+- Import Anime Forums (https://import-anime.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Anime/HK DVD Discussion (https://import-anime.com/forums/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: General Babble (https://import-anime.com/forums/forum-8.html)
+--- Thread: Paper against Bush (/thread-4113.html)
Paper against Bush - kakomu - 10-20-2004
The constitution was written in 1788 and ratified in 1789.
The declaration of Independence was written in 1776 and the articles of confederation were written soon after.
It's not so much that they didn't trust the people. They were afraid of popular tyranny, where the minorities are descriminated against. Which, despite their best efforts, happened anyways.
Paper against Bush - Mantis421 - 10-20-2004
kakomu Wrote:It's not so much that they didn't trust the people. They were afraid of popular tyranny, where the minorities are descriminated against. Which, despite their best efforts, happened anyways.
I will admit right away that I was off on my dates, but every political science book I have read in the last close to 3 years of college uses the wording "did not trust". I don't know what high school books might be printing.
Paper against Bush - Cidien - 10-20-2004
"They were afraid of popular tyranny, where the minorities are descriminated against."
Our founding fathers didn't really give a crap about the minorities. Can you honestly say they saw black people as actual people? If yes perhaps you should do a little research on the founding fathers and how they actually treated black folks back then. If this isn't what you meant I appologize in advance.
You you correct about the founding fathers wanting to avoid a tyrannical ruler though. They wanted to make sure the whole of america was treated fairly. It also could be used to try to keep fools out of the white house.
What I find really sad about this whole thing is that neither the democrats or the republicans have produced a very decent cadidate since Reagan. Bush, to me, is the best since Reagan. However, there are other people i'd rather vote for if they would run for president.
Paper against Bush - babyeater0 - 10-20-2004
I personally am a very avid supporter of the GREAT AND POWERFUL JOH KERRY, but frankly your paper is horrible. It has no flow and you skip around from topic to topic way to quickly, not even near to the expectations in college. I don't even know how you got accepted.
John Kerry may not be much better than George Bush; however, George Bush should not be reelected. He started a war in Iraq that has killed thousands of Iraqi civilians and American soldiers. On top of that, we went into Iraq without help from the U.N. There was only one purpose for this war and that is oil. Bush used Sadam as a cover so that he could control the oil industry for the companies in which he has a financial interest.
-spelling errors galore and lets learn to elaborate.
Adding insult to injury (well there's not really any injury but what the hell) i am only in the 8th grade.
Paper against Bush - kakoi_sugoi_yama - 10-20-2004
I Love Joh Kerry!
Paper against Bush - kakomu - 10-20-2004
CIdien and Mantis, you're both morons!
First of all, I AM a political science major in college and i'm already a Junior
Second, minority isn't refering to black people. It's refering to those not in the majority. An example would be the federalists vs anti-federalists. Should one get in power, they could use popular tyranny to destroy the other group by enacting laws that directly hurt the other. The founding fathers were happy that some sort of group with a specfic interest would be excluded from participation or whatnot due to this tyrannical furvor that a majority can hold. It's also known as mob mentality.
Paper against Bush - -spike- - 10-20-2004
babyeater0 Wrote:I personally am a very avid supporter of the GREAT AND POWERFUL JOH KERRY, but frankly your paper is horrible. It has no flow and you skip around from topic to topic way to quickly, not even near to the expectations in college. I don't even know how you got accepted.
John Kerry may not be much better than George Bush; however, George Bush should not be reelected. He started a war in Iraq that has killed thousands of Iraqi civilians and American soldiers. On top of that, we went into Iraq without help from the U.N. There was only one purpose for this war and that is oil. Bush used Sadam as a cover so that he could control the oil industry for the companies in which he has a financial interest.
-spelling errors galore and lets learn to elaborate.
Adding insult to injury (well there's not really any injury but what the hell) i am only in the 8th grade.
If you would have read my post correctly you would have seen that I said I WASNT DONE!
So guess what:
![[Image: price.jpg]](http://img60.exs.cx/img60/3594/price.jpg)
Paper against Bush - Mantis421 - 10-20-2004
[QUOTE=Cidien]
What I find really sad about this whole thing is that neither the democrats or the republicans have produced a very decent cadidate since Reagan. Bush, to me, is the best since Reagan. QUOTE]
Reagan? Hmmm let me think Sold arms to Iran to keep the US prisoners until after he was elected to make Jimmy Carter look like he was unable to negotiate with them.
Iran Contra
Sold Cemical wepons to Iraq that Iraq used on own people Reagan turned his back and washed his hands of the whole thing
Oliver North and the Sandanista
Made it easier for places like Walmart and Mcdonlds to Franchise
had a very racist dislike of native americans
Called Ketchup a Vegtable
Hmmm I see a patern here.
Anyway the last real good president the US had was during WWII
By the way Kakomu I never refered to minorites in any of my earlier posts, And I am a Sociology major political science minor myself.
Paper against Bush - kakomu - 10-20-2004
that was aimed at Cidien, since he has no clue that 'minority' refers to <50%.
As for distrusting people, that's Hobbes' domain. He disrusts people which is why he supports an absolute monarchy. Locke on the other hand is all for bodies of government that the people control, and that's who the framers modeled their constitution after. But they were afraid of the almost anarchistic popular tyranny.
As for personal favorites, I like LBJ. As for Carter, unlike Either bush or Reagan, he's actually useful after the fact. Bush and Reagan were useless after they left office.
Paper against Bush - Mantis421 - 10-20-2004
Kakomu if you have a chance pick up Locke's book Leviathin, for a book that is almost 350 years old it puts some interesting idea's out their that relate to government. I think that Carter could of done more during his presidency if Tip Oneil would of not gone out of his way to make Carter's work harder when O'Neil didn't get the promotion he felt he deserved from Carter.
Paper against Bush - kakomu - 10-20-2004
Mantis421 Wrote:Kakomu if you have a chance pick up Locke's book Leviathin, for a book that is almost 350 years old it puts some interesting idea's out their that relate to government. I think that Carter could of done more during his presidency if Tip Oneil would of not gone out of his way to make Carter's work harder when O'Neil didn't get the promotion he felt he deserved from Carter.
Leviathan is Hobbes' book. I already read it.
Locke wrote 'Second Treatise of Government' as well as many others.
Paper against Bush - Cidien - 10-20-2004
Which is why I posted an advanced appology if that isn't what you meant. From what you wrote that's what I got out of it. So once again, you're an asshole. Big surprise.
"Reagan? Hmmm let me think Sold arms to Iran to keep the US prisoners until after he was elected to make Jimmy Carter look like he was unable to negotiate with them."
Um, Jimmy Carter didn't need to "negotiate" with them. He needed to help out the guy in charge (forget what they call him) and instead abandoned him. One of the last things the guy said was he trusts the United States. They have always helped him in the past and he believes they will help him now. Thanks a lot Carter.
Paper against Bush - Mantis421 - 10-20-2004
Yeah your right no that. I had the wrong author, very interesting reading though. I find myself looking at this years Election from Freudian theory to BF Skinners theories. The question that keeps coming to mind is are people in government inately bad or do they develope it over time. It makes you wonder.
Paper against Bush - kakomu - 10-20-2004
Cidien Wrote:Which is why I posted an advanced appology if that isn't what you meant. From what you wrote that's what I got out of it. So once again, you're an asshole. Big surprise.
so what? You totally missed the WHOLE point of my post.
Cidien Wrote:You you correct about the founding fathers wanting to avoid a tyrannical ruler though. They wanted to make sure the whole of america was treated fairly. It also could be used to try to keep fools out of the white house
Popular Tranny != Tyrannical Ruler. Popular Tyranny is mob rule. They were afraid that people were going to get out of hand. Some of the Framers didn't trust them, but many of them did, which is where a compromise was struck (not to be confused with the great compromise seperating congress from the senate).
I also forgot, Clinton>all since LBJ. Eisenhower> LBJ and Roosevelt>Eisenhower.
Paper against Bush - babyeater0 - 10-20-2004
YEAH I WIN THE RETARD PRIZE, anyways that was pathetic even for a first draft you moron.