just having opposing viewpoints but actually insulting other politicians (Like saying they have only half a brain), and I mean the greens in particular (if your Australian, yes I am talking about bob brown). At least we aren't any of the countries which the news shows politicians throwing chairs at each other in parliament. My irritation with democracy is intellectual, I am not going to go out and start a rebellion to topple the government and impose a proper Republic (as opposed to the misleading democratic Version), that is impossible as well as against my belief in obeying the system. I will work with the system and vote for the party I support. The only viable way to make my intellectual thoughts work is if 100% of the population had exactly the same education and, the impossible part, everyone agrees with the same idea. Because of differing economic and living environments, it is impossible for everyone to agree. The US for example (the first modern democracy) has been convinced for 200 years, by which I mean citizens are taught from cradle to grave, that democracy is the one true free political system. Only in a perfect world can we have a perfect system. For this imperfect world we will have to accept an imperfect system, it sure beats some others I know of.

[ July 08, 2004, 12:25: Message edited by: Randallw ]

[Randallw]

Yes, I know a bit about this. Each state gets 2 senators right?. with 50 states that is 100 senators. So the 2 senators out of a lowly populated state get as much power as the 2 senators from a huge state.

[Caduceus]

Originally posted by Randallw:
Yes, I know a bit about this. Each state gets 2 senators right?. with 50 states that is 100 senators. So the 2 senators out of a lowly populated state get as much power as the 2 senators from a huge state.

Yes, that's the Senate. The House of Representatives is based on population. Both of those compose the Legislative branch of the US Congress.

A bill to be submitted to the President has to pass through both in order to be made into a law.

President and VP are the Executive Branch and the US Supreme Court is the Judicial Branch.

Wildcard

Here's a primer on the electoral college.
Electoral College

And the House of Representatives
House of Representatives