If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Yowie"
wrote: "Mathew Kagis" wrote in message news:ZL8Ad.33338$dv1.25241@edtnps89... "Yoj" wrote in message ... "Yowie" wrote in message ... I think South Park summed up politics (of any country) perfectly: "Why should I vote if the choice is between a douche and a sh*t sandwhich?" Those people who did not vote in the same way as you did may not think the person they voted for is great or wonderful or perfect, in fact they way well think he or she is a blithering idiot too, just that out of the two choices (and its always just two choices), that their choice was only just slightly less abhorrent to them than yours was. Yowie I think you've hit the nail on the head, Yowie. Most of us who voted against W felt the same way. I'm sick of voting for the lesser of two evils! It would be so nice to have somebody to vote *for*! Joy Joy: What about Nader? The joys of a preferential system is that you can vote for your most preferred party, knowing that your vote still counts in the two party preferred system. In a preferential system, a vote for a minor party is not a "wasted vote" - in fact it can send a strong message to both of the major parties that many people aren't particular happy with either of them. I gather, however, that the US election system does not employ the preferential voting system. What I understand to be the "preferential" system, in which one lists ones choices in order of preference. and the totals for all candidates in order of preference are published, the single candidate getting the most votes winning, is not used in the US to the best of my knowledge. There are, however, some variations on "winner take all". One method pertains only to Presidential primaries and general elections, and has to do with the peculiarities of the Electoral College. In the system of most states, the majority winner in a state gets, in practice, all the electoral votes of the state. Two states have a different system -- there is no Constitutional requirement for the individual states to allocate their electors in any specific way. Under the US Constitution, each state has two Senate seats (intended to protect the interest of small states) and one or more Congressional district seats (allocated by population). In this alternate method, there is an elector for each Congressional district, who is pledged to the majority winner in that district alone. The two remaining electors are pledged to the winner of the statewide vote. Another system, probably similar to preferential voting, is used in certain local elections, and in some countries outside the US. In general, it is only practical when voting for multiple seats (e.g., on some local council) rather than a single candidate. Assume there are 10 seats on a county council. In proportional voting, a voter would have 10 votes. These could be assigned to ten candidates, one candidate, or any combination. Proportional voting tends to protect minority rights by allowing a relatively small group to cast all their votes for a single candidate. Obviously, it also has the potential of electing some extremist candidates with a small base of very loyal supporters. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
"Sherry " wrote in message
... To sum up my page of complaints, it is generally related to the the assumption by some individual Americans that its "obvious that All things American are the best, and that given a choice, the rest of the world would all like to be like America" type of thing that us non-Americans I think I can explain that. And I'll be the first to admit some people are *exactly* like that. The assumptions that you've listed are what we cut our teeth on. We are drilled from kindergarten that the United States is the best country in the whole world; the largest, most powerful, most charitable, blah blah blah. Unfortunately, at the time and place I was early-educated, we were hardly taught other places even existed. World history and world social studies were a couple of semesters in high school and usually taught by somebody named "Coach" who spent more time talking about the wishbone formation than other cultures. The people that have the attitudes you're talking about also usually aren't well-traveled at all. If it weren't for the internet, I'd probably be more like that myself. Don't get me wrong, I am very patriotic and love my country. But I kind of cringe when I read how well-versed other people are on our history, our politics, and our culture, when I myself hardly can even find *their* countries on a map. Eh, what I know about the USA, I was taught by your TV shows. We start with Sesame Street (darn fine show, but its "Zed" not "Zee" here) and go throught he children's shows, teenage shows and the adult sitcoms, and we've pretty much studied most of your highschool curriculum by default. Compare that to what I know about Bhutan, for example, and I'm just as clueless as anyone else. I think perhaps our news outlets have more global content (although I may be biased, I have access to all Australian media outlets - print and TV(and tend to go for the less tabloid variety) - but not all American media outlets), but my global knowledge really only extends towards other rich English speaking countries, and countries that have significant ties to Australia. I'm totally ignorant about almost all of Africa, the less developed nations of Europe and Asia, and about Central and Southern America. And thats just laziness on my part, the information is there if I wanted to find out, but really ca'nt be botehred spending time on it. The USA is on my TV, on my computer, in the newspapers and magazines. I couldn't escape it without becoming a complete hermit. Its no wonder I (and other non-Americans) seem to know so much about it, we cut our teeth on it as well. And perhaps thats part of the problem too. Since I'm in my 40's, I can't still blame my high school teacher though. But I do try to be open-minded. I just think everybody should be mindful of the "individual" on the newsgroup, the one that purrs for you, calls you in the middle of the night, sends you cards, and offers a sypathetic "ear" (eye?) in the middle of the night before we go making a foolish or thoughtless remark about the country they happen to be born in. Just my .02. Yes, agree 100%. Yowie --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 19/11/04 |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
"Yoj" wrote in message
. .. "David Stevenson" wrote in message ... Yoj wrote "David Stevenson" wrote in message ... Yoj wrote "David Stevenson" wrote in message ... If you want people not to criticise Americans one method is to stop some of the unfortunate critical remarks made by Americans. Terrorism, for example, is a global problem. Sure the US is now fighting it whole-heartedly, but so are many other nations. One of the things Americans are justly proud of is our freedom of speech. That means that we have no right to stop remarks, critical or otherwise, by other Americans. One could just as well say if you want Americans not to criticize the British, you should stop them from making critical remarks. I don't believe in condemning a whole nationality for the remarks or actions of some of its members. Maybe not, but remember what started this discussion: a dislike of people criticising Americans. You cannot have it both ways. Either you support Americans having the right to talk in a way that winds other people up, or you do not. If you support it you must expect the results to follow. Americans tend to promote themselves and their country more than other nations. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect a greater reaction? -- David Stevenson So you don't allow a middle ground - neither supporting such talk nor suppressing it? I have no power to keep people from saying what they want, but that doesn't mean I like or support what they say. I still resent it when anyone says "Americans" when they are actually talking about only *some* Americans. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect people who are criticizing to realize and admit that there are many Americans who do not commit whatever offense is currently being criticized. I don't support such talk: but I don't support Americans winding others up. I just think that the more some Americans wind other people up the more the average American must expect a reaction. -- David Stevenson Okay, first I don't know what you mean by "winding others up". Maybe you could explain that term. Second, your next statement is the same as if I said, "The more some English bash America, the more the average Englishman should expect an angry reaction." Do you think it is right that I, and other Americans should blame you for what some other English person says? I don't. I also don't think the reverse is true. "wind up" means roughly "to bait", whether intentionally or otherwise. To annoy; to tease; to press another's "hot buttons"; to provoke. HTH Yowie --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 19/11/04 |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
In article Ag0Ad.15831$nN6.4258@edtnps84, "Mathew Kagis"
wrote: "CatNipped" wrote in message ... "Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message ... With "trackless" electronic voting, we'll never know, will we? (I'm of your opinion, I just didn't want to drag in another red herring.) OTOH, most cats probably like herring. ROTFLMAO! Thanks Howard, it's about time we got this back on topic!! ; Hugs, CatNipped My cats don't care for herring... Salmon on the other hand.... But...but...I don't like salmon. I do like herring. I will buy salmon canned cat food. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Bev wrote:
I hate American bashing too and unfortunately I hear plenty of it here in New Zealand. I think it is just plain jealousy - I have made several trips to the US, loved the country and its wonderful hospitable people. Bev So far I've only made one trip to the USA, I'd love to go again someday. As with all countries the majority of people are wonderful, there will always be a minority, anywhere, that you wouldn't want to meet. I've never been to New Zealand, Australia, Canada or South Africa. I'd love to see all these places, but I want to end my days in England, where I was born. -- Adrian (Owned by Snoopy & Bagheera) A house is not a home, without a cat. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
CatNipped wrote:
snip Come on... let's hear it! Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar or the Douglas 107? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all international lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or women on the moon? snip I have no wish to bash America. Britain invented the jet engine. Airbus Industries, a european consortium is currenty outselling Boeing. Britain built the first jet airliner, the Comet. -- Adrian (Owned by Snoopy & Bagheera) Also proud of my countries achievements |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
Yoj wrote: "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message ... jmcquown wrote: What bugged me the most was these same people had no problem with our insurance covering gastric bypass surgery for a number of people who really didn't need it. I can't IMAGINE having any "elective" surgery at all - let alone anything so invasive and yes, life-threatening! I put off simple (nowadays) cataract surgery as long as I could, and that is "elective" only in the sense that you CAN opt for blindness instead, but who would do so voluntarily? Cataract surgery is worth it! For one thing, it can be done on an outpatient basis, so you don't have to be in the hospital. For another, the results are outstanding! Joy (I had mine two years ago) Yeah, me too - but it wasn't until I realized it was either that, or give up driving (a sheer necessity in Southern California). My late Aunt Jean was legally blind (and almost completely blind) for 40 years. She'd had eye surgeries several times. She did NOT want the cataract surgery. But (this was in 1997) the doctor said, without making any kind of promise, trust me, I can help you. She called me up - Jill, I can SEE! What?? Yep, he removed her cataracts and I gather through lasic surgery also corrected her vision. Can you imagine not having seen yourself in a mirror for 40 years?! She was thrilled and I was thrilled for her! Jill |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 01:35:38 GMT, "Yoj"
wrote: "Yowie" wrote in message ... I think South Park summed up politics (of any country) perfectly: "Why should I vote if the choice is between a douche and a sh*t sandwhich?" Those people who did not vote in the same way as you did may not think the person they voted for is great or wonderful or perfect, in fact they way well think he or she is a blithering idiot too, just that out of the two choices (and its always just two choices), that their choice was only just slightly less abhorrent to them than yours was. Yowie I think you've hit the nail on the head, Yowie. Most of us who voted against W felt the same way. I'm sick of voting for the lesser of two evils! It would be so nice to have somebody to vote *for*! Joy I'd vote for Bill Clinton again if it was a possibility. (and not just because he has a cat ) -bonbon |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
We start with
Sesame Street (darn fine show, but its "Zed" not "Zee" here) and go throught LOL, then you'll know what I'm talking about here....when Biskit runs, she is a dead-ringer for Snuffleupugus. She has a long petticoat and that belly-sway thing going. DH Calls her "Snuffy" when she runs to the food bowl. I watched as much Sesame Street as my kids did. :-) Sherry |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Yoj"
wrote: What about celebrities who have been married 7 or 8 times? *They* are the ones who cheapen marriage. I must observe of my former mother-in-law, who was married 7 times that we know about, may or may not have cheapened marriage. She did, however, manage to make it an impressive spectator sport -- perhaps a new venue for gambling -- the time she got to the altar, fully gowned, responded "I don't" to the key question, raised her train, and walked back out. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|