The Town Hall Archives

Jared · Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:06 pm Post subject:

IL_Queen,

Dictionaries are made for a purpose. It means, though, that he could not be trusted on things. He doesn't stand firm on issues but instead could change his mind... wouldn't make a stand on tough issues, etc. However, I see him more as standing firm on the wrong things than not taking a stand.

Ferder,

When I think of your Prime Minister Chretein, I'm always struck by the resemblence to the word "cretin." Rude? Absolutely... Oh well.

Actually, he's a very smart man, I'm sure. Just wrong.

Anyways, the U.S. have had Presidents just as bad, if not worse, than your PM...

Top Crusader,

I prefer the Constitutional method used now: the electoral college. It's an important part of our system and provides a balance such that a stronghold of a single view in one area (candidate's home state, or an ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative area in one location, etc.) doesn't have as much sway. This also puts the final outcome into the hands of people, meaning that if something terrible would come out about the assumed president-elect, etc., the electors have the right to change their vote.

It sounds terrible, ignoring the "will of the people," but it isn't necessarily all that bad. It's a safegaurd, and considering the fact that the electors are chosen by the party of the candidate that is expected to receive a state's vote, it's one that would only be invoked in the most dire of circumstances. But it's a good thing that it's there.

There are other reasons as well, but I admit that I am no expert on them... Read someone else's work on it (shouldn't be hard to find). But I believe it's the best system for America.

smurfs · Guest

Thanks for explaining that to me Jarad!! and in a way you helped me with my world history report !!!! thanks agein.

SNOOZIE · Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2003 3:57 am Post subject:

as far as i'm concerned if the guys gonna pass bills that make it legal to murder babies inside the womb he shouldn't be president

Jared · Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2003 7:22 am Post subject:

Well, Gore wasn't going to pass pro-abortion bills. There was no need to... the Supreme Court took care of that thirty years ago.

The difference is, Gore would never support any measures to put any sort of ban on the horrible practice; Bush has promised to sign into law a ban on partial birth abortion and will (hopefully) appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court.

SNOOZIE · Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2003 6:01 pm Post subject:

exactly my point