Political Forum
     

Go Back   Political Forum > General Political Chat > Current Events


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2004, 12:02 PM
Liberty's Avatar
Liberty Liberty is offline
Site Moderator
Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 4,594
usa us georgia
Liberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud of
Credits: 23,208
Default Memory and Math Skills Revisited

Quote:
Originally Posted by oddlycalm";p=&quot View Post
As for this topic, let me spell it out for you in the event that your memory is short or your math skills weak. This administration assumed office with well under 50% of the popular vote in an election where just over half the eligible voters voted. Bottom line is that roughly 1/4 of the eligible adults supported Bush.
Point 1:
Not to be nit-picky, but your 1/4 figure assumes that of the 50% of eligible voters who did note vote, none supported Bush. While there were many ppl in the last election that either didn't vote or voted for a third party candidate because they liked neither Bush nor Gore, it is probably not the case that this would describe the entire 50% (or perhaps even a majority) of those who did not vote. It is therefore quite misleading to state that "roughly 1/4 of the eligible adults supported Bush."

Point 2:
Unless by "supported" you mean "voted for." If that's the case, then following your logic neither Clinton nor Reagan had a "mandate" to govern either, because each only had the "support" of about 18% of the eligible population for their first terms.

Point 3:
Voter turnout was much higher in 1992 than it was in 2002, yet Clinton received a much smaller proportion of the popular vote (43%) then Bush did (48%).

Any way you look at it, it's a non-issue. Bush has just as much a "mandate" to govern as any president.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Red Cross - Donate Today    Save the Rainforest
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2004, 03:11 PM
Hansmoleman's Avatar
Hansmoleman Hansmoleman is offline
Guru
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 3,281
Hansmoleman is on a distinguished road
Credits: 19,055
Default great point

Quote:
Point 3:
Voter turnout was much higher in 1992 than it was in 2002, yet Clinton received a much smaller proportion of the popular vote (43%) then Bush did (48%).
that says it all. I just love it when Dems say that Bush didn't really win because he didn't get more than 50% of the votes. Problem with that is that Clinton didn't either in 1992. LOL.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2004, 04:25 PM
SenaxFlatulus's Avatar
SenaxFlatulus SenaxFlatulus is offline
Site Moderator
Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 8,749
usa us indiana
SenaxFlatulus has much to be proud ofSenaxFlatulus has much to be proud ofSenaxFlatulus has much to be proud ofSenaxFlatulus has much to be proud ofSenaxFlatulus has much to be proud ofSenaxFlatulus has much to be proud ofSenaxFlatulus has much to be proud ofSenaxFlatulus has much to be proud ofSenaxFlatulus has much to be proud ofSenaxFlatulus has much to be proud of
Credits: 47,703
Default Sign of the times... they are a changin'

Politically motivated commencement speeches with politics as the main subject are not new to college graduation ceremonies. The majority are liberal in their content and many have been America bash-fests or even Bush bash-fests. Colleges are made up of a disproportionate amount of liberal professors in their faculties. This is a widely known fact, and it's no surprise that this isthe reason why liberal speakers are much more common in commencement addresses.

It's my opinion that those American citizens who are mainstream... those that another thread in this forum call stupid and moronic... are tired of this. They seem to be reacting in a new way, instead of just sitting there and taking it constantly now.

What's new is this demonstration of displeasure at the speaker trying to go for yet another Bush-bash. They are beginning to expressing themselves vocally by booing or getting up and leaving. Parents sitting in the audience have been shelling out tens of thousands of dollars to educate their sons and daughters to these institutions. Why do they need to sit there and listen to some partisan political crap on a day they want to celebrate the graduation of their children?

Something tells me that many future commencement ceremonies will probably contain speeches by less polarizing speakers with non political content in the speeches.
__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2004, 04:40 PM
BranRx BranRx is offline
Observer
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: california
Posts: 70
BranRx is on a distinguished road
Credits: 548
Default Im glad the quack showed up...

He came, he spoke, he almost got boo'd off the stage.BRAVO! I guess it shows where America stands with support!! Politics had no place at the ceremony but I say bravo!!
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2004, 07:47 AM
Liberty's Avatar
Liberty Liberty is offline
Site Moderator
Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 4,594
usa us georgia
Liberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud of
Credits: 23,208
Default .

Quote:
Originally Posted by HansMoleman";p=&quot View Post
Quote:
Point 3:
Voter turnout was much higher in 1992 than it was in 2002, yet Clinton received a much smaller proportion of the popular vote (43%) then Bush did (48%).
that says it all. I just love it when Dems say that Bush didn't really win because he didn't get more than 50% of the votes. Problem with that is that Clinton didn't either in 1992. LOL.
MANY, MANY recent presidents were elected with under 50% of the vote. That statement is all spin.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2004, 08:08 AM
Liberty's Avatar
Liberty Liberty is offline
Site Moderator
Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 4,594
usa us georgia
Liberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud of
Credits: 23,208
Default My commencement

I remember very little of my commencement speech, I can't even remember who gave it, though I know he (or she) was fairly famous.

What I do remember is a prolix spiel on how the world was changing, how many of us would struggle to find work, how we were expected to be the first generation of Americans to have a lower standard of living than our parents. All doom and gloom concerning the economy (sound familiar?). I'm sure the package was adorned with a ribbon of optimism, but for some reason the closing remarks didn't stick.

It all of course turned out to be a load of bull. I, and all of my friends, had jobs within a few weeks of leaving school. I now have relatives who are worried that when their son graduates from Stanford this summer, he will have a hard time finding a job in this economy. What, with all our jobs going overseas (Lou Dobbs says so!).

Makes me chuckle.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2004, 08:39 AM
truebrit truebrit is offline
Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,277
truebrit is on a distinguished road
Credits: 12,633
Default Why wasn't this an important enough issue to mention when

Cheney recently did the VERY SAME THING???

Talk about rank hypocrisy....
__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2004, 08:54 AM
MarkH's Avatar
MarkH MarkH is offline
Commentator
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,405
MarkH is on a distinguished road
Credits: 8,162
Default Bush wouldn't go to his daughter's graduation... Why?

Why would Bush fail to go to his daughter's graduation?

Easy answer: He didn't want the bad publicity -- what would it look like, with the crowd booing him... lol.
__________________
"What does a former president's son know about the Iraq war anyway?"
-- GW Bush when asked about Ron Reagan's negative comments, 6/25/2004.
www.BushZombie.com
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump

Sponsored Links

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0
Template-Modifikationen durch TMS
vBCredits v1.3 ©2007 by Darkwaltz4
Advertisement System V2.1 By   Branden