A common theme

Professur said:
Yup. A la Ross Perot.
Click to expand...

And we, well, most of us, saw what happened to him. He was lambasted by both sides as...

1. Trying to buy the election (he used his own money instead of the taxpayers money, which both parties used)

2. He was accused of being an anti-semite (he had fired an orthodox Jew from his business because he forbade beards on the job)

3. He was accused of being an extremist (of what was never stated, but it was out there)

4. It was stated that voting for Ross Perot was throwing away your vote because he was niether Dem nor Rep...(I voted for Perot)
 
Gonz said:
If we did we're really be fucked. They'd be more concerned about constituents than the law, much like politicians.
Click to expand...


I thought that was cause they are to interpert laws and determine whether it is Constitutional?
 
Interpret is an awfully loaded word. How about; they hear the final arguments & determine whether those arguments are in fact within Constitutional boundries without overstepping their authority with interpretations of what is so plainly written.
 
MrBishop said:
It's not the people doing the voting...it's those who we are allowed to vote for. It's not average-Joe who chooses who'se going to be in charge of the Dems or Reps, the Libs or Cons etc... it's the party. The party chooses and we get to live with their choices or choose NOT to vote. When was the last time that we saw an independant? Perot??

Lets face it...politics is a game for the rich to play at. You need huge amounts of money to run for power, a large following, enough people to run with you in all the ridings, enough other people to support them, and the money to support all that crap.

It's been like that since Lincoln, and shall be until the end of our days. You either have the party behind you (in which case you get their money but they control your ass) or you have your own money, in which case you're either not popular enough or you're a spoiled brat with family coin.

This is our political pool to choose our leaders from...and then we wonder why they're all basically failures. Simply...they don't represent us, we didn't choose them and they don't care about the common man. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Are you Amerinadian? :confuse3:
 
um...I don't think the electoral college would go for it :lloyd:

I am Canadian.
So is Bish, so I thought...we don't have democrats or republicans, it'll be a cold day in hell when we have an independent PM, we never had Perot, we never had a Lincoln...so...I thought maybe I was wrong and he is Amerinadian? :confbang:
 
Amerinadian or not, anyone can vote in American elections as long as they vote for Democrats. I think Cooks County Ill. has a website that explains how to do it, social security number and all.
 
Yes Les. You do actually have to be an Amerinadian. Don't worry, Bush is gonna wrap up in Iraq take Iran next, then I'm pretty sure he's looking for a summer home up north. With any luck you'll be able to vote in 2008.
 
MrBishop said:
I prefer the term "Métis" ... and yes...I'm part french Canadian and part Mohawk/Iroquois.
Click to expand...

er...read that too fast. No, I'm not Amerinadian...Canamerican wahtever. but i do have a very strong suspition taht whatever happens in the good ol' USA, affect us as well.

We've got closer ties than anyone would like to admit.
 
ResearchMonkey said:
Amerinadian or not, anyone can vote in American elections as long as they vote for Democrats. I think Cooks County Ill. has a website that explains how to do it, social security number and all.
Click to expand...

Heck yeah, you don't even have to be living. :D
 
Gonz said:
Interpret is an awfully loaded word. How about; they hear the final arguments & determine whether those arguments are in fact within Constitutional boundries without overstepping their authority with interpretations of what is so plainly written.
Click to expand...




thats intresting. I never heard it explained that way. I thought they looked at the law and decided from there. I didnt think they already had the judgment
 
They know the law. They are deciding whether it's within Constitutional boundries without overstepping their authority with interpretations of what is so plainly written.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top