VisorCentral.com - Web slowdown caused by Iraq

Pages (9): « First ... « 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Web slowdown caused by Iraq (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=26443)

Posted by DingoFish on 09-12-2002 07:33 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
I know this. but what is the point encouraging people to vote in Presidental elections? Why are there middlemen called "electors"? This system itself is not even uniform across the country. My understanding is that some states in all or nothing, while in other states the amount of electors that you get depends on the percentage of vote. Not to mention the fact that voting methods vary from state to state.

Not a consitutional scholar by a long shot, but I'll do my best.

The elctoral college was created a long time ago to make it easier to allow the spread out, disconnected populace of Amerca a chance to vote in the Federal elections. Each state is allowed Electors proportionally based on their population. It is not variable, they are preset, maybe the change based on the Census? The are then sent to Washington DC and cast the votes they have been mandated to cast (by the elections). That is why they are called "Electors".

The reason elections are not uniformed is that the is actually no federal election, only a series of state elections to decide which Electors get to go to DC and cast their votes. And since voting falls under the rights of the State the Fed Govt. can't tell them how to hold elections.

Anybody feel freet o fix anything I just broke. :-)

Posted by Toby on 09-12-2002 07:53 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by DingoFish
[...] It is not variable, they are preset, maybe the change based on the Census?

They are variable depending on the Census. The numbers exactly mirror the number of representatives and senators which a state is allocated. Incidentally, the new Schoolhouse Rock DVD has a new episode giving kids a look at the Electoral College, "where everyone who graduates becomes the President".

quote:
The are then sent to Washington DC and cast the votes they have been mandated to cast (by the elections). That is why they are called "Electors". [...]

AAMOF, not all states require their electors to vote as their elections went. This was even a concern in the Bush/Gore debacle where they thought some electors could become 'faithless'.

And back to the original topic... I'm not sure if this speech was televised anywhere, but whoever wrote it deserves a raise. http://www.msnbc.com/news/807149.asp

Posted by KRamsauer on 09-12-2002 08:45 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby

And back to the original topic... I'm not sure if this speech was televised anywhere, but whoever wrote it deserves a raise. http://www.msnbc.com/news/807149.asp

It was a great speach. It began perfectly. He set out how Iraq could avoid the US's wrath, and they are all reasonable. Basically, just listen to what the UN has asked of you. Because Iraq knows the UN will never do anything (look at the last 10 years) it was prudent to add that the US is willing to stand up for all of civilization and do what is necessary. It was perhaps a bit more unilateral than I would have wrote, but all in all a great speech.

Posted by John Nowak on 09-12-2002 09:10 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by sowens
We'd still have had WWII, since Hitler would have rolled into Poland anyway. Calling the bluff of people like that doesn't work, because they could care less about anyone else.
[/B]

As a WWII history buff, I strongly disagree with this opinion. Tolland's biography of Hitler, and several other books, make it fairly clear that Hitler's reaction to Britain and France's declaration of war was one of dull shock and astonishment.

It's my opinion that if Berlin had been bombed on the day they remilitarized the Rhineland, however ineffectively, World War II would have been averted.

Posted by dick-richardson on 09-14-2002 10:24 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Canadian Elections aren't 1 Vote per per

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Non sequitur from the case at hand.

The attitude is the same. The firearms example was just that.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by yardie on 09-16-2002 09:29 AM:

Oh my! So we should all bomb Iraq because Saddam is not heeding the UN resolution pertaining to weapons inspectors. How may U.N resolutions have the Israeli government ignored? Should we bomb them too? How many times have the U.S ignored votes (usually only two against -- U.S and Israel) calling for the end of the stupid embargo against Cuba?

The U.S only talks about the U.S when it can get its way at the international body. For ohter things, they ignore what the U.N got to say.. How convenient.

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer

It was a great speach. It began perfectly. He set out how Iraq could avoid the US's wrath, and they are all reasonable. Basically, just listen to what the UN has asked of you. Because Iraq knows the UN will never do anything (look at the last 10 years) it was prudent to add that the US is willing to stand up for all of civilization and do what is necessary. It was perhaps a bit more unilateral than I would have wrote, but all in all a great speech.

Posted by Toby on 09-16-2002 02:40 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Canadian Elections aren't 1 Vote per

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
The attitude is the same. The firearms example was just that.

Irrelevant. The government is not supposed to be a parent. You _are_ supposed to be your child's parent. It would be more like your child refusing to let _you_ walk around with a .357 and your bowing to his wishes just because he said so (and not because you thought it was the right thing to do). IOW, the only thing that compels you to listen to unreasonable or unpopular rules is _you_, not any inherent authority.

Posted by KRamsauer on 09-16-2002 07:42 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Oh my! So we should all bomb Iraq because Saddam is not heeding the UN resolution pertaining to weapons inspectors. How may U.N resolutions have the Israeli government ignored? Should we bomb them too? How many times have the U.S ignored votes (usually only two against -- U.S and Israel) calling for the end of the stupid embargo against Cuba?

The U.S only talks about the U.S when it can get its way at the international body. For ohter things, they ignore what the U.N got to say.. How convenient.

I doubt the US dissobeys Security Council resolutions, considering we can veto resolutions.

Posted by Toby on 09-16-2002 08:03 PM:

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2070880

Posted by KRamsauer on 09-16-2002 10:54 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2070880

Great article. The author alludes to obscure historical reasons for France's spot on the Security Council. Why exactly are they on there? They exert nowhere near the power of the US, Russia, China, and I think much less than the UK. Anyone know?

Posted by John Nowak on 09-17-2002 12:37 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
They exert nowhere near the power of the US, Russia, China, and I think much less than the UK. Anyone know?

The term "United Nations," historically, was first applied to the Allies of World War II. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council are the five major victorious allies of the Second World War: The United States, Russian Federation (inherited from the USSR), United Kingdom, China, and France. Present French permanent membership in the UN is based on the contribution of DeGaulle.

Posted by KRamsauer on 09-17-2002 01:06 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak

The term "United Nations," historically, was first applied to the Allies of World War II. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council are the five major victorious allies of the Second World War: The United States, Russian Federation (inherited from the USSR), United Kingdom, China, and France. Present French permanent membership in the UN is based on the contribution of DeGaulle.

Ah. That makes sense. I was wondering why France, rather than Germany or Japan (both bigger economies) was on the council. Man, talk about paying for past mistakes....

Posted by yardie on 09-17-2002 05:24 AM:

The old boys club should be expanded to include Japan -- the world's second largest economy and a major UN contributor; and Germany -- a behemoth in Europe.

I doubt it will happen though. The last thing these guys need are two newbie countries with veto power.

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer

Ah. That makes sense. I was wondering why France, rather than Germany or Japan (both bigger economies) was on the council. Man, talk about paying for past mistakes....

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by John Nowak on 09-17-2002 08:21 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Yep, odd that nobody noticed how whenever there was some sort of controversy, Clinton let fly the bombs or cruise missles. Of course, that may just be coincidental, because there were lots of them.

I'd argue this is why Clinton was so ineffective as President -- his entire time was a string of scandals.

Honestly, I had a lot more respect for Nixon. He was slimy, but more "Political animal" slimy instead of "Little Boy With Hand In Cookie Jar" slimy.

Posted by John Nowak on 09-17-2002 08:31 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer

Ah. That makes sense. I was wondering why France, rather than Germany or Japan (both bigger economies) was on the council. Man, talk about paying for past mistakes....

Right, and I wonder how long it'll last. While I don't advocate German or Japanese permanent membership on the Security Council at this time, a permanent membership based on a war is hard to justify in the long run.

I don't believe German membership is likely as long as Schroeder's in charge there: after turning his back on the UN to get votes, I seriously doubt that Germany's going to get any clout there for a while.

And just as a general comment, isn't it amusing how this thread went from "The US is isolated from the world, doesn't that tell you anything?" to "Germany's refusal to carry out its obligations under the UN will isolate it for the next few years" over the course of a couple of weeks?

Posted by KRamsauer on 09-18-2002 03:00 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak

And just as a general comment, isn't it amusing how this thread went from "The US is isolated from the world, doesn't that tell you anything?" to "Germany's refusal to carry out its obligations under the UN will isolate it for the next few years" over the course of a couple of weeks?

There is a really telling article on the front page of the WSJ today about how Schroeder completely sold out for votes. I frankly have a lot more respect for Tony Blair. It takes guts to tell your own party to shove it (though in some cases, like Bush's steel tariffs and farm subsidies, it's just stupidity).

Posted by John Nowak on 09-18-2002 04:44 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer

There is a really telling article on the front page of the WSJ today about how Schroeder completely sold out for votes.

It will be very interesting to see how the whole thing plays out -- unlike the United States, Germany really can't afford to tell the world to take a hike.

Posted by yardie on 09-19-2002 08:25 PM:

When did the U.S and the U.N became interchangeable? Shroeder is turning his back on the U.S and British hawkish behaviour (and rightfully so). They are not alone. Most countries made it very clear that they will only support action that is backed by the U.N, not Bush, Blair and Rumsfield.

quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak

And just as a general comment, isn't it amusing how this thread went from "The US is isolated from the world, doesn't that tell you anything?" to "Germany's refusal to carry out its obligations under the UN will isolate it for the next few years" over the course of a couple of weeks?

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by yardie on 09-19-2002 08:27 PM:

Blair is walking on thin ice here. Unlike George Bush, Blair can be easily brought down by his MPs in Parliament... Ask Margaret Thatcher...the other hawk from the U.K.

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer

There is a really telling article on the front page of the WSJ today about how Schroeder completely sold out for votes. I frankly have a lot more respect for Tony Blair. It takes guts to tell your own party to shove it (though in some cases, like Bush's steel tariffs and farm subsidies, it's just stupidity).

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by KRamsauer on 09-20-2002 04:41 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Blair is walking on thin ice here. Unlike George Bush, Blair can be easily brought down by his MPs in Parliament... Ask Margaret Thatcher...the other hawk from the U.K.

Never did I say it was a political move, just a gutsy move. The exact opposite of what we see going on in Germany.

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:46 AM.

Pages (9): « First ... « 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page