Ochi reason number one...

[Occhidiangela]

In regards to the sarcastic "democracy" comments, when was the last time a president was elected when he got less votes than his opponent?

See the Cleveland-Harrison presidential election. 1880's.

From your own nation's history. :) Oh dear, did we go to a public school that allowed social advancement? Say It Aint So, Grumpy, Please Say It Aint So!

Also, for presidents who won on a plurality, as in less than half the registered voters voting for the winner:

IIRC

Woodrow Wilson (TR's Bull Moose Party took Taft Down)
WJ Clinton vs GHW Bush (Perot took Bush down with himself)
GWB versus Gore (Nader seems to have hurt Gore, though I am not certain if any States would have changed hands had Nader not been on the ballot.)

In short, it is not all that rare. There was one other election wherein electoral votes overturned popular votes, but I forget which one, and I used to know that one. Shame on my memory, it is an age thing.

[Albion Child]

If you prefer that humans don't destroy the earth, then why allow a tyranical maniac with no regard for human life rule a country with millions of citizens?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Oh, wait, you're talking about the *other* maniac.

You know, if what you had just said had any meaning, then about 80% of the world would be justified in declaring war on the USA because of our high handed international policies.

Intelligent adults realize that to preserve the sovereignty of their own nations, they must respect that of others. Children think that just because they have the might to force people to do things their way, that makes them right. When the leader of the most powerful nation in the world acts like a school yard bully, there is reason for fear. When a large portion of the country blindly cheers him on, the reason is even greater.

--Pete

[Grumpy]

I did not comment on winning on "plurality". I commented on winning when getting less votes than ones opponent....knowing full well that it happened before...also knowing full well that it is exactly the OPPOSITE of the intention of a democratic election..

So you took the time to get an insult at my intelligience, and try to give me some American history, but you have yet to respond to the other comments.

Perhaps when you fall off your pedestal you will have time to explain to me, as only a man as bright as you can, why George is such a wonderful president.

[Grumpy]

Well said Pete. I couldn't agree with you more.

[Grumpy]

I wonder who has killed more Iraqi citizens, the US (war in 1991, 12 years of sanctions, current crusade) or Saddam?

Do you know? I'm not sure, but I'll wager 1 soj it's the US.

[Roland]

...Occhi saying, anywhere, that George is a "wonderful President". Just finding holes in your arguments. That's all. ;)

As for me, I keep my head out of these political debates. Not worth my time or energy. I have better things to do than bash heads over a guy who'll be gone in a matter of years. ;) Like bash Goat Clan heads. *WHACK* :lol:

[Occhidiangela]

The UN Sanctions are not 'the US' they were the UN mandate of the Security council. It took the US, Canada, UK, Spain, and others to put the teeth into the will of the Council, which has 15 members. They all voted for the sanctions to disarm Iraq, and 17 documented violations, on UN record, of that ceasefire agreement are a matter of public knowledge if you bother to do your homework.

How about getting a bit of reality into your view of life.

How about you learn about how political dissidents and Shiia are killed.

How about you learn that failure to comply within 90 days of the cease fire agreement of 1991 that Saddam, and his henchmen, acted, for 12 years, to sustain the sanctions when all he had to do was turn over weapons per the agreement to get left alone. An agreement to which the government of Iraq was a signatory.

How about, Grumpy, you stop spouting the 'Big Lie.' Governments make policies for their nations. The government of Saddam has been setting abusive policies since about 1979, and has shown its indifference to its population for about that long.

Now, I care nothing for your SoJ. I'd rather see you cut through the BS and learn the truth. Best of luck.

[Occhidiangela]

You have no clue how our system works as evidenced by your first paragraph. I cant help you if you won't learn.

And as to the rest of your post, thank you for sharing your views on why you do not care for the current President. He will stand or fall on his own merits, or lack of them, in the next election. America has a pretty neat system of government. Every four years, we either keep who we have, or toss them out, based on a lot of variables. If enough people share your view, then he will only serve one term. If more people disagree with your views, then he will server four more years.

We survived Warren G Harding, Harry Truman, Gerald Ford, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Regan, and Bill Clinton nicely. We will survive the current administration as well.

Works for me.

Where you got the impression that I am all agog over President Bush confuses me. I have freuently expressed my dismay of the 'tax cuts solve all evils' approach to the economy, and am not sure that the statecraft needed to be in charge of the world's most powerful nation has been seen since George Bush, SR, who I greatly admired, has been seen in the Oval office since. I need not love the resident of the oval office to have a different view than your hatred of, or disgust with, the current President.

As I have said before, in 2000, I was a huge supporter of Senator McCain, and was very disappointed that he failed to win the Republican nomination. I would have voted for Ralph Nader long before VP Gore, for the simple reason that I have been watching VP Gore for quite some time, since the mid 1980's. Bill Bradley might have gotten my vote, but not against Sen McCain.

[Mark]

It's amazing how politically divided some people can get.

I remember when Clinton was president his opponents circulated lists of people he allegedly had killed during his career for political reasons. Now the other side is coming up with some similar foolishness against Bush. And it's funny how the president get's blamed for everything that goes wrong whether he had any influence on it or not, i.e. the economy, global warming, etc. He's just one guy there is no way a national economy actually changes dramatically based on who's sitting in the white house, too many checks and balances.

Here's how I choose to live. Take the extremes of both sides and cut them in half. The truth is not far away.

Mark

[Grumpy]

You have no clue how our system works as evidenced by your first paragraph.  I cant help you if you won't learn.

And as to the rest of your post, thank you for sharing your views on why you do not care for the current President.  He will stand or fall on his own merits, or lack of them, in the next election.  America has a pretty neat system of government.  Every four years, we either keep who we have, or toss them out, based on a lot of variables.  If enough people share your view, then he will only serve one term.  If more people disagree with your views, then he will server four more years.

We survived Warren G Harding, Harry Truman, Gerald Ford, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Regan, and Bill Clinton nicely.  We will survive the current administration as well. 

Works for me.

Where you got the impression that I am all agog over President Bush confuses me.  I have freuently expressed my dismay of the 'tax cuts solve all evils' approach to the economy, and am not sure that the statecraft needed to be in charge of the world's most powerful nation has been seen since George Bush, SR, who I greatly admired, has been seen in the Oval office since.  I need not love the resident of the oval office to have a different view than your hatred of, or disgust with, the current President.

As I have said before, in 2000, I was a huge supporter of Senator McCain, and was very disappointed that he failed to win the Republican nomination.  I would have voted for Ralph Nader long before VP Gore, for the simple reason that I have been watching VP Gore for quite some time, since the mid 1980's.  Bill Bradley might have gotten my vote, but not against Sen McCain.

Ahhh the lovely Occhi shows his colors. Such a sweet man.

We, the US military, are killing Iraqi citizens. They do not want to be "liberated"...that is a lie. Like so many other things being told to the US people by our govenrment and the so called "news".

You bring up Shiia, you fail to mention that we encouraged them to rise up against Saddam in 1991 and then abandoned them to be slaughtered. Another kind move by the US governemt, as if we even pretend to care about the Iraqi citizens. Quit spouting that crap. The notion that we the US government cares the tiniest bit about 1 Iraqi citizen is a gigantic load of bull#$%&. That is NOT why we invade countires. Spare me that drivel.

You fail to mention that we didn't give a #$%& when Saddam used chemical weapons against ouor enemies...in fact we gave them the weapons.

What's happening in Afganistan right now? I understand they "forgot" to plan humanitarian relief there. The warlords are back in power, the country is in disarray...in fact the news the other day was something like this "Iraq this, Iraq that....1/2 hour later, oh yeah, we bombed in Afghanistan again today" ....do I find this disgusting? Yes, very. I have problems with THE US flexing its muscles across the world on a RELIGIOUS CRUSADE...anoother point you have failed to address with all your snotty little rant about how stupid I am.

Do you understand that you being smarter than me, knowing more about the US govermnment, and American history has NO BEARING on the morality of the US government invadeing countries for personal gain?

The UN sanctions don't effect Saddam. You think he ate badly? You think his houses got run down? It's moronic, it hurts the people, which no one seems to give 2 #$%&s about. Why is this hard to understand?

Funny you say that the US did not act alone, they acted with the "security council" in 1991, would that be the same one that is entirely against this illegal war? Yes it is. So what do we do...screw 'em, we do whatever we want because we are big bad America....

Know how many vetos France has used vs how many the US has used in the History of the UN? France has used its veto 18 times. The US 76. When they do we have a National outcry, change the names of food, this is Politicians BTW, not just hill billy locals.

The estimated military spending in 2002 was $850 Billion for the enitre world. Half from the US, .0015% from Iraq. Yet they need disarming? Wrong, we need disarming, and we are proving it every day.

Hers some more....

89% percent of US citizens are getting their news on the war in Iraq from the TV. 92% of stories on NBC, ABC and CBS from 9/14/02-2/7/03 originated from the white house. It's called brainwashing. Enough of your "big Lie" comments...at least I have the guts to question the murderers in our government.

50% of weapons entering the global markets come from American firms.

We manufacture terrorism, we manufacture war. It is OUR regime that needs changing. No matter how many times you call me stupid, that will not change.

[kandrathe]

Most of the Iraqi deaths under Saddam occured due to the war with Iran.

Casualty figures are highly uncertain, though estimates suggest more than one and a half million war and war-related casualties -- perhaps as many as a million people died, many more were wounded, and millions were made refugees. Iraq's victory was not without cost. The Iraqis suffered an estimated 375,000 casualties, the equivalent of 5.6 million for a population the size of the United States. Another 60,000 were taken prisoner by the Iranians. Iran's losses may have included more than 1 million people killed or maimed. The war claimed at least 300,000 Iranian lives and injured more than 500,000, out of a total population which by the war's end was nearly 60 million.

Federation of American Scientists - Iran/Iraq War 1980 - 1988

The first Gulf War (according to the Iraqi sources) resulted in 2300 civilian, and ~ 20,000 military casualties. I would argue that as Iraq was the aggressor, who was then repelled from Kuwait, that Saddam actually was responsible for those casualties.

I would offer this evidence that Saddam's brutal security forces have inflicted hundreds of thousands of more civilian casualties than any external military forces. Of considerable brutality were the crushing of the Kurds, and the Shiite uprisings in 1991.
Human Rights Watch International - Iraq

[kandrathe]

IMHO, that doesn't work either Mark. There is only one truth, and it is not a compromise of lies. The pursuit of truth requires one to keep an open mind, and to examine all the evidence. What I find preposterous is that some people hold onto their bigotted beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I think the hallmarks of intelligence and wisdom are to know when to say things like "I don't know", "you were right", and "I'm sorry".

[Grumpy]

Beautiful statement.

In light of those remarks, I would ask the following. As it is clear I have serious shortcomings in my understanding of US politics and the functioning of the US Government. I would appreciate any advice on books I might be read which would help eradicate that ignorance.

I do not know many posters here. Perhaps many of you have suggestions. I would certainly like to hear recommendations from Occhi and Pete if you don't mind.

Thanks.

[Occhidiangela]

1. The Constitution. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989-249-097, is a small hand held sized plain print version. There are loads of web sites with the Constitution available to read, use Google and choose the one that hurts your eyes the least. :) As the Constitution uses some rather interesting and legaleeze language, any library book that generally covers "Constitutional Law" will frequently help put the Constitution's language into better perspective.

2. IIRC, you live in New York. Public Library, under Government, or look in any high school or community college level civics text book. Explains electoral process and the relationship between popular and electoral voting.

3. The Federalist Papers. This is just a bit of background and inclues the arguments for and against a greater or lesser role of the Central Government, or Federal Authority, that raged. However, it is not the last word.

When you look into the various Ammendments in suggestion 1, particularly Ammendment XII which explains the how of "electors" and XVII where the Senate was changed from being appointed by State governments to being elected, you can see that the debate continued long after the compromise that got us the Constitution. Repeal of Poll Tax, XXIV, 1963 IIRC, was deemed necessary to overcome various evasions at the state level, of the rights to equal protection and non abrogation of the privileges of citizenship, and to universal suffrage for men, XV, which, with the XIXth brought the women into the voting force and enfranchised all citizens, finally! (Took a while, eh?)

As to forms of government, we are a Constitutional Republic, which is a form of representative government, often loosely termed "a democracy," in which the citizens have a voice in the decisions and policies of governance. The definition of 'citizen,' which you can track via the Constitution and its continued ammendment, all the way up to XXVI which gave the draft eligible 18 year olds the right to vote, has been evolving.

I recall studying Switzerland and its government when in grade school, and their form of Democracy is, in some ways, 'more purely democratic' than ours. Have not looked into Swiss government lately, so things may have changed a bit.

[Grumpy]

Thank you Occhi.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I haven't read a book on government or on the general history of the United States in more than thirty years. And I've long since forgotten the titles, the authors, and the merits of those that I did read then.

The best I can do, at the risk of offending you by being too simplistic, is tell you how I research a new topic:

Go to the library, look the topic up in the card catalog. Note the "number" of a few books on that topic -- don't worry about descriptions. Go to the shelves where that number series is located. Pull out books with interesting or appropriate titles. Drag them to a table and scan them. Pick out a few that look well written. Check those out and read them. Repeat the whole process as needed.

Works for me. And is the main reason I will not go to a "closed stacks" library.

--Pete

[Grumpy]

Can't I do the same I the internet? I like to own books I read. That way I could research by topic, go to a bookstore, and purchase those titles that interest me. Is there any reason this would not work well?

[kandrathe]

I think I owe you an apology Grumpy. Due to the location of my reply to Mark in the thread, it might be implied I was refering to you. I was not, but rather to the general topic of knowledge and to the general population.

As for acquisition of the knowledge you seek I'd have to reflect Pete's sentiment. My knowledge of the American system and history has been acquired from being taught it throughout my childhood, and then being heavily involved in it for over 25 years as an adult. Then again, I tend to be an information sponge, and history is one of my passions. I'm the type of person who when watching a movie that is based loosely on facts (like "The Longest Day"), rushes away during the commercials to discover the truth so I can contrast.

[Grumpy]

No apology needed. You mentioned his name:)

Regardless, I enjoyed the sentiment you expressed towards Mark.