BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?

Subject: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: freda underhill
Date: 10 May 04 - 07:31 PM

YES. YES. YES.

and in case you don't know who Howard is, John Howard is the Prime Minister of Australia.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: Joybell
Date: 10 May 04 - 07:54 PM

Horrid little man. Joy

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: Once Famous
Date: 10 May 04 - 08:13 PM

Quit pipe dreaming. It's just not going to happen.

Just vote against him and quit wasting bandwidth.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 May 04 - 09:07 PM

I agree with Martin. Won't happen. Vote 'em out if you don't like them -- and that goes for anybody you don't like who's in office.

If they weren't elected, then you have to make a different choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: DougR
Date: 11 May 04 - 12:48 AM

Uh, no, Freda, they should not.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 May 04 - 10:12 AM

systematic torture.. whose responsibility?

I think they should.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: JennyO
Date: 11 May 04 - 11:15 AM

Yes, and the sooner the better. Of course they won't.

So we just have to vote them out. Unfortunately it's taking a long time for enough people to come to their senses.

Jenny

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 04 - 11:21 AM

Hitler and Mussolini should've resigned too, but never underestimate the stubborness of men in power...

Still, just think of the trouble Adolf could have saved himself by stepping down in 1943 and going to live quietly in Switzerland or Brazil for the duration. :-) It would have been a very wise move on his part. Let Goebbels, Goering or Himmler pick up the hot potato if they wanted it. There's always another ambitious dummy standing ready to take the top job.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 11 May 04 - 11:30 AM

So what's worse, an ambitious dummy or a fervent and intelligent fanatic?..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: Crazyhorse
Date: 11 May 04 - 11:30 AM

"systematic torture.. whose responsibility?"

Well yours actually, they're all democratic leaders and voted into power.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: Nerd
Date: 11 May 04 - 11:31 AM

But Bush was elected by a minority...

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: Crazyhorse
Date: 11 May 04 - 11:36 AM

That's the "systematic torture" bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 12 May 04 - 03:59 AM

Of course not - absolutely no reason for them to.

For those who believe that the governance of countries should be carried out by what the public majority think is right and wrong, and by what the public majority believes is in the country's best interest, I have only this to say - You are completely wrong.

There are major "chunks" of the public who can barely manage to look after their own affairs and are incapable of deciding what is in their own best interests, let alone decide such issues on behalf of an entire country.

Leaders of countries and governments who rely on populist views are nothing more than puppets, who will eventually will only suceed in leading "you" to disaster. At least the three named in the title of this thread had the guts, integrity and courage to take what must have been some pretty hard decisions, knowing full well that they were right but that those decisions would be extremely unpopular.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: Hrothgar
Date: 12 May 04 - 04:48 AM

Teribus, you may speak as far as Bush is concerned, but take my word for it, the most charitable description of Howard is "dishonest scunbag." I can't put my real opinion of him on a family website.

They won't resign, though. Vote early and vote often!

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: GUEST,John O'Lennaine
Date: 12 May 04 - 06:02 AM

They won't resign and they will probably get re-elected.
No matter how many of us agree on their faults, there are always more who don't see any faults at all.
I've seen it time and time again.
Makes me wonder what people are thinking about.

Teribus is right. Most of the public have no idea and no interest in what's going on or what to do about it, but he's wrong about those three having done what was right.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: Crazyhorse
Date: 12 May 04 - 06:18 AM

When the majority of the minority accept that they are a minority and acquiesce to the real majority.

My definition of democracy

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 May 04 - 06:33 AM

Under the system in the United Kingdom it's more complicated, since we don't get to elect the Prime Minister. And there's no mechanism by which members of the Labour Party can formally get rid of him either, so far as I can see, even if they wanted to. Perhaps Gareth can explain if there is some procedure for bringing about a leadership election.

If Labour does catastrophically in the European Election of June 10th, which is widely predicted, and if the public opinion polls continue to show that Blair has become a liability to his party, pressure on him to go can be expected to increase. I expect that there would be an announcmeent that he was stepping down because of health reasons and a wish to spend more time with his family.

Fortunately the voting system in the European elections means that it is possible to punish Labour without helping the Tories. My problem, in Eastern Region of England, is deciding whether to vote for the Green Party or for Martin Bell.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: Sweetfia
Date: 12 May 04 - 06:47 AM

It's true, Blair has made some stuid judgements and the majority he held in parliament in 1997 is no where near as big as it was, the only way we can get rid of him (unless his party have a vote of no confidence, and even then he doesn't have to resign if the verdict is overwhelmingly against him) is by voting against him. My opinion is that Blair is going to fight to win the next election, and if they do win it, resign after that...however, saying that, what PM will want to resign after wining an election?

Mmmm, i think i know what i'm saying!

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: Crazyhorse
Date: 12 May 04 - 06:51 AM

Could someone translate that to English for me.

Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 May 04 - 08:46 AM

The system we've got doesn't allow you to vote against people - you can refrain from voting for them, or vote for an opponent. If it were possible to vote against people, very few of the present lot in every party, in lost countries, would ever be elected. That might be a good idea, but that's another matter.

If Blair goes into the next General Election, and Labour wins, I can't see him resigning, even if he has privately promised that he will do so.

The best chance to get rid of him is in next month's European Elections. If Labour does badly enough there will be enormous pressure on him to step down. And even in England, that doesn't have to mean helping the Tories do well, since the voting system isn't the same as the Parliamentary ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 May 04 - 08:47 AM

The system we've got doesn't allow you to vote against people - you can refrain from voting for them, or vote for an opponent. If it were possible to vote against people, very few of the present lot in every party, in most countries, would ever be elected. That might be a good idea, but that's another matter.

If Blair goes into the next General Election, and Labour wins, I can't see him resigning, even if he has privately promised that he will do so.

The best chance to get rid of him is in next month's European Elections. If Labour does badly enough there will be enormous pressure on him to step down. And even in England, that doesn't have to mean helping the Tories do well, since the voting system isn't the same as the Parliamentary ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: GUEST,John O'Lennaine
Date: 12 May 04 - 08:52 AM

McGrath
I liked the lost countries.
It adds an interesting perspective.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: freda underhill
Date: 12 May 04 - 09:05 AM

In Australia we have a "proportional representation" method of voting.

Surveys here have found that most people (61%) do not fundamentally agree with either major party. 39% give their first preference to one major party in order to prevent the other major party from getting in. And 29% of people actually believe the major party they choose is merely the "lesser of two evils"1.

But in Australia a voter can choose a third option (ie: the Greens) and still have their vote count in the decision between the two major parties, for us, Labor and Liberal.

When voting we can put a number in order of preference eg for example 1 (first pref) to the Greens candidate, 2 to Labour, 3-7 to a number of otrher parties, and 8 to whicyhever party we hate the most (in this case, the Liberals, who , under this leadership, should be called the reactionaries).

By using this preferntial system, a voter can make their vote count twice. Once for example, for the greens (by giving them the first preference), and then again to decide between the two major parties, Labor or Liberal.

If the candidate with your first preference is not elected, then the FULL VALUE of your vote is transferred (redistributed) to your next valid preference. This movement of votes, in the order of the preferences you have indicated, will continue until only two candidates are left. Then the candidate with the most votes wins.

You control where your preferences go. In the lower house (small ballot paper), you always mark exactly where you would like your preferences to go. In the upper house (the ballot paper that could be used as a tablecloth), you have the option of marking exactly where your preferences go, or, to save you some time, you can decide to simply follow the preferences of your chosen party1.

Remember, the pieces of paper you receive from pushy people2 at the gate (the so called "how to votes") do not have to be followed to the letter (or indeed number). It constantly amazes us how often people will get annoyed at the "how to vote". They become outraged that the preferences flow to the major party they do not like and they exclaim with indignation that they cannot vote Green because the preferences flow to Labor (for example)... yet they are the ones who physically write the numbers in the boxes. All they need to do is vote 1 Green and then preference the other candidates in the order they want.

In the Upper House.... well the story is a bit different. It has that ominous "line"... above or below which you must vote. If you vote below the line then you can control exactly where your preferences go. But remember to fill out ALL the boxes if you vote below the line.

If you vote above the line then you can only mark ONE box. If you do vote above the line then the party/candidate you have chosen decides where your preferences go. The polling booth will have a display of this information for you to have a look at. If you do not like where the preferences flow then simply vote below the line instead.

Again, remember that your vote will only decrease in value if the candidate of your preference is elected. Again, (mathematically speaking) your vote is never wasted.

1 Research conducted by McNair Ingenuity Feb 2004, for more information contact Daniel Hamilton
2 Except for those lovely Greens... they're so nice :-)

This system in Oz lets us vote for a minor party and send our preferences to one of the major parties if we wish.

It is a hell of a lot fairer than the first past the post method that is used in some countries.

freda

ps yes, Bush, Howard and Blair should all resign.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 May 04 - 08:22 PM

Nerd, he wasn't "elected by a minority," he was for all intents and purposes appointed by the Reagan-appointed supreme court. They wouldn't permit the recount in Florida (which would have gone to Gore by a bit more than a whisker).

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: dianavan
Date: 12 May 04 - 08:35 PM

Teribus - you said, "There are major "chunks" of the public who can barely manage to look after their own affairs and are incapable of deciding what is in their own best interests."

Your arrogance is astounding. Where do you get your information? At best, your statement is patronizing. Hopefully you, and the party of your choice, will never be looking after my best interests. I think you might be happier with a King or Queen or at least a facist regime.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 12 May 04 - 08:50 PM

You can try to vote them out, but remember what happened in Florida.

Woody

PS Kill the slimey bastards! Lobotomies for Republicans: It's the law!

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 May 04 - 09:04 PM

"Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other firms which have been tried from time to time" (Churchill in the House of Commons, 11th November 1947)

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 May 04 - 09:09 PM

Yes they all should! Ofcourse they should, but they won't.
Lobotomies for everyone who doesn't agree with me!

Woody

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 May 04 - 09:13 PM

Why have I been relegated to guest status?

Woody

Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush, Blair & Howard resign?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 15 May 04 - 03:55 AM

dianavan 12 May 04 - 08:35 PM

It doesn't surprise me for one second that you find my arrogance astounding, from some of the comments and observations you have posted, your scepticism and overly simplistic views astound me.

Now - Where do you I get my information from? Purely through personal observation and the application of common sense.

Fear not, as citizen with dual US and Canadian residential status, neither myself, or the party of my choice will ever be looking after your best interests.

You are correct in saying that I am perfectly happy living in a country who's head of state is a constitutional monarch, whose role is largely ceremonial and who is prohibited from voicing their own political views. Such a system allows the elected representatives of the people of my country to get on with running the country.