I'm damn glad the protestors were ignored...

Al B. Sure! · April 27, 2003, 01:22

Why do some people complain that the protestors were ignored by the president? of course they were ignored! they should have been ignored!

72% of americans were in favour of the war... of the remaining 28%, you can assume that probably most of them were undecided or didn't give a damn either way... my guess is less than 10% were actually against the war and most of them only because they were spiteful at Bush.

So this here goes to the US government for not giving into minoritarian politics

thanks

Chilean President™ · April 27, 2003, 01:25

If 1% of the population was against the government, the President should have listen to them.
Democracy is about the "government of the mayority" but is also about hearing every one in the nation, even a tiny minority.

Al B. Sure! · April 27, 2003, 01:32

Chilean President:

If the tiny minority can not form into a size-able minority by convincing others to its cause it is worthless... any nut can come up with something... some homeless person starts muttering about how the aliens from pluto are going to attack us... should the president listen and debate a pre-emptive strike on pluto?

thanks

Chilean President™ · April 27, 2003, 01:37

I didn't meant to say that the President should do what they say, I'm saying that any point of view is valid and in a democratic society every group or person shall be heard.

Maybe I got it wrong, my girlfriend just say to me that maybe in the US "listen" to someone is "do what they say".. is that correct? Well if it is, you are right, the President shouldn't.

Felch · April 27, 2003, 01:46

Listen generally takes on that meaning. For example, if you listen to your parents, it is assumed that you're going to do what they tell you, not just say, "Yeah, mom, sure." I suppose what you mean to say would be best expressed as "give them a fair hearing," but that's a pretty big mouthful of words.

Having tried and failed to learn modern languages myself, I would like to apologize to any non-native English speakers. It's too hard for even for most people born into the language to speak properly, and I'd hate to have to wade through all the idioms as a foreigner.

Al B. Sure! · April 27, 2003, 01:47

well Bush obviously knew there were protestors... he even responded to them a little bit... so he did listen... i just meant i was glad the US gov't didnt take them seriously

orange · April 27, 2003, 01:47

whatever it is doesn't change the fact that the war war wrong.

Felch · April 27, 2003, 01:48

Having just looked at what you said the first time, it's pretty clear that you meant, "give a fair hearing," instead of "do what they say." What you said is correct the first time. But your girlfriend is right that listen often means, "do what they say."

Nubclear · April 27, 2003, 01:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Why do some people complain that the protestors were ignored by the president? of course they were ignored! they should have been ignored!

72% of americans were in favour of the war... of the remaining 28%, you can assume that probably most of them were undecided or didn't give a damn either way... my guess is less than 10% were actually against the war and most of them only because they were spiteful at Bush.

So this here goes to the US government for not giving into minoritarian politics

thanks

72 percent of Americans were in favour the war.

Before i begin the "Chop down that number!" game, I want to say that I'm not going to bring up the point that the vast majority of the world was and still is against the war and that it probably goes up to at least 500,000,000 if not more. I'm not going to bring that up cause I'm just that nice.

Anyway, 72 percent of Americans were in favour of the war. Remember, 49.9 percent of Americans voted for bush, so of course they'd be for the war......That leaves 22.1 percent. Now, You have to consider that a lot of Americans believe every word the government says (no matter what government). I'd say thats about 10 percent of the remaining. That leaves 12.1 percent.
Then thre are those who claim they are democrats but swear by the republicans. I'd say thats about 2 percent. That leaves 10.1 percent.
Now, a LOT of Americans are caught up in the hyperpatriotism since 9-11. I'd say that accounts for about 10 percent.

So its reasonably safe to assume that only .1 percent of the American population is really for war for any intellectually honest reason.

thanks.

Chilean President™ · April 27, 2003, 01:53

Quote:

Listen generally takes on that meaning. For example, if you listen to your parents, it is assumed that you're going to do what they tell you, not just say, "Yeah, mom, sure." I suppose what you mean to say would be best expressed as "give them a fair hearing," but that's a pretty big mouthful of words.

Having tried and failed to learn modern languages myself, I would like to apologize to any non-native English speakers. It's too hard for even for most people born into the language to speak properly, and I'd hate to have to wade through all the idioms as a foreigner.

Thanks! Well in spanish listen is just that: "sure a listened, but.." and other thing is "sure I'm going to do it".

Anyway I'm not happy that he didn't listen them, but again he is not my president so if the mayority suppot him I think he was right...

EDIT: My apologies Albert for almost mixed up your thread with my lack of english language knowledge

orange · April 27, 2003, 01:53

50% of Americans also believe Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for the attacks on 9/11. What does that tell you about the 72% who support war?

Chilean President™ · April 27, 2003, 01:56

Quote:

Having just looked at what you said the first time, it's pretty clear that you meant, "give a fair hearing," instead of "do what they say." What you said is correct the first time. But your girlfriend is right that listen often means, "do what they say."

Her "I know everything and you not" smile has just being erased

thanks again

Al B. Sure! · April 27, 2003, 01:58

Orange:

if Gore was president you wouldnt be saying that... people forget Clinton sent troops to a whole lot of places

Spiffor · April 27, 2003, 02:01

Quote:

Originally posted by orange
50% of Americans also believe Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for the attacks on 9/11.

I somehow still cannot believe this figure. Where on earth did they find this idea, with all the denial that has been brought ?

orange · April 27, 2003, 02:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Orange:

if Gore was president you wouldnt be saying that... people forget Clinton sent troops to a whole lot of places

untrue. I'd be against the war if Gore was running the show too.

and I was against Clinton's use of force as well.

Frozzy · April 27, 2003, 02:16

Quote:

Originally posted by orange
whatever it is doesn't change the fact that the war war wrong.

I think that's bullshit. I've always been for the war, I don't think it was wrong. It got rid of a ruthless dictator who murdered and tortured his own people. Please explain why we shouldn't have freed a country of an evil despot?

0.000000000001 / 10

orange · April 27, 2003, 02:22

Quote:

I think that's bullshit. I've always been for the war, I don't think it was wrong. It got rid of a ruthless dictator who murdered and tortured his own people. Please explain why we shouldn't have freed a country of an evil despot?

Was this satire? I honestly can't tell...

Q Classic · April 27, 2003, 02:32

i don't think it was. doesn't matter, because that reason only holds water because
a) saddam is a nasty mothafvcker
b) saddam is (in)famous/notorious
c) saddam is relatively easy to take care of

mugabe is black and not very famous.
kim jong il isn't easy to off.
shevardnadze who?
gaddafi and khatami are sooo 1980s.
hu jintao isn't a nasty motherfvcker.
castro is more funny than anything else.
and chirac is far too easy to take care of.

Al B. Sure! · April 27, 2003, 02:35

political prisoners were being executed at one jail... hundreds of dead bodies were found in a warehouse... it's for the better that saddam is gone

Q Classic · April 27, 2003, 02:37

albert, i'm not arguing that. i'm glad he's gone. i'm just saying that it's highly unlikely we'll force a regime change in another country.

Al B. Sure! · April 27, 2003, 02:38

who's shevardnadze?

Chilean President™ · April 27, 2003, 02:39

President of Georgia

Al B. Sure! · April 27, 2003, 02:41

they just mentioned him on an SNL from the late 80's! who was he?

Chilean President™ · April 27, 2003, 02:43

I'm not sure but I think he was something to do with the KGB.. but again, I'm not sure.
Since the independence of Georgia he is the president (I believe he has the record of survived a lot of assasination attempts)

Q Classic · April 27, 2003, 02:43

my point exactly.
and of those, the only other country composed of almost entirely flat land comparable to iraq is gaddafi's.
everywhere else has the small problem of not being as weak as the taliban or as demoralized as the republican guard.

Al B. Sure! · April 27, 2003, 02:43

alright... amazing coincidence though

Chilean President™ · April 27, 2003, 02:45

[off topic] the word is not "assasination" right? [/off topic]

Imran Siddiqui · April 27, 2003, 02:48

Quote:

they just mentioned him on an SNL from the late 80's! who was he?

IIRC, he was head of KGB in the 80s. He is the President of Georgia now, as CP said.

Al B. Sure! · April 27, 2003, 02:50

chilean:

you mean a murder of a politician? thats an assasination...

Q Classic · April 27, 2003, 02:52

the murder of any politically influential person is an assassination.

s. was a bigwig in the kgb, then graduated to foreign minister under gorbachev for a while, and then ascended into power in georgia with a coup, where he promptly continued to brutal treatment of ethnic minorities that was being undertaken by the previous leaders.
the only difference was that the previous leaders were unable to get recognition for their country, while s. was because he was known in international political circles.