verte76
Blue Crack Addict
nbcrusader said:
Oh, of course. Our comments were just to point out that these standards are not exactly universal.
Question for Americans
- Thread starter intedomine
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Oh, of course. Our comments were just to point out that these standards are not exactly universal.
~*Buffalo*~
War Child
melon said:
I wish I was an American so I could vote against Bush for all the reasons you stated.
Danospano,
The current unemployment rate of 5.6% is less than at any time during Clintons first 3 years in office and is continuing to drop. The economy is growing at a rate well above 4% and economist predict it will average nearly 5% growth in 2004. Bush was handed an economy that was already headed towards recession and has turned it around.
Here are the current unemployment rates of 15 Industrialized countries:
Switzerland 4.3%
Austria 4.6%
United Kingdom 4.9%
Japan 4.9%
Sweden 5.1%
United States 5.6%
Australia 5.7%
Netherlands 5.7%
Denmark 6.6%
Canada 7.4%
Italy 8.4%
Euro Area 8.8%
France 9.7%
Germany 10.2%
Spain 11.2%
Belgium 12.9%
The Unemployment rates were reported in the latest issue of the Economist.
The current unemployment rate of 5.6% is less than at any time during Clintons first 3 years in office and is continuing to drop. The economy is growing at a rate well above 4% and economist predict it will average nearly 5% growth in 2004. Bush was handed an economy that was already headed towards recession and has turned it around.
Here are the current unemployment rates of 15 Industrialized countries:
Switzerland 4.3%
Austria 4.6%
United Kingdom 4.9%
Japan 4.9%
Sweden 5.1%
United States 5.6%
Australia 5.7%
Netherlands 5.7%
Denmark 6.6%
Canada 7.4%
Italy 8.4%
Euro Area 8.8%
France 9.7%
Germany 10.2%
Spain 11.2%
Belgium 12.9%
The Unemployment rates were reported in the latest issue of the Economist.
Okay, Sting2. I believe your statistics, but I have questions.
1) Have 2 million jobs NOT been lost since Bush took office?
2) What is the average hourly wage of the new jobs he recently "created"? I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of these new jobs wouldn't support one person let alone a family of four. In virtually all of the top 15 industrialized nations you mentioned a man or woman could theoretically support his or her family with a single job. Even if Bush created another 5 million jobs, would they pay more than $7 per hour and supply medical insurance to their families? Considering most of those countries have universal health care, I'd say you have to factor that into the equation.
3) You state that the economy is growing at a rate of 4-5% by year's end. Could the economy return high earnings to stockholders yet return little else concerning jobs? That seems to be the case, does it not?
I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I'd really like to know how you ignored these facts if they are relevant to the debate?
1) Have 2 million jobs NOT been lost since Bush took office?
2) What is the average hourly wage of the new jobs he recently "created"? I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of these new jobs wouldn't support one person let alone a family of four. In virtually all of the top 15 industrialized nations you mentioned a man or woman could theoretically support his or her family with a single job. Even if Bush created another 5 million jobs, would they pay more than $7 per hour and supply medical insurance to their families? Considering most of those countries have universal health care, I'd say you have to factor that into the equation.
3) You state that the economy is growing at a rate of 4-5% by year's end. Could the economy return high earnings to stockholders yet return little else concerning jobs? That seems to be the case, does it not?
I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I'd really like to know how you ignored these facts if they are relevant to the debate?
najeena
War Child
I think that all the people who felt betrayed by what happened in 2000 will show up to vote. Every one. And they'll make sure that their friends and family do too. Bush is in trouble, and I sure hope he stays there.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
najeena said:
I think there is a kind of intensity about the Democrats that I sure as hell didn't feel in 2000. 2000 was a "feel-good" era-election, and due to a number of factors, mainly 9/11, 2004 is anything but a "feel good" era campaign. The tension is palpable now, whereas it was almost non-existent in 2000.
Danospano,
"1) Have 2 million jobs NOT been lost since Bush took office?"
Yep, but people have also become self employed or have been rehired in other fields. Unemployment was at 6.4% in the Summer of 2003. After 6 months, Bush has been able to cut that unemployment rate by nearly a full percentage point.
"2) What is the average hourly wage of the new jobs he recently "created"? I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of these new jobs wouldn't support one person let alone a family of four. In virtually all of the top 15 industrialized nations you mentioned a man or woman could theoretically support his or her family with a single job. Even if Bush created another 5 million jobs, would they pay more than $7 per hour and supply medical insurance to their families? Considering most of those countries have universal health care, I'd say you have to factor that into the equation."
In the UN measure of standard of living across the world for 2003, "The Human Development Index", which considers all of the factors you mentioned above PLUS many others, the United States came in at #7 in the world. Thats right, the United States has the #7 standard of living in the world in 2003 according to most extensive and sophisticated study on that issue.
Here are the countries with the top 30 standards of living in the world:
1 Norway
2 Iceland
3 Sweden
4 Australia
5 Netherlands
6 Belgium
7 United States
8 Canada
9 Japan
10 Switzerland
11 Denmark
12 Ireland
13 United Kingdom
14 Finland
15 Luxembourg
16 Austria
17 France
18 Germany
19 Spain
20 New Zealand
21 Italy
22 Israel
23 Portugal
24 Greece
25 Cyprus
26 Hong Kong, China (SAR)
27 Barbados
28 Singapore
29 Slovenia
30 Korea, Rep. of
"3) You state that the economy is growing at a rate of 4-5% by year's end. Could the economy return high earnings to stockholders yet return little else concerning jobs? That seems to be the case, does it not?"
Actually the economy is already growing at a rate that is over 4% as we speak and will potentially average as much as 5% in growth through out 2004. It is impossible for the economy to continue to sustain such a high rate of growth without hiring more workers. Just look at what happened in the 1990s. By 1999, the United States was suffering such a labor shortage that companies were trying to hire students in Europe to come over for the summer and work. The labor shortage eventually caused so much wage pressure that inflation started to rise. What was the unemployment level that caused all this? It was around 4%. Were currently at 5.6% and dropping. 4% is not far off and is the lowest unemployment rate the country has ever experienced.
"1) Have 2 million jobs NOT been lost since Bush took office?"
Yep, but people have also become self employed or have been rehired in other fields. Unemployment was at 6.4% in the Summer of 2003. After 6 months, Bush has been able to cut that unemployment rate by nearly a full percentage point.
"2) What is the average hourly wage of the new jobs he recently "created"? I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of these new jobs wouldn't support one person let alone a family of four. In virtually all of the top 15 industrialized nations you mentioned a man or woman could theoretically support his or her family with a single job. Even if Bush created another 5 million jobs, would they pay more than $7 per hour and supply medical insurance to their families? Considering most of those countries have universal health care, I'd say you have to factor that into the equation."
In the UN measure of standard of living across the world for 2003, "The Human Development Index", which considers all of the factors you mentioned above PLUS many others, the United States came in at #7 in the world. Thats right, the United States has the #7 standard of living in the world in 2003 according to most extensive and sophisticated study on that issue.
Here are the countries with the top 30 standards of living in the world:
1 Norway
2 Iceland
3 Sweden
4 Australia
5 Netherlands
6 Belgium
7 United States
8 Canada
9 Japan
10 Switzerland
11 Denmark
12 Ireland
13 United Kingdom
14 Finland
15 Luxembourg
16 Austria
17 France
18 Germany
19 Spain
20 New Zealand
21 Italy
22 Israel
23 Portugal
24 Greece
25 Cyprus
26 Hong Kong, China (SAR)
27 Barbados
28 Singapore
29 Slovenia
30 Korea, Rep. of
"3) You state that the economy is growing at a rate of 4-5% by year's end. Could the economy return high earnings to stockholders yet return little else concerning jobs? That seems to be the case, does it not?"
Actually the economy is already growing at a rate that is over 4% as we speak and will potentially average as much as 5% in growth through out 2004. It is impossible for the economy to continue to sustain such a high rate of growth without hiring more workers. Just look at what happened in the 1990s. By 1999, the United States was suffering such a labor shortage that companies were trying to hire students in Europe to come over for the summer and work. The labor shortage eventually caused so much wage pressure that inflation started to rise. What was the unemployment level that caused all this? It was around 4%. Were currently at 5.6% and dropping. 4% is not far off and is the lowest unemployment rate the country has ever experienced.
1) You neglected to account for the individuals who are not included in the unemployment index, because they've given up on looking for work. If 7 million people are qualified as unemployed that means that 7 million have applied for either welfare, unemployment, or other programs that classify them as such. If someone whose been without work and doesn't see likihood of landed a job, they often quite showing up to the unemployment office. Therefore, 7 million would traslate to roughly 9-10 million unemployed. If you need proof of this scenerio, I'll dig it up for you.
2) The average worker in Germany, France, Canada, Spain, Italy, and Britain gets a month of vacation per year.
Need I mention universal health care?
Need I mention that most European countries average work week consists of no more than 35 hours per week?
You seem to be equating quality of life to how much MONEY a person produces. Health, in my opinon, is the most significant aspect of life when refering to quality. These other countries have us beat by a mile.
3) I don't claim to believe everything I've heard on the corporately owned media, but I've heard the phrase "jobless recovery" thrown around quite a bit in the last few months. Now, don't these people usually trumpted good fiscal news? Wouldn't the fact that they're trumpting bad news, make that news inescapable, and therefore 99% fool-proof?
The stock market went from nearly 6,000 points to nearly 11,000 points. It nearly doubled, yet the number of jobs increased by a paultry 200,000 or so? That spells one of two things, and the only option is denial on your part.
2) The average worker in Germany, France, Canada, Spain, Italy, and Britain gets a month of vacation per year.
Need I mention universal health care?
Need I mention that most European countries average work week consists of no more than 35 hours per week?
You seem to be equating quality of life to how much MONEY a person produces. Health, in my opinon, is the most significant aspect of life when refering to quality. These other countries have us beat by a mile.
3) I don't claim to believe everything I've heard on the corporately owned media, but I've heard the phrase "jobless recovery" thrown around quite a bit in the last few months. Now, don't these people usually trumpted good fiscal news? Wouldn't the fact that they're trumpting bad news, make that news inescapable, and therefore 99% fool-proof?
The stock market went from nearly 6,000 points to nearly 11,000 points. It nearly doubled, yet the number of jobs increased by a paultry 200,000 or so? That spells one of two things, and the only option is denial on your part.
TylerDurden
War Child
Pfft... Norway/Iceland/Sweden ahead of Australia? Only if you prefer the freezing cold over barbeques, beer and the beach I guess. 
Melon, nice summary of Bush. That is exactly the way he is seen by 99.99% of the world outside the US. It is seen as simply amazing that someone like that could be voted in once. It's the 2000's.
For those asking more about the Australian elections...
Yes you can do what is called a 'donkey' vote, show up, get your named ticked off and then just scribble "F*ck capitalism!" on the ballot paper and walk out without actually voting for anybody. That's your "I don't care for any of the candidates" vote and a very, very small % of votes count as "donkey" votes (remember genuine accidental mistakes that 'ruin' the ballot count as donkey votes as well).
The truth is, it's not hard to get out of doing compulsory voting here either. If you don't show, you get a letter asking why, and threatening the fine (about the same level as a parking fine). All you have to say is something like "religious reasons" and it's cool. But still, the point is, we have probably 95% voting compared to the US at, what, 30%? People do put more thought into it.
Melon, nice summary of Bush. That is exactly the way he is seen by 99.99% of the world outside the US. It is seen as simply amazing that someone like that could be voted in once. It's the 2000's.
For those asking more about the Australian elections...
Yes you can do what is called a 'donkey' vote, show up, get your named ticked off and then just scribble "F*ck capitalism!" on the ballot paper and walk out without actually voting for anybody. That's your "I don't care for any of the candidates" vote and a very, very small % of votes count as "donkey" votes (remember genuine accidental mistakes that 'ruin' the ballot count as donkey votes as well).
The truth is, it's not hard to get out of doing compulsory voting here either. If you don't show, you get a letter asking why, and threatening the fine (about the same level as a parking fine). All you have to say is something like "religious reasons" and it's cool. But still, the point is, we have probably 95% voting compared to the US at, what, 30%? People do put more thought into it.
Danospano,
"1) You neglected to account for the individuals who are not included in the unemployment index, because they've given up on looking for work. If 7 million people are qualified as unemployed that means that 7 million have applied for either welfare, unemployment, or other programs that classify them as such. If someone whose been without work and doesn't see likihood of landed a job, they often quite showing up to the unemployment office. Therefore, 7 million would traslate to roughly 9-10 million unemployed. If you need proof of this scenerio, I'll dig it up for you."
I know what it is, Longterm Unemployment. The UNDP has statistics on this and the USA is lower than most European country's when it comes to Longterm Unemployment.
"2) The average worker in Germany, France, Canada, Spain, Italy, and Britain gets a month of vacation per year.
Need I mention universal health care?
Need I mention that most European countries average work week consists of no more than 35 hours per week?
You seem to be equating quality of life to how much MONEY a person produces. Health, in my opinon, is the most significant aspect of life when refering to quality. These other countries have us beat by a mile."
The United Nations statistics on Standard of living are not simply based on MONEY! MONEY is only one factor out of nearly a hundred that they consider.
Healthcare is a major factor in the statistics but not the only one. Education is another big one. When all these statisitcs are considered together, the United States currently has a standard of living that is #7 in the world! Higher than Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, France, or Ireland.
"3) I don't claim to believe everything I've heard on the corporately owned media, but I've heard the phrase "jobless recovery" thrown around quite a bit in the last few months. Now, don't these people usually trumpted good fiscal news? Wouldn't the fact that they're trumpting bad news, make that news inescapable, and therefore 99% fool-proof?
The stock market went from nearly 6,000 points to nearly 11,000 points. It nearly doubled, yet the number of jobs increased by a paultry 200,000 or so? That spells one of two things, and the only option is denial on your part."
I'm not the one in denial. Unemployment is a LAGGING INDICATOR of economic growth. Simply go to the last recession the USA had back in 1991 and study the economic growth rates and the time it took for job growth to catch up to the growth rate.
The Unemployment rate has dropped by a full precentage point over the past 6 months, not good news for Democrats. It will also continue to drop throughout 2004 as economic growth continues. Good for American citizens, bad for Democratic candidates running for President.
"1) You neglected to account for the individuals who are not included in the unemployment index, because they've given up on looking for work. If 7 million people are qualified as unemployed that means that 7 million have applied for either welfare, unemployment, or other programs that classify them as such. If someone whose been without work and doesn't see likihood of landed a job, they often quite showing up to the unemployment office. Therefore, 7 million would traslate to roughly 9-10 million unemployed. If you need proof of this scenerio, I'll dig it up for you."
I know what it is, Longterm Unemployment. The UNDP has statistics on this and the USA is lower than most European country's when it comes to Longterm Unemployment.
"2) The average worker in Germany, France, Canada, Spain, Italy, and Britain gets a month of vacation per year.
Need I mention universal health care?
Need I mention that most European countries average work week consists of no more than 35 hours per week?
You seem to be equating quality of life to how much MONEY a person produces. Health, in my opinon, is the most significant aspect of life when refering to quality. These other countries have us beat by a mile."
The United Nations statistics on Standard of living are not simply based on MONEY! MONEY is only one factor out of nearly a hundred that they consider.
Healthcare is a major factor in the statistics but not the only one. Education is another big one. When all these statisitcs are considered together, the United States currently has a standard of living that is #7 in the world! Higher than Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, France, or Ireland.
"3) I don't claim to believe everything I've heard on the corporately owned media, but I've heard the phrase "jobless recovery" thrown around quite a bit in the last few months. Now, don't these people usually trumpted good fiscal news? Wouldn't the fact that they're trumpting bad news, make that news inescapable, and therefore 99% fool-proof?
The stock market went from nearly 6,000 points to nearly 11,000 points. It nearly doubled, yet the number of jobs increased by a paultry 200,000 or so? That spells one of two things, and the only option is denial on your part."
I'm not the one in denial. Unemployment is a LAGGING INDICATOR of economic growth. Simply go to the last recession the USA had back in 1991 and study the economic growth rates and the time it took for job growth to catch up to the growth rate.
The Unemployment rate has dropped by a full precentage point over the past 6 months, not good news for Democrats. It will also continue to drop throughout 2004 as economic growth continues. Good for American citizens, bad for Democratic candidates running for President.
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
melon said:
And I think Kerry can beat Bush. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
joyfulgirl said:
And I think Kerry can beat Bush. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Me too.
Lilac
The Fly
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2004
- Messages
- 231
Do any of you really like him and trust him or is it just the 'anybody but Bush' thing? Well, you all have your reasons. But me, I can't force myself to pull the lever for a man who approves of the slaughter of the unborn (for reasons other than rape and incest and health) That's my cause. Abortion is not a 'choice' any more than it's a 'choice' to shoot somebody in tthe head. It's cold blooded, premeditated murder and I won't vote for anyone who supports it. But unlike the rest of you, I don't believe in the 'anybody but' thing because it's a stupid and irresponisible way to choose your next leader. So I will sit home on election day and ignore the TV and give up on this nation.
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
Lilac said:
I can't speak for anyone else, but personally although I don't like Kerry as much as some of the democrats who were trying to get the nomination, but I think he would be an awful lot better than Bush. People who are saying "anyone but Bush" aren't just saying it because they have a vague dislike of Bush, there are many people who feel that he's made enormous mistakes since taking office and are scared of what he'll do if he gets another four years.
Besides, it isn't literally anyone but Bush. As much as I dislike what he's done, if he were standing against a fascist then I'd actually vote for him in order to keep someone who would be worse out. (Of course that's completely hypothetical since I don't even live in the US!) It's just that for many people, Bush has been such a disaster as President that virtually any Democratic nominee would be better than him.
I know what you mean about feeling so strongly about an issue that you couldn't support a candidate who you disagreed with. Right now I feel like that about university funding, which is a really big issues where I live. No matter how much I agree with a candidate on other issues, if they voted to stop people from less well-off backgrounds going to university then I can't bring myself to support them.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Some people do have such strong feelings about a particular issue that they can't vote for anyone who disagrees with them about this. For many people it's abortion. For some people it's their particular position on Iraq, either pro or con Bush policies. For some it's gay rights. And then there are some who really think Bush is not good for this country and they believe Kerry will be better. Some Democrats out there preferred Wesley Clark or Dick Gephardt but since both of these candidates have endorsed Kerry so will they. Some diehard Kucinich supporters won't switch to Kerry and will probably write in Kucinich in November. Political persuasions are like colors, everyone has colors they like and colors they can't stand. It's all in the eyes of the beholder--or the voter.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Lilac said:
Thanks for the sermon, but I think it irresponsible to vote on a canidate based only upon one issue.
Especially when it is an issue that both a GOP President and a GOP Congress are still no closer to eliminating than any past president. It's an issue that they pander to the religious right with, nothing more and nothing less.
Melon
Melon
Lilac
The Fly
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2004
- Messages
- 231
Melon, you're right, I have noticed that myself. All of you make good points and I thank you for being so nice about it. I was afraid to post my views because I didn't want to get flamed. But I don't see any candidates I trust who deserve to win. In a country of 270 million what a disgrace
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Lilac said:Melon, you're right, I have noticed that myself. All of you make good points and I thank you for being so nice about it. I was afraid to post my views because I didn't want to get flamed. But I don't see any candidates I trust who deserve to win. In a country of 270 million what a disgrace
You shouldn't be afraid to get flamed. I *try* not to flame people just because of honest beliefs, even if I don't agree. I'm not perfect, therefore I'll post the (at least) occasional stupid note. It's not right to flame people for an honest and well-informed opinion, including those with which I do not agree. I just f
d up big time. I try not to do it, honest!
RademR
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I have no political party preference because I'm not really a political person, but my dislike for George Bush has made me somewhat of one during election year. Kerry is a solid Democratic candidate, and he will make the race very interesting. However, is it enough to beat Bush? A lot of people disdain Bush but people dont mention that he has $$$$, he has a record amount of campaign finances from contributions, etc. (from wealthy companies..coincidences?). And he has a lot of the upper class on his side because his economic plan only favors them so thats a problem because wealth plays a huge role in everything important in this world.
I think Kerry can win, people just have to go out and vote. I'm a Dutch citizen but I've been living in Washington DC for 8 years and I cant vote, but it's Kerry for 2004!
It's amazing to me that Clinton got more bad press for lying about sexual encounters with a younger women then a president who lied about why we should invade a country. There are no WMD, Saddam was a D**ck who deserves to serve a life sentence in jail and then in hell, but you didnt hear about him 10 years after the gulf war until we invaded Afghanistan and then he was a big problem again suddenly. I believe we could have taken the billions of dollars we're spending in Iraq every month and helped our economy out a little bit instead of fighting a war which we find out had no concrete basis, which costs our country the lives of hundreds of 18 and 19 year olds every week.
And the best excuse Bush uses for this war now is Saddam is a bad man and the world is a better place, thats why we invaded Iraq. Well, how about in Africa where thousands of people get slaughtered in some countries for no good reason, how come thats not on the presidential agenda? $$$$$ maybe? Go into those countries and get rid of those bad men if its so important to you, and give some money to Bono while you're at it to drop the debt.
I like to consider myself an American, even though I'm Dutch and Amsterdam will always be my hometown. It's sad to go back home to Europe and have a lot of the public disliking Americans because Americans are awesome people that are just represented poorly sometimes by the goverment's foreign policies and actions. Some light should go off in our heads when the WHOLE WORLD doesnt want you to do something. The sad thing is I supported Bush in 2000, I thought he would have made a good president, but he let me down. Damn, I guess I am a political person.....
I think Kerry can win, people just have to go out and vote. I'm a Dutch citizen but I've been living in Washington DC for 8 years and I cant vote, but it's Kerry for 2004!
It's amazing to me that Clinton got more bad press for lying about sexual encounters with a younger women then a president who lied about why we should invade a country. There are no WMD, Saddam was a D**ck who deserves to serve a life sentence in jail and then in hell, but you didnt hear about him 10 years after the gulf war until we invaded Afghanistan and then he was a big problem again suddenly. I believe we could have taken the billions of dollars we're spending in Iraq every month and helped our economy out a little bit instead of fighting a war which we find out had no concrete basis, which costs our country the lives of hundreds of 18 and 19 year olds every week.
And the best excuse Bush uses for this war now is Saddam is a bad man and the world is a better place, thats why we invaded Iraq. Well, how about in Africa where thousands of people get slaughtered in some countries for no good reason, how come thats not on the presidential agenda? $$$$$ maybe? Go into those countries and get rid of those bad men if its so important to you, and give some money to Bono while you're at it to drop the debt.
I like to consider myself an American, even though I'm Dutch and Amsterdam will always be my hometown. It's sad to go back home to Europe and have a lot of the public disliking Americans because Americans are awesome people that are just represented poorly sometimes by the goverment's foreign policies and actions. Some light should go off in our heads when the WHOLE WORLD doesnt want you to do something. The sad thing is I supported Bush in 2000, I thought he would have made a good president, but he let me down. Damn, I guess I am a political person.....
najeena
War Child
I truly didn't care about politics until my husband got me interested. Now, it's too important to ignore. I hated to see Bush weasel his way into office, and seeing what he's done while there makes my blood run cold. We must see Kerry into office, or I fear we'll be regretting it for a long, long time. Get out and vote, dammit! Get your friends and neighbors, too.
IT'S UP TO US
IT'S UP TO US
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
Lilac said:All of you make good points and I thank you for being so nice about it. I was afraid to post my views because I didn't want to get flamed. But I don't see any candidates I trust who deserve to win. In a country of 270 million what a disgrace
I'm glad you posted what you think - it'd be a boring forum if people couldn't do that. I think most of us try to avoid "flaming" people because of what they honestly believe. Sure it's different when you get idiots like LipstickGuy who things just to be provocative, but if someone is just posting their honest and well-informed opinion then I don't see why they should get flamed for it.
Sherry Darling
New Yorker
najeena said:
Word to your mother!
sd
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
Lilac said:Melon, you're right, I have noticed that myself. All of you make good points and I thank you for being so nice about it. I was afraid to post my views because I didn't want to get flamed. But I don't see any candidates I trust who deserve to win. In a country of 270 million what a disgrace
This is part of the reason why I reckon America should have compulsory voting. With the knowledge that 270 million people are forced to come to vote, whether it is kicking and screaming, or skipping eagerly, it will bring out more of a choice and force your country's leaders to be more accountable in a way. Someone in here once said a non vote speaks volumes. I agree with that to an extent, but what if you misread the silence in lack of support? And so what, if you can weed out those who are then forced to listen to what the majority of 270 million people want isn't that better?
And PS, Tyler, the fine itself is only about $50 for not voting, but the legal costs make it about $550 by the time you're done not voting. If anyone chooses not to, they really need a darn good reason!
Celticfc
Acrobat
Bush & Kerry both members of the satanic Skull & Bones aka the order of death.
Doesnt matter who gets in , it will be more of the same.
If no one knows what skull & bones is, do a search online, very scary stuff.
Doesnt matter who gets in , it will be more of the same.
If no one knows what skull & bones is, do a search online, very scary stuff.
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
Here's a link to a story Amy Goodman did on this on Democracy Now:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-10.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-10.htm
meegannie
Blue Crack Addict
That's screaming to be Photoshopped.
intedomine
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
One of the reason we still got the dangerous howard down here as our "democratic dictator" is I believe a rsuslt of compulosry voting.
You get a lotta people voting who don't really care who wins and who loses, but feel obligated to make their vote a legitimate one, and more often than not, opt for the conservative option of sticking with their current leader. This is often because they have limited knowldege about what impact the current government has had on the country during their leadership term. (Eg, those who dont know what the whole children overboard business was about and the whole Peter Reith scandal.
You get a lotta people voting who don't really care who wins and who loses, but feel obligated to make their vote a legitimate one, and more often than not, opt for the conservative option of sticking with their current leader. This is often because they have limited knowldege about what impact the current government has had on the country during their leadership term. (Eg, those who dont know what the whole children overboard business was about and the whole Peter Reith scandal.
Similar threads
- Sticky
Latest posts
-
-
3 Irishmen and a Dutchman Walk Into A Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part III
- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
-
-
Hello everyone I'm years late but at least I've found you now!!
- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
-
-
-
