Yea I mean whats poland, its not like its an EU member right? He could have mentioned Italy, Spain, Australlia, South Korea, Japan...
But lets say france was involved? would it then be a genuine group effort? No no I guess we need germany.. So a broad coalition consist of the US, UK, France, and Germany is that right?
Clinton gets a BJ, and everyone starts screaming "won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!?" So I have to ask, what's really more important?
Funny I think he did that while under oath and in doing so may have denied an American citizen of justice (and was thus disbarred).. While it certainly does not rise to bush lying about the reason for war its not that far off... That is unless youre a partisan kneepadder..
I haven't done the analysis as to how the changes I proposed would effect past elections
Here is 2000
Gore Congressional Districts: 207
Gore States: 19 (x2) -> : 38
Gore Total: 245
Bush Congressional Districts: 228
Bush States: 31 (x2) -> : 62
Bush Total: 290
This give the same win but even a larger electoral margin for Bush than his 271 - 266 Result. The two lost electoal votes are from distcits that were too close to call (1 in Fl, and 1 in Tenn).
I believe this essentially the system Colorado is considering adopting.
No, it is not this is the system ME and NE use. CO is bringing a a % of the vote where for every 11.1% of the population won you get an EV, districts dont matter.
I wonder how they will handel it if the tird parties all get less than 11.1% but together enough to keep the parties from obtaining all the electoral votes. the proposed CO system is preety retarded.
I prefer the ME and MB solution (Win the state you get 2 (senate), win the district and you that EV. You get the best of both worlds, in close elections you dont have to recount the whole nation (like you would in a straight popular vote), the states still retain some of their power, and the vote will most times more closly reflect the popular vote (though if every state in the union had this method 2K would have turned out the exact same)...
Actually no, it would not. On a state level yes it would be a percent. But on the national level the smaller states liky Wymoing have a higher weight because of the 2 extra votes they get from the senate..
There's this great invention called the telephone. You can even use them without wires now, they're called cellular phones.
Uh yea did you try calling NY or DC on 9/11? I did.. my wife (then friend) was in NY with her mother was in NY and it took morethan 3 hours to get through.. For some reason or another a good number of people were using the phone.
In the the the point is that for all the sevret service knew an assanation attempt was forthcoming. Im sure they were securing hallways, checking vehicles, and preparing.
...two years before he started running.
And two years after wanting to be VP (he was rather slighted when Gore picked Lieberman, and ten years after running (1992). There is not a senator who does not look in the mirror and see a president, heck I am sure he was already raising money..
if you argue that a person is created at conception on some type of scientific grounds, then it is only a matter of lack of technology that we dont classify every single cell of the human body to be a person.
Take an embryo put it in its natural environment what does it become?
Take a skin cell put it in its natural environment what does it become?
Fetuses do not have a right to life because nothing in law gives fetuses a right to life.
Great circular logic, I think they used that for slavery. Slavery is ok because nothing in the law makes a slave a person.
Why does *rape/incest* caused fetus have fewer rights than the fetus resulting from consentual sex.
I dont think that it does.
We know that sex is immoral. They told us so in church.
OK, I know this is going to be considered trolling, but I always wonder about politicians who claim to be Christians and yet espouse anti-welfare, pro-death penalty, or pro-gun positions.
Because as a christian *I* do for others, I donate money and time to the poor. Its not the governments job.
It's possible -- and I would say that it's pretty much a prerequisite for Green/Independent/Libertarian/etc to ever have a shot at significant political power
It was most kind of him ot take the time and for that he should be thanked. But I will never vote for a Green candidate and Mr Cobb sumed up why in one of his answers..
And that's just in this country. The Green Party is an international movement and around the world we have elected members to over two dozen national legislatures and parliaments.
I do not htink Americans should be electing those beholen to an "international movement"..
No, it's based on particular emissions standards. China is currently using different methods of getting energy than burning dinosaurs, and so far nobody has really classified the bicycle and walking population of India, however numerous, as contributing to the greenhouse gasses.
Umm china is one of the most coal (thats burning the plants dinosaurs ate) burning nations on the planet. And china is quickly! becoming an industrial powerhouse. Heck as it is they use coal for 75% of their power! I guess because its not in an SUV youre ok with ignoring that eh?
As for India, Kyoto focuses more on power generation than fuel from personal conveynances (because more pollution comes from the former), guess who else gets more than 75% of their fuel from coal, ta daaa, India.
But lets make the case that your right and China and India dont really pollute *why exempt them*? or any other developing nation. If your point is that because we drive SUV's and they dont they dont matter why specifically make them exempt?
But your right to stick your head up your ass and squeal 'no fair' while having enough food on your table is yours to have and to hold.
Thank you, you have just in a nutshell pointed out what Kyoto is all about. Its not about the environment (otherwise not signee would be exempt) its about 'global justice' and the fact I am fed and fat... Thats the problem with Kyoto it was never a serious attempt to decrease pollution, it was an attempt to balance the global socio-economic scales by imposing restrictions on the growth of first world nations while letting developing nations pollute as much as they want..
Vetoing the administration report that showed that climate change had a human component for a start.
Link? I was not aware one could veto a report... I thought one had to veto a law..
Congress is controlled by Bush's party, Kerry isn't part of that party, so you can't blame Kerry individually (well you can, but anyone who knows how Congress is being run now, knows its not true).
Really Kerry had no problem voting against the 87 Billion supplimental spending, why did he not vote againt the authorization?
And with this wonderful controll how come bush cant get a conservative judge through the the federal appeals court? having a one vote majority in the senate is not a free pass..
98 Senators voted not to ratify the treaty, and 2 did not vote at all. Thats right boys and girls not one US senator (Democrat or Republican) Voted for Kyoto, so how is this bushes fault?
Kyoto is seriously flawed, China (one of the worlds most industrial nations) and India (very quickly growing) are exempt for emissions requirements, its a joke aimed at the west..
LOL! And you seem to be ignoring the fact that Kerry wasn't the bloody President at that moment.
Yea he was just one of the most important law makers, who wants to be president.
There *was* nothing for him to do but do what the rest of us did and stare at the TV in disbelief. But hey, a free, cheap shot at Kerry is worth it every time to you guys, and the truth be damned, right?
I mean its not Like John Kerry in on the seante foreign relations commitee is it? Why did he not spring up and start calling people? What action *within the scope of his power* did he take.
Now onto the why did Bush not leave right away? Well lets see Im sure at a tim when assaniation was bloodly likely the Secret service wanted to secure some things before he left the building, the president cant just up and walk anywhere w/o the SS checking things out.
In addition to this what could he have done in those moments? What could anyone have done (even John Kerry)? Bush was more than a thousand miles away from Washington, and more than two thousand miles away from NY. Once it became clear this was an attack and the military was on it what would the time it took the SS to securething really havt bought?
you guys
Dont 'you guys' me, I am not a member (nor am I voting for) either political party..
If you're being honest look up what the final UN resolution actually said, in its last paragraph. It was clear from that the intent of all those countries who voted for it
YN resolutions are *not* law.
His PR folk just started yelling "this gives us authoriztion!"
No, his authorization was from the US senate..
Except of course that the Congress was controlled by the Reps
And democrats could have filibustered the measure, have the majority means squat unless its a super majority. Look at how many of bushes federal apeals court judges have been passed.
that make me wonder if we really have reached the point of Tyranny of the Majority
There are enough Dems to stop any measure by filibuster.
After controlling Congress for 20 of 28 years, the Reps have made changes to operational rules and such that have effectivelly rendered the minority in the House absolutely powerless.
Not at all but the democrats have fialed to use their power, that does not make the minority useless.
Bush isn't just the President anymore, he's also the House and Senate Majority Leaders.
No more than Clinton was in 1993/1994
That is scary (this kind of lock-step discipline within a party controlled by just one person is part of why a lot of early Americans including Washington were suspicious of political parties).
Agreed, the lack of action by the democrats (nearly half of them voted to authorize the war in Iraq), the lack of princaple by congressional Republicans, and the abuse of power by the last two presidents is down right scary.
What is even scarier is how a Conservative/ Liberal/ can honestly believe they are better off with either party..
"This was not the examploe of the president making war, congress made it."
Yes congress gave the authority for war, stupid on their part, I have also said that bush should have went to congress for a specific declariation of war.
Slashdot Mirror
But lets say france was involved? would it then be a genuine group effort? No no I guess we need germany.. So a broad coalition consist of the US, UK, France, and Germany is that right?
Funny I think he did that while under oath and in doing so may have denied an American citizen of justice (and was thus disbarred).. While it certainly does not rise to bush lying about the reason for war its not that far off... That is unless youre a partisan kneepadder..
Here is 2000
Gore Congressional Districts: 207
Gore States: 19 (x2) -> : 38
Gore Total: 245
Bush Congressional Districts: 228
Bush States: 31 (x2) -> : 62
Bush Total: 290
This give the same win but even a larger electoral margin for Bush than his 271 - 266 Result. The two lost electoal votes are from distcits that were too close to call (1 in Fl, and 1 in Tenn).
source: District Map
No, it is not this is the system ME and NE use. CO is bringing a a % of the vote where for every 11.1% of the population won you get an EV, districts dont matter.
I wonder how they will handel it if the tird parties all get less than 11.1% but together enough to keep the parties from obtaining all the electoral votes. the proposed CO system is preety retarded.
I prefer the ME and MB solution (Win the state you get 2 (senate), win the district and you that EV. You get the best of both worlds, in close elections you dont have to recount the whole nation (like you would in a straight popular vote), the states still retain some of their power, and the vote will most times more closly reflect the popular vote (though if every state in the union had this method 2K would have turned out the exact same)...
Actually no, it would not. On a state level yes it would be a percent. But on the national level the smaller states liky Wymoing have a higher weight because of the 2 extra votes they get from the senate..
Uh yea did you try calling NY or DC on 9/11? I did.. my wife (then friend) was in NY with her mother was in NY and it took morethan 3 hours to get through.. For some reason or another a good number of people were using the phone.
In the the the point is that for all the sevret service knew an assanation attempt was forthcoming. Im sure they were securing hallways, checking vehicles, and preparing.
And two years after wanting to be VP (he was rather slighted when Gore picked Lieberman, and ten years after running (1992). There is not a senator who does not look in the mirror and see a president, heck I am sure he was already raising money..
But we cant dispurse the belief that the rich dont pay taxes..
It goes to show the extreeme nature of the far left that they consider pregnancy slavery..
Take an embryo put it in its natural environment what does it become?
Take a skin cell put it in its natural environment what does it become?
Fetuses do not have a right to life because nothing in law gives fetuses a right to life.
Great circular logic, I think they used that for slavery. Slavery is ok because nothing in the law makes a slave a person.
Why does *rape/incest* caused fetus have fewer rights than the fetus resulting from consentual sex.
I dont think that it does.
We know that sex is immoral. They told us so in church.
What a sad little church you went to..
Because as a christian *I* do for others, I donate money and time to the poor. Its not the governments job.
Lincon ran as a third party..
And that's just in this country. The Green Party is an international movement and around the world we have elected members to over two dozen national legislatures and parliaments.
I do not htink Americans should be electing those beholen to an "international movement"..
Umm china is one of the most coal (thats burning the plants dinosaurs ate) burning nations on the planet. And china is quickly! becoming an industrial powerhouse. Heck as it is they use coal for 75% of their power! I guess because its not in an SUV youre ok with ignoring that eh?
As for India, Kyoto focuses more on power generation than fuel from personal conveynances (because more pollution comes from the former), guess who else gets more than 75% of their fuel from coal, ta daaa, India.
But lets make the case that your right and China and India dont really pollute *why exempt them*? or any other developing nation. If your point is that because we drive SUV's and they dont they dont matter why specifically make them exempt?
But your right to stick your head up your ass and squeal 'no fair' while having enough food on your table is yours to have and to hold.
Thank you, you have just in a nutshell pointed out what Kyoto is all about. Its not about the environment (otherwise not signee would be exempt) its about 'global justice' and the fact I am fed and fat... Thats the problem with Kyoto it was never a serious attempt to decrease pollution, it was an attempt to balance the global socio-economic scales by imposing restrictions on the growth of first world nations while letting developing nations pollute as much as they want..
Vetoing the administration report that showed that climate change had a human component for a start.
Link? I was not aware one could veto a report... I thought one had to veto a law..
Really Kerry had no problem voting against the 87 Billion supplimental spending, why did he not vote againt the authorization?
And with this wonderful controll how come bush cant get a conservative judge through the the federal appeals court? having a one vote majority in the senate is not a free pass..
Dude China produce a significant amount of green house gas, I would hardly call them a developing nation... But kyoto did..
BTW thanks for pointing out that thiese things were being done *without* kyoto..
98 Senators voted not to ratify the treaty, and 2 did not vote at all. Thats right boys and girls not one US senator (Democrat or Republican) Voted for Kyoto, so how is this bushes fault?
Kyoto is seriously flawed, China (one of the worlds most industrial nations) and India (very quickly growing) are exempt for emissions requirements, its a joke aimed at the west..
But A state, I think, could impose them on its senators..
Yea he was just one of the most important law makers, who wants to be president.
There *was* nothing for him to do but do what the rest of us did and stare at the TV in disbelief. But hey, a free, cheap shot at Kerry is worth it every time to you guys, and the truth be damned, right?
I mean its not Like John Kerry in on the seante foreign relations commitee is it? Why did he not spring up and start calling people? What action *within the scope of his power* did he take.
Now onto the why did Bush not leave right away? Well lets see Im sure at a tim when assaniation was bloodly likely the Secret service wanted to secure some things before he left the building, the president cant just up and walk anywhere w/o the SS checking things out.
In addition to this what could he have done in those moments? What could anyone have done (even John Kerry)? Bush was more than a thousand miles away from Washington, and more than two thousand miles away from NY. Once it became clear this was an attack and the military was on it what would the time it took the SS to securething really havt bought?
you guys
Dont 'you guys' me, I am not a member (nor am I voting for) either political party..
YN resolutions are *not* law.
His PR folk just started yelling "this gives us authoriztion!"
No, his authorization was from the US senate..
Except of course that the Congress was controlled by the Reps
And democrats could have filibustered the measure, have the majority means squat unless its a super majority. Look at how many of bushes federal apeals court judges have been passed.
that make me wonder if we really have reached the point of Tyranny of the Majority
There are enough Dems to stop any measure by filibuster.
After controlling Congress for 20 of 28 years, the Reps have made changes to operational rules and such that have effectivelly rendered the minority in the House absolutely powerless.
Not at all but the democrats have fialed to use their power, that does not make the minority useless.
Bush isn't just the President anymore, he's also the House and Senate Majority Leaders.
No more than Clinton was in 1993/1994
That is scary (this kind of lock-step discipline within a party controlled by just one person is part of why a lot of early Americans including Washington were suspicious of political parties).
Agreed, the lack of action by the democrats (nearly half of them voted to authorize the war in Iraq), the lack of princaple by congressional Republicans, and the abuse of power by the last two presidents is down right scary.
What is even scarier is how a Conservative/ Liberal/ can honestly believe they are better off with either party..
Yes congress gave the authority for war, stupid on their part, I have also said that bush should have went to congress for a specific declariation of war.
I believe that Kerry is just as bad as bush..
When have I excused bush?
Does a speech have the force of law? face it congress (and John Kerry) dropped the ball..
Keep in mind there are also hidden federal taxes (phone bill, gas, cigerette, ....)
Thats hardly fair, other than raising the hammer and sickle over the whitehousr they will never be happy..