Thinking W worked!

Thats cool, I didn't know because I stopped keeping track a long time ago.
rolleyes.gif
I'm glad its over, 'cause this got beyond ridiculous.

------------------
Dave

My collection
 
It's not over until the electoral committee declares it. Bush is not out President yet and it's amuzing how he *humbly* flatters himself in today's address. So far, in the AP news, Gore does not plan to concede yet but take up the recount issues in court tomorrow. I believe he deserves to, since he has the overwhelming majority in the popular vote. He has a 300,000 vote lead over Bush nation wide in the popular vote (a lead that hasn't been surpassed since the race between Reagan and Mondale). Secondly, the recount in one of the three counties, palmdale, has not even been done.

If the electoral-voting process was not the key deciding factor in electing a candidate, Gore would be our new President right now. In my opinion, it is Bush who is stealing this election!

-Howdy
 
We have to use an electoral college because if we did not, states with larger populations would decide the president. It is the only fair method currently available. I aggree that it's not the best one but until a better one comes around, it's what we've got. I personally don't want one state with a large population (NY, Texas, California) to decide who is going to be president for the entire United States. Everyone can complain about the way things are but I see very few people actually becoming active and trying to change it. As always, actions speak louder than words.
 
Either way, it's still unfair. Because of the electoral vote, the candidates didn't even bother to make their presense known here in CA or other major city/states.

Something needs to be done. It's clear that the majority does not want Bush in office.

Rethink "w"
smile.gif


-Howdy
 
The majority of people that bothered to vote want gore but the majority of states want Bush. All the population numbers mean is that if there is one state that favors Gore that has a population of 5 million, These people, being from the same state and living under the same state govt, feel the same way.
Yet if there are 5 smaller states with a total population of 4.5 million, what you are saying is that the one state with 5 million people, over rules the other 5 states. If we were to go to a president based on individual votes, the president would be decided by California and Newyork. The florida counties work the same way. There was more than 2 times the number of counties for Bush than for Gore. The counties for Gore were counties with large populations. I don't understand why they say that republicans are all rich people. It seems that the wealthiest states went to Gore, while the "poor" states (and counties in Florida) went to Bush.
 

Hi! I'm a newcomer around these parts. I have a question though, why is it you Americans like Bush so much? What I've heard up here is that he's racist and anti-semitic. Or is what I'm hearing hogwash?
 
BaliLover, bottom line is this: Gore won overwhelmingly the majority vote and is within one half of one percent with Bush on the electoral vote. This has to say something, does it not?

Well I wouldn't go so far as calling Bush racist. But he is an interesting character: tortured small animals for fun as a kid, DUI, AWOL in the military. It's going to be an interesting 4 years if he wins. Im willing to bet he will make Clinton look like a saint!
smile.gif


Im not Republican (nor Democrat) by nature, but I would feel *much* more comfortable if Chenney held the office (instead of babysit it
smile.gif
)

-Howdy

 
Bakedpotato82,

You are most certainly hearing hogwash. I don't ever remember anyone saying that Bush was racist. I've heard him called lots of things but racist was not among them.

And what Cpt. Howdy failed to mention was that getting drunk and taking an unscheduled vacation from the military is much more evil than screwing all the women that work for you and lying about it, here in the US.

Furthermore, much of America seems to like Gore better. It's only the Bladeforums that favors Bush overwhelmingly because we know that he will protect freedom and not diminish it. Gore is very anti-gun and as soon as guns are out of the way, knives are in the spotlight. That's what scares many of us.

Then, there is the problem of Gore and his supporters having the morals of a dog in heat, but I won't go into that.
 
"Think W" because you're afraid to lose the "right" to carry your knives? Come on, people, are balisongs ALL you care about? I live in Massachusetts where the laws prohibit even OWNing a butterfly knife let alone carrying one. But I used to live in Oregon where they're legal. I certainly don't want the rest of our nation to be like Oregon and Texas. And trust me, you don't either. Or maybe you do...but you certainly wouldn't if you had some sense of what is important in life. I don't mean to be disrespectful but your reasoning is ludicrous.
 
I think people base their political choices on a lot more than whether or not I can put my knife in my pocket when I leave the house. However, considering that you are in the BALISONG forum in BLADE Forums, knives and particularly bali's are one of the main topics of discussion. You should really consider the context of where the discussion is before you sound off the way you did.
Tique

Had to add my think W

[This message has been edited by tique (edited 11-27-2000).]
 
I agree, this is a balisong forum. If you want your message signature to represent a politician I think thats fine but I don't think we need to have post concerning politics (Except state laws) in this forum. They just go around in circles and have little or nothing to do with the topic of this forum. Let us get back on track and return to a peaceful forum environment.
 
Originally posted by Nephilim: [B}
...I live in Massachusetts where the laws prohibit even OWNing a butterfly knife let alone carrying one. But I used to live in Oregon where they're legal. I certainly don't want the rest of our nation to be like Oregon and Texas. And trust me, you don't either. Or maybe you do...but you certainly wouldn't if you had some sense of what is important in life. [/B]
Click to expand...

I don't know what you've got against Oregon or Texas, but I've lived in Ohio, NY, Silicon Valley, and Oregon. I'm still in Oregon after 7 years and have no plans to move...

Are you talking about the rather liberal carry laws in TX and OR? If so, I think you're mistaken.. I feel much safer here than NY, OH, or CA, where CCW's were virtually impossible to get...

So to imply that if we don't "get it" the same as you we must not know what's important in life... OK, educate me. I'm 40, have a family, and think Oregon is a pretty good place to be. What about life am I missing???

 
Okay, first off, you are in a balisong forum, we are going to be defensive towards our prizes. Why does living in a state that allows owning a balisong bad? Have you ever taken a look at the figures of crimes and murders committed with balisongs or even tactical folders? Balisongs and autos face strict restrictions not because crimes are often committed with them, but simply because media has projected a negative image towards them. How is any knife more dangerous than another?

"But I used to live in Oregon where they're legal. I certainly don't want the rest of our nation to be like Oregon and Texas. And trust me, you don't either. "

Hmm, how often do you take a step outside and see someone murdered with a balisong? Statistics show most knife related crimes are committed with kitchen knives, but do you ever hear of lawmakers banning kitchen knives? Of course not.

"Or maybe you do...but you certainly wouldn't if you had some sense of what is important in life."

Sure I know what is important in my life, freedom from oppression and my right to my pursuit of happiness.



------------------
Dave

My collection
 
Cmon guys, you're all bashing the only two supporters I have here
smile.gif


I agree, we should keep the discussion to balisongs and knives in general. I just couldn't resist replying to the original thread, which was completely politically based
smile.gif


-Howdy
 
I can see the headlines now:

LES DeASIS DECLARED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!

------------------
Cameron

011.gif
"Look deep, deep inside and you will find a place of anger, vengeance, and brutality. Go there. It is your last hope to conquer the truly wicked."
uriel.gif

A few of my balisongs
My Photopoint album
 
>> is much more evil than screwing all the women that work for you and lying about it

He did not really lie about it. They asked him if he has sex with her and he said no. But in his mind, sex was intercourse, and even though he had a release, he never had intercourse with her. So he did not feel that he had done anything wrong. Just a pitiful case of self justification. Sense she never got her dress cleaned, she had physical biological evidence on him. She claimed that she had not done it on purpose, just had never got around to sending that dress out to the dry cleaners
smile.gif
The problem was, she wanted it to turn into a on going relationship, and he did not seem interested in that. So she confided in a friend of hers for advise on what to do. Her friend advised her to use it to get a good paying job. They even decided a good paying job was something in the $60 - $80,000 range, and that was what Monica did. It was a done deal tell it turned out her friend had taped their phone conversation and turned into a traitor to release the tapes to the press. Needless to say, Monica lost her high paying job and was not a very happy camper. Thanks, JohnR7
 
I knew this topic would end up being a discussion about this, but then I realized that we might as well have it centered in one thread instead of scattered around in others
 
I hate to burst the bubble of a lot of folks, but the details of weapons laws are largely a state matter. Some have suggested that as President, Gov. Bush might advocate a national CHL much as he advocated a state program in Texas. But, keep in mind that we don't even have a national driver's license. The federal government has no authority to create such a thing. (BTW, the reason your driver's license is good in every state is because your state has an agreement with every other state in the union to recongnize each other's driver's licenses. Back in the early days of automobiles, this wasn't true. You needed a separate license for every state. Today, most drivers only need a license in their home state because the states, not the federal government, agreed to recognize each other's licenses. The first step in doing this was to homologize the traffic laws, e.g. to standardize on driving on the right side of the road, stopping for red lights, proceeding on green lights, etc. Tring to homologize weapons laws would be a nightmare that I don't even want to start into, especially with so many state legislatures so narrowly divided.)

This election is not about abortion or "women's rights" or the death penalty or the budget surplus or any other single issue either.

What people don't understand is what the presidential race is all about this year. Al Gore and George Bush are very much alike, actually. Often, on specific issues, it's hard to see daylight between them. This is why the election has come down so close. But, there is one fundamental difference that, IMHO, Gov. Bush was not able to communicate as well as he should have. This election is about the role of the federal government vs. the roll of state and local governments in YOUR life.

Vice President Gore believes in a strong, centralized federal government. Gov. Bush believes in moving decisions, programs, and the money that goes with them, back to state and local governments.

As president, Bush would lower your federal taxes. But, he would also elliminate federal programs. The need for those programs would not go way and neither would the programs. They would be moved back to state and local governements. This would mean that your state and local taxes would go up.

So, what's the gain? Six one way, a half-dozen the other, right?

Wrong. As Governor, I am sure that George Bush Jr. has many times sat in absolute frustration as some federal official who has never even set foot in Texas, who probably can't even find Texas on a map, told him what was right and what was best for Texas.

Gov. Bush believes that state and local governments are more in-touch with the people they serve and will, therefore, do a better job of serving those people. Furthermore, state and local governments have proven again and again that in most cases they can do the same jobs and accomplish the same goals for less money because they simply have lower overhead.

But when you move those decisions, those programs, and the authority and the money that goes with them, back to state and local governments, then the federal government becomes less powerful and the federal government becomes less of a tool that an elite "enlightened" minority can use to force their will and their ideas on the rest of the country. But, isn't that how this country was originally conceived?


Now, this thread has gotten way off topic and it really does belong in a different forum. But, inasmuchas I just made a very strong statement, it would be, to use the popular phrase, "arbitrary and capricious" of me to just close it or move it without allowing for amendments and recounts. So, I'm gonna leave it open for now. Maybe one of our other moderators will decide otherwise.


------------------
Chuck
Balisongs -- because it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing!
http://www.balisongcollector.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top