What I Hate Most About America

[emmitt01]

I hate that the resounding majority of Americans must be completely stupid...or that the system we use to elect our leaders must be fundamentally flawed. It's gotta be one of the two. It's just gotta be. I mean, how in God's name could a man win both the popular vote and the electoral college by a convincing margin...and be such an anti-Christ? Why couldn't the gomeangreen.com "Non-UNT Sports" forum have been available to the people? It's a travesty. If only the poor ignorant voters across this great land (or is it great? They're all too dumb to see through the socialist sham) could have had the benefit of Kram and some of you others. Disaster could have been abated. There are countless threads on here that could have steered the poor cattle in the right direction.

Alas, all they had was free will and the right to vote for whom ever they saw fit. When will we fix this problem?

[DeepGreen]

I hate that the resounding majority of Americans must be completely stupid...or that the system we use to elect our leaders must be fundamentally flawed. It's gotta be one of the two. It's just gotta be. I mean, how in God's name could a man win both the popular vote and the electoral college by a convincing margin...and be such an anti-Christ? Why couldn't the gomeangreen.com "Non-UNT Sports" forum have been available to the people? It's a travesty. If only the poor ignorant voters across this great land (or is it great? They're all too dumb to see through the socialist sham) could have had the benefit of Kram and some of you others. Disaster could have been abated. There are countless threads on here that could have steered the poor cattle in the right direction.

Alas, all they had was free will and the right to vote for whom ever they saw fit. When will we fix this problem?

Ah, yes! When you have the "lead bull sh!tter" campaigning in prime time, using his "own" networks for four years, I can see your point.

How enchanting is that?

[UNTflyer]

[Censored by Laurie]

Emmitt,

I think the main problem is that everyone was given an equal vote regardless of their economic status. Perhaps if we were to develop some sort of sliding scale based on tax bracket we'd have a better representation of what the important Americans would set forth for our governement.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Emmitt,

I think the main problem is that everyone was given an equal vote regardless of their economic status. Perhaps if we were to develop some sort of sliding scale based on tax bracket we'd have a better representation of what the important Americans would set forth for our government.

---Yeah that would really work.... basically Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and about 10 of their closest friends would then elect our government.. (sounds almost like France in 1790...before the revolution in which the worthless peasants beheaded everyone)

---You do realize Gates and Buffet are/were worth about $50 billion each .... that is $50,000 MILLION each..... and they have a lot of similar friends that are multi-billionaires. The entire town of Midland and maybe most of Western half of the State, can't come up with that kind of Money even with a few Fortune 400 people in the oil business out here..

---I suspect everyone making less than a million per year would really see their taxes climb drastically and the super wealthy see theirs drop. . [ also I just read there are over 700,000 millionaires within 50 miles of Yankee stadium in a discussion about high stadium seat prices]. Unless you earn a million or so EVERY year... you aren't one of the wealthy and may be just merely sorta well off. [and did not get a lot of benefit from many of the tax cuts during the past 10 years--sorry]

--I realize some of us here may be worth $1,000,000 or maybe even $5,000,000 or so ( and think they are the rich) .....but that is like comparing $1 or $5 to Bill Gates having $50,000. Some people just don't get how much the really wealthy has.... in 1790 terms... unless you are worth many many millions now, you are the peasants.

Edited April 30, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[adman]

Emmitt,

I think the main problem is that everyone was given an equal vote regardless of their economic status. Perhaps if we were to develop some sort of sliding scale based on tax bracket we'd have a better representation of what the important Americans would set forth for our governement.

Funny.

On a historical note. If I remember correctly the founding fathers, or at least a few of them, originally planned to allow only land owners the right to vote. Of course had that actually happened we probably would have never developed a middle class.

[forevereagle]

---Yeah that would really work.... basically Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and about 10 of their closest friends would then elect our government.. (sounds almost like France in 1790...before the revolution in which the worthless peasants beheaded everyone)

---You do realize Gates and Buffet are/were worth about $50 billion each .... that is $50,000 MILLION each..... and they have a lot of similar friends that are multi-billionaires. The entire town of Midland and maybe most of Western half of the State, can't come up with that kind of Money even with a few Fortune 400 people in the oil business out here..

---I suspect everyone making less than a million per year would really see their taxes climb drastically and the super wealthy see theirs drop. . [ also I just read there are over 700,000 millionaires within 50 miles of Yankee stadium in a discussion about high stadium seat prices]. Unless you earn a million or so EVERY year... you aren't one of the wealthy and may be just merely sorta well off. [and did not get a lot of benefit from many of the tax cuts during the past 10 years--sorry]

--I realize some of us here may be worth $1,000,000 or maybe even $5,000,000 or so ( and think they are the rich) .....but that is like comparing $1 or $5 to Bill Gates having $50,000. Some people just don't get how much the really wealthy has.... in 1790 terms... unless you are worth many many millions now, you are the peasants.

I don't think he was being serious...

[UNTflyer]

On a historical note. If I remember correctly the founding fathers, or at least a few of them, originally planned to allow only land owners the right to vote. Of course had that actually happened we probably would have never developed a middle class.

And look what kind of men we had for the first 4 Presidents:

George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison.

Look at our last 4:

George H.W. Bush, William J. Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack H. Obama

Quite the contrast in the quality of men.

[keith]

I hate that the resounding majority of Americans must be completely stupid...or that the system we use to elect our leaders must be fundamentally flawed. It's gotta be one of the two. It's just gotta be.

If you want to limit to just those two options then it is the former. Idiot is probably too strong however. Naive, ill-informed, bainwashed, seduced, duped and deluded are probably more accurate ways to describe the majority of the American electorate (at least in 2008), but if you want to call them idiots then that's your prerogative.

Keith

[FirefightnRick]

Typical: "I can give it but I can't take it" from the left.

Rick

[UNT90]

---Yeah that would really work.... basically Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and about 10 of their closest friends would then elect our government.. (sounds almost like France in 1790...before the revolution in which the worthless peasants beheaded everyone)

---You do realize Gates and Buffet are/were worth about $50 billion each .... that is $50,000 MILLION each..... and they have a lot of similar friends that are multi-billionaires. The entire town of Midland and maybe most of Western half of the State, can't come up with that kind of Money even with a few Fortune 400 people in the oil business out here..

---I suspect everyone making less than a million per year would really see their taxes climb drastically and the super wealthy see theirs drop. . [ also I just read there are over 700,000 millionaires within 50 miles of Yankee stadium in a discussion about high stadium seat prices]. Unless you earn a million or so EVERY year... you aren't one of the wealthy and may be just merely sorta well off. [and did not get a lot of benefit from many of the tax cuts during the past 10 years--sorry]

--I realize some of us here may be worth $1,000,000 or maybe even $5,000,000 or so ( and think they are the rich) .....but that is like comparing $1 or $5 to Bill Gates having $50,000. Some people just don't get how much the really wealthy has.... in 1790 terms... unless you are worth many many millions now, you are the peasants.

Your right, we should line them up and shoot them all!!! Then, we could evenly distribute all thier money to the underclass!! They probably just iinherited it anyway... Oh wait, that's been tried before... in RUSSIA!

Seriously, why do you point out what someone else has? I just don't get all this class envy/warfare crap that is going on nowadays. Go make yourself a big pile of money. Bet you will see things differently.

[emmitt01]

Typical: "I can give it but I can't take it" from the left.

Rick

Oh no, the left can "take it" just fine. I'm just relishing the irony of the cacauphony of "Why can't you respect the man who was elected to be our commander-in-chief" that was heard from the right when Bush was bashed...especially when compared to the myriad tired/repetitive threads about our current commander-in-chief. How's that for "dishing" and not "taking"?

Why, it's almost as if the right is so frustrated and angered by the lack of respect for Bush coupled with the abject failure of the Republicans in this last election that they are grasping for something/anything to prove that Americans are naive and just don't know how great they had it.

Which then again begs the question, "If George W. Bush could be said to have had a mandate from the people (flawed Florida results and all) then why now is America 'naive' when they tried 8 years of the man and voted to go as far away from him as humanly possible?"

Look, Obama may turn out to be the worst President in the history of the union. If he does, though, Republicans can really only blame two things for Americans putting him there:

1)He is charasmatic, energetic...and, oh yes, black.

2)For the first time in history the above three qualifications amounted to jack in a Presidential election because he followed 8 Republican buffoonery in the highest office in the land. (I would have said 8 years of a special olympian but I know how Republicans are lining up to take their swings at off the cuff sound bytes for a change)

[Mean Green 93-98]

Look, Obama may turn out to be the worst President in the history of the union. If he does, though, Republicans can really only blame two things for Americans putting him there:

1)He is charasmatic, energetic...and, oh yes, black.

2)For the first time in history the above three qualifications amounted to jack in a Presidential election because he followed 8 Republican buffoonery in the highest office in the land. (I would have said 8 years of a special olympian but I know how Republicans are lining up to take their swings at off the cuff sound bytes for a change)

Let me add one more: a downturn in the economy brought about more by Democratic Congressional legislation than Presidential economic policy.

[eulesseagle]

emmitt-

well you are a solid democrat.

i believe we can all agree that running for political office, today, is primarily based on "cult" personality and how that "cult" personality is presented to the public with policy issues running a far second. One might say it is similar to juggling swords.

unfortuate for me my libertarian candidate lost.

can you honestly say that you support BHO's position on policies past and present???

1. unlike you BHO attended elitist schools in Hawaii and Harvard. heck, back in the '70's his grandmother was spending $16,000/yr to send him to school. who knows what that equates to in today's dollars.

2. for 20 years he attended a black liberation church that preached anti-american and anti-israeli hate. check out some of rev. wright's sermons.

3. hope and change?? pure saul d alynsky. i have read alynskies books and change is a key word for redistribution of wealth. no conspiracy just fact. read 'em....rules for radicals and reville for radicals. both interesting.

4. rated as the most liberal congressman a couple years ago.

5. abortion rights.....well, let's not debate this one.

6. gun control..........well, let's not debate this one either. nra certainly does not like him.

7. get rid of our nuclear arsenal.

8. supports and has supported a UN motivated tax on americans to combat global poverty. globalist.

9. supports the redistribution of wealth (hope and "change") through taxation.

10. has developed long relationships with Ayers and Dohrn (weather underground murders who were set free on a technicality), Frank Davis his communist mentor in Hawaii (google him if you wish), Syrian born Resko (google him on his background) and not to mention rev wright who thought highly of louis farrakhan. i guess the saying, "my enemy of my enemy is my friend."

11. how about not vetoing the largest spending package in history.....4 trillion....here come the taxes.

12. how about saying no more pork.....the porkulus bill.

13. no lobbiest in his admin.....i have stopped counting.

14. his father, i believe, attended harvard....who failed as a socialist in kenyan politics. i guess the apple does not fall far from the tree.

15. who cares what color he is?

16. florida results was settled by the u.s. supreme court. geeeze al gore and emmitt still can't get over it.

17. GMC is no longer general motors corporation but now government motors corporation.

18. bho is now in the process of nationalizing the banks and is refusing to take back bailout money.

19. supports a much smaller military and wants drastic defense cuts.

20. sponsored no bills.

21. voted "present" i don't remember how many times while a congressman in illinois.

22. rolled his associates under the perverbial bus and basically stated, "they did WHAT????, i had no idea."

in actuality the public knows very little about the prez as packaged by axelrod, his manager. all we got was a "cult" of personality instead of substance because there would be no way he could run on his record.

emmitt, if you want government takeover of business, higher taxes, smaller military and an individual who has a past history of harboring communist sympathies then he is your man. maybe he got game and then maybe he don't.

the opposing party always dislikes the party in power. so what else is new about republicans bashing democrats for the next four years or democrats bashing republicans the last eight?? non-issue but makes for fun propoganda, conspiracies and blogs.

Edited May 1, 2009 by eulesseagle

[Baby Arm!]

I hate that the resounding majority of Americans must be completely stupid...or that the system we use to elect our leaders must be fundamentally flawed. It's gotta be one of the two. It's just gotta be. I mean, how in God's name could a man win both the popular vote and the electoral college by a convincing margin...and be such an anti-Christ? Why couldn't the gomeangreen.com "Non-UNT Sports" forum have been available to the people? It's a travesty. If only the poor ignorant voters across this great land (or is it great? They're all too dumb to see through the socialist sham) could have had the benefit of Kram and some of you others. Disaster could have been abated. There are countless threads on here that could have steered the poor cattle in the right direction.

Alas, all they had was free will and the right to vote for whom ever they saw fit. When will we fix this problem?

Funny, it was just a few months ago that people on the other side were saying the same things about the guy who used to be in office.

[eulessismore]

Funny, it was just a few months ago that people on the other side were saying the same things about the guy who used to be in office.

Another reason you've got to love democracy; the best system, however imperfect.

[keith]

<snip>

1)He is charasmatic, energetic...and, oh yes, black.

<snip>

This is one of the things I don't get. Obama's "blackness" seems much more important to the political left than the political right (in my opinion). His mother was white. His father was black. He was raised by his white grand-parents. A compelling argument can be made that Obama is more white than he is black. I guess even after all the hub-bub of Obama being the first "post-racial" president, we are still hung up on physical characterstics and attributes.

Keith

[CMJ]

I can't wait to see the consevrative/liberal battles on the board now that Justice Souter is stepping down from the bench(according to NPR).

[oldguystudent]

I can't wait to see the consevrative/liberal battles on the board now that Justice Souter is stepping down from the bench(according to NPR).

Meh. Swap out one liberal justice for another.

On a completely unrelated note, it occurs to me why I don't see Obama as liberal as many here do. I was raised in Northern California where Diane Feinstein was one of the more moderate politicians around. I don't think many here have seen liberal.

[CMJ]

Meh. Swap out one liberal justice for another.

On a completely unrelated note, it occurs to me why I don't see Obama as liberal as many here do. I was raised in Northern California where Diane Feinstein was one of the more moderate politicians around. I don't think many here have seen liberal.

Kind of the same in LA too.

[oldguystudent]

Kind of the same in LA too.

Well I lived in LA too, and I've got to give the liberal edge to NoCal. Los Angeles is definitely liberal, but San Francisco, and particularly Santa Cruz where I went to high school, are off the charts. Imagine an annual city sponsored pot smoke-in on the steps of city hall, a city sanctioned vegetable growing operation owned and operated by the homeless, strong squatter's rights on abandoned property, and mandatory health care for all residents home owning, renting, or homeless. It wasn't until this decade that UC Santa Cruz even started handing out letter grades!

Oh, and for those who think UNT is a pot smoking campus, check out this little shindig at UCSC. That haze you see ain't smog.

yLkccHoBVGY

Edited May 1, 2009 by oldguystudent

[CMJ]

That's true...even here I've heard a few people refer to UC as "Berzerkly".

Granted they were UCLA or USC alums, but still.

[eulessismore]

Meh. Swap out one liberal justice for another.

On a completely unrelated note, it occurs to me why I don't see Obama as liberal as many here do. I was raised in Northern California where Diane Feinstein was one of the more moderate politicians around. I don't think many here have seen liberal.

I have; my sister has lived in San Francisco for about 40 years. When the extended family was in Dallas for my brother-in-law's surgery last June, my sister and my brother-in-law's brother represented opposite ends of the political spectrum. Unfortunately, I missed an argument between them on immigration. I thought it was interesting that he asked someone afterwards, "do you think Donna is a liberal?". I just wish I'd been there to tell him that I don't think liberal is sufficient to describe someone as far left as she is.

Honestly though, the assumedly Democratic folks I met when I last visited her and her husband in SF did not strike me as "liberal" in some ways I think of that word, such as being willing to consider diverse points of view. One guest would not believe me when I mentioned Larry McMurtrey being from a small town in Texas, in so many words, he said that nobody who obviously conducted research the way that McMurtrey did could be from a small town. I thought that was kind of small minded.

[Rudy]

This is one of the things I don't get. Obama's "blackness" seems much more important to the political left than the political right (in my opinion). His mother was white. His father was black. He was raised by his white grand-parents. A compelling argument can be made that Obama is more white than he is black. I guess even after all the hub-bub of Obama being the first "post-racial" president, we are still hung up on physical characterstics and attributes.

Keith

SHHHHHHH!!!! You cant point anything remotely similar to that out, dont you know that?!

[FirefightnRick]

Oh no, the left can "take it" just fine. I'm just relishing the irony of the cacauphony of "Why can't you respect the man who was elected to be our commander-in-chief" that was heard from the right when Bush was bashed...

I think everyone has tried to respect the man for his few accomplishments as best they can. I know I did, right up until I learned how much he despises my country, and the fact that he does is well documented. The nation had his "celebrating the first 100 days" forced upon them on the major networks, when in reality EVERYONE knows it's been 100 days of nothing but mistake after another. Democrats are starting to realize this now, and you will too at some point.

Rick

Edited May 1, 2009 by FirefightnRick