Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"ian maclure" wrote in message
news

Are you saying that the US isn't a democracy?


Its a Republic.


It's a republic on paper, a democracy in fact.

Hardly. We still elect representatives to do our theft for us. Thus, we
are still a republic.

Ace wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:13:48 -0400, "sanjian"
wrote:

Ace wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:02:24 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

So, by your own admission, in *The Great Democracy*, some people's
votes count, others don't?

When did this great Republic turn into a democracy???

Are you saying that the US isn't a democracy?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

"sanjian" wrote

The big question is why we talk about the popular vote as if it's actually
fully counted.

The big answer is that it is about as fully counted as the census.

Ace wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:19:19 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

But Bush won more states and more counties than Gore.

So some people's votes ate worth more than other's?

Since my vote, and those of many in the military weren't counted, that would
seem to be the case. The current laws in most states allow for absentee
ballots to be discarded if there are fewer ballots than the margin by which
either candidate wins the state.

"sanjian" wrote

Are you saying that the US isn't a democracy?

That's exactly what I'm saying.


What do you call a political system that has a Legislature, a Judiciary,
and an Executive branch of government?

Ace wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:17:11 -0400, "sanjian"
wrote:

Ace wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:19:23 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

It is following the law to adhere to the Constitution.
Conservatives, by definition, do that. Liberals do not.

Oh, I see. Those whose views you don't believe in don't adhere to
the law!?

No, those who do not follow the law do not have views I believe in.

So you are saying that four of the Supreme Court Judges do not follow
the law?

Yep. Now, here's a bit of logic for you (if you can handle it).

Five of the justices ruled one way. Four ruled the exact opposite way. By
definition, one of the two sides ruled against the constitution. All that's
left is to decide which one (which has been shown to be those ruling in
favor of the Fla Supreme Court).

That's the problem with assuming the infallability of public officials...
when they disagree, it's pretty clear that they're fallable.

Leslie Swartz wrote:
Yes, evidence suggests that it is more likely that the ballots thrown
out (primarily, but not exclusively, absentee ballots) would have
trended strongly republican or at least conservative.

However, since they weren't counted, we can never know for certain.
Past studies suggest that ~80% of absentee ballots tossed out would
have gone for Bush.

And since the system grossly undercounts votes for one candidate, it casts
even more doubt apon the validity of the "popular vote."

From: "D. Strang"


If it wasn't flawed, 10,000 lawyers would be out of work.


99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
"ian maclure" wrote:

[snip]

The King granted the US its independence in Paris on 3rd September
1783.

Sorry, wrong.

The king granted nothing, he only admitted to the facts; he no longer
had any realistic say in the issue.

D. Strang wrote:
"sanjian" wrote

Are you saying that the US isn't a democracy?

That's exactly what I'm saying.


What do you call a political system that has a Legislature, a
Judiciary, and an Executive branch of government?

Not necessarily a democracy. If a dictatorial executive appoints his
legislature (or they come from the nobility) and Judiciary, does that make
it a democracy? A democracy is a form of government where the people make
the laws. A democratic government is one where the power is derived from
the people. Seperation of powers has nothing to do with a democratic
govenrment, other than the fact that it is a common feature, much in the
same way that air bags are common features in cars.