Evils of the United States - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-15-2003, 11:30 PM   #1
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Castro Valley, CA
Posts: 997
Local Time: 06:14 PM
Evils of the United States

for the patriots in the States, post your leanings toward political parties for the upcoming presidential election, after primaries in the spring: do you think any party can do better than the republicans are now doing? what "evil" will be the *lesser* this next time?? all opinions accepted, any party is perfectly acceptable...my choice, the democrats. between Lieberman, Al Sharpton, and the other Anglo Saxons, the democrats should have a good shot at the white house...now that we've had a taste of republican virtues, like war, bad economy and messed up foreign policy...anything is better than waiting on the UN!
__________________

__________________
DebbieSG is offline  
Old 02-15-2003, 11:34 PM   #2
The Fly
 
the olive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Above the golden arch
Posts: 282
Local Time: 06:14 PM
Ralph Nader, anyone?

Don't laugh - last time he was Bono's choice!
__________________

__________________
the olive is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 12:15 PM   #3
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 01:14 PM
how about Gray Davis!
__________________
send lawyers, guns and money...
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 12:23 PM   #4
Bordering Purgatory
 
Flag Pole Pear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 794
Local Time: 12:14 PM
wink

Quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer
how about Gray Davis!
how about i beat you into a bloody pulp and feed you to my dogs?

i dont know who grAy davis is.

__________________
you could have it all
my empire of dirt
i will let you down
i will make you hurt
Flag Pole Pear is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 01:12 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Flag Pole Pear


how about i beat you into a bloody pulp and feed you to my dogs?

i dont know who grAy davis is.


He's the current governor of California. How about Sen. Kerry of Massachusetts?
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 01:23 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 12:14 PM
Sen Kerry seems to have the best shot at the moment.


by the way, i don't think it's necessary a republican virtue to just start wars. after all, bush didn't take office and suddenly say "look! we're going to war!" let's not forget we were attacked. i would, however, say that republicans are more inclined to use military presence to solve diplomatic issues.
__________________
Lilly is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 05:17 PM   #7
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 01:14 PM
gray davis may be the worst governor in the country

the problem is the democrats dont really have any dynamic leadership right now
__________________
send lawyers, guns and money...
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 05:50 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer
gray davis may be the worst governor in the country

the problem is the democrats dont really have any dynamic leadership right now

True. There's a leadership vacuum at the moment. That could change. Politics is fickle stuff.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 08:14 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:14 AM
Do the democrats have dynamic leadership now

Quote:
'04 Hopeful Dean: No Cause for War
In the first major policy speech of his campaign, the former governor is expected to reproach Bush for what he says is divisive foreign policy.
By Ronald Brownstein
Times Staff Writer

February 17, 2003

Expanding his opposition to a war against Iraq, Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean today is set to call for an extended process of intensified inspections as an alternative to a military invasion.

"We should continue [inspections] as long as there is progress toward disclosure and disarmament and the inspectors tell us credibly that there is promising work to be done," Dean, a former Vermont governor, says in a speech to be delivered at Drake University in Des Moines. An advance text was provided to the Los Angeles Times.

Even if inspectors find evidence of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, Dean says, the United Nations should first give Iraq the opportunity to destroy them and then take military action solely to eliminate those weapons if Baghdad doesn't.

"Particular weapons can be destroyed without an all-out war to impose a change of regimes," he argues.

In what may preview the debate ahead, a senior advisor to a Democratic presidential contender who supports military action against Iraq immediately disparaged that proposal as "dangerously naive."

"That completely ignores the past 12 years," the advisor said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "Dean is treating this as if there has been no record of deception, and no record of brutality.... It begs the question of how many more chances we want to give [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein to attack us or destabilize the region."

In the speech -- the first major policy address of his campaign -- Dean joins his Democratic rivals in arguing that President Bush's approach to foreign policy is dividing the United States "from some of our longest-standing and most important allies, when what we need is to pull the world community together in common action against the imminent threat of terrorism."

Like the other Democrats, Dean calls for a large increase -- in his case a doubling -- in spending on homeland security, along with renewed efforts to reduce American dependence on oil from the Middle East.

But in its sweeping opposition to military action in Iraq, Dean's speech widens his distance not only from Bush but also from his principal rivals for the 2004 Democratic nomination.

Dean's resistance to war has helped him gain a foothold in the Democratic race -- especially in Iowa, where hostility among party activists toward Bush's course is overwhelming.

In his remarks, Dean says again that he would not have voted for last fall's congressional resolution authorizing the use of force, contending that "many" in his party who backed it "postured for position instead of standing on principle."

Of the Democrats who have taken steps toward a presidential candidacy in 2004, the four from Congress -- Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John F. Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri -- all voted for the resolution. Like Dean, civil rights activist Al Sharpton opposes war.

Dean says he shares the Bush administration's insistence that "Saddam Hussein must disarm." But he argues that launching a war to disarm him, especially without broad international support, could pose unacceptable risks.

Key among the dangers, Dean says, is perilous urban combat for American troops, high levels of Iraqi civilian casualties and the risk that the U.S. invasion "will fuel the fires of international terror" by breeding resentments that help Al Qaeda enlist recruits.

Given the resentment among Arab radicals of the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, Dean says, "we need to consider what the effect will be of a U.S. invasion and occupation of Baghdad, a city that served for centuries as a capital of the Islamic world."

Dean says he would be willing to use U.S. forces unilaterally against Iraq "if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred."

But he argues that the administration has not showed evidence of that level of risk and should therefore rely on enhanced inspections for the indefinite future.

Inspectors should report back on their progress to the United Nations every 30 or 60 days, he says, "so we can assess whether to continue [that] course or take tougher action."

In the address, Dean also calls on Bush to offer North Korea a new diplomatic bargain to defuse the crisis over its nuclear weapons program.

In return for North Korea restoring international monitoring of fuel rods that can be used to develop nuclear weapons and suspending tests of long-range missiles, Dean says, the U.S. should pledge "to take no military action" against North Korea and resume direct high-level talks.

"The discussions should be wide-ranging and designed to give North Korea a chance to reduce its isolation and begin moving in the direction of a normal society," Dean says.

The administration has opposed such direct talks, arguing they would reward North Korea for restarting its nuclear program.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 08:34 PM   #10
Refugee
 
follower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Porto Alegre/Brasil
Posts: 2,302
Local Time: 03:14 PM

I know this thread is a US domestic issue but there is something I would like to ask you. Itīs about your political system.

Why do you have this bi-partisan regime there in US? What would be the reasons for that? Why donīt you have more parties, a more diverse system?

Iīm not criticising it, Iīm just curious. If someone can enlighten me, it would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.
__________________
follower is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 09:42 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 12:14 PM
bi-partisan systems are a good thing. that way, the extreme left or extreme right will never have all the power.

why don't we have more parties? well, that's a good question. it mainly has to do with funding. in order to run for president or national senator or representative, you have to have tons of money (or so the thought is). the republican and democratic parties have millions of dollars a piece. having third, fourth, and fifth parties would be good for options, but would take away from democratic and republican representation in the government. so a bill was passed saying that any third party (any party that isn't republican or democrat) must receive more than 5% of a popular vote in a major general election before they receive any federal money to run for office.

there are some states with more third party participation than others. minnesota has a strong independent party following, as evidenced by our last governor jesse ventura who ran as a reform party candidate and switched to being an independent.

someday we'll have more third party participation i hope.
__________________
Lilly is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 11:44 PM   #12
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 11:14 AM
I cant believe there is actually laws deterreing a third party. Thats crazy. How could you say that its good. I understand that a party with way left or right ideas would be limited but if a party were to be out in office they would be under the votes of its people. In Canada we have many parties but only one usually gets into Federal office, the Liberals, and no Liberals doesnt mean being Liberal.
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 11:50 PM   #13
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lilly
bi-partisan systems are a good thing. that way, the extreme left or extreme right will never have all the power.
Lilly, the bi-partisan system may be a good thing, but my feeling is that the two parties in power are both irrelevant to most Americans.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 02-18-2003, 06:28 AM   #14
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 06:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by follower
Why do you have this bi-partisan regime there in US? What would be the reasons for that? Why donīt you have more parties, a more diverse system?
There is an argument that a presidential system of government is likely to always produce a two party system, whereas a parliamentary system is likely to produce a multi-party system. Then again, whether a country uses proportional representation in its elections also makes a difference.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 02-18-2003, 06:37 AM   #15
Refugee
 
follower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Porto Alegre/Brasil
Posts: 2,302
Local Time: 03:14 PM
Thank you Lilly. I was thinking more of historical reasons, maybe something you inherited from your colonizers, the british. If Iīm not wrong they have had a bi-partisan system there as well. I didnīt know it was all settled by an especific law, either I knew there were States with representative participation of a third party.

You may be right about this particular arrrangement avoiding the rising of extremes. But, based on what I know now, people end up having few choices with this system, donīt you think? I mean, if they donīt agree with the ideas of democrats neither republicans what would they do? Would they have to finance a new party themselves, making it a fight between David and Golias? Wouldnīt be that the reason for the lack of interest in the elections there, with abstention and all? At least, itīs what I have read.
__________________

__________________
follower is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ÂĐ Interference.com