This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Do you hate Americans?
Scroll to see replies
Bismarck
Why should the vote of someone in Rhode Island count more than the vote of someone in New York?
So that Rhode Island matters. The electoral college prevents gives smaller states a sometimes slightly disproportionate amount of power, considering population, on the basis that it prevents the smaller states from being voiceless.
There are far too many farmers and other useless people up north that vote for Republicans, and these people make up half of New York's population.
You know, without farmers, you'd have SEVERELY limited dining options. They are hardly "useless."
Why shouldn't New York City have its own Senators? After all, we have a larger population and much larger economy than most states.
Because that would require New York City becoming a state, and most Americans are satisfied with only having 50 states, as it's such a nice, round number. Besides, I doubt NYC would ratify the Constitution.
Iz the Wiz
Again, could you provide an example of "the BBC constantly portray[ing] American in a bad light"?
As I said before, I bet it will consist of the doctrine "criticizing the White House = anti-Americanism."
As I said before, I bet it will consist of the doctrine "criticizing the White House = anti-Americanism."
I found this............I can find dozens of others. I chose this because it does not concern Iraq.
On the BBC site I found:
1) BBC's reporting of U.S. President George Bush's pledge of $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa makes a good case study. Approximating as it does to four times the entire GDP of Zambia, one might expect that such a gigantic aid package would be reported positively. However, a search of the BBC's Web site reveals an altogether different picture.
>Of the articles that relate to the AIDS initiative, one reports President Bush's summer tour of five African countries, entitled: "Is the US Africa's friend or foe?" Within the piece its author remarks: "others saw ulterior motives behind Mr. Bush's visit. Some of the AIDS cash is dependent on deals with U.S. pharmaceutical companies, while others saw America's thirst for oil as the key motivation. Meanwhile the U.S. has refused to commit help to Liberia during [the] recent heavy conflict."
>This is one way that the BBC achieves "impartiality" -- countering positive, real news about the U.S. with hostile "quotes" ascribed to anonymous "sources" or rent-a-rant pressure groups.
1) BBC's reporting of U.S. President George Bush's pledge of $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa makes a good case study. Approximating as it does to four times the entire GDP of Zambia, one might expect that such a gigantic aid package would be reported positively. However, a search of the BBC's Web site reveals an altogether different picture.
>Of the articles that relate to the AIDS initiative, one reports President Bush's summer tour of five African countries, entitled: "Is the US Africa's friend or foe?" Within the piece its author remarks: "others saw ulterior motives behind Mr. Bush's visit. Some of the AIDS cash is dependent on deals with U.S. pharmaceutical companies, while others saw America's thirst for oil as the key motivation. Meanwhile the U.S. has refused to commit help to Liberia during [the] recent heavy conflict."
>This is one way that the BBC achieves "impartiality" -- countering positive, real news about the U.S. with hostile "quotes" ascribed to anonymous "sources" or rent-a-rant pressure groups.
Bismarck
Is that why we have a staunchly Republican governor despite ~70% of NYCers being Democrats?
psychic_satori
I said that it factors in--not that it determines the outcome of elections. It could very well be that the fine, upstanding citizens of NYC tend to go out in greater numbers to vote for the presidential or senatorial elections than they do for gubernatorial ones.
I said that it factors in--not that it determines the outcome of elections. It could very well be that the fine, upstanding citizens of NYC tend to go out in greater numbers to vote for the presidential or senatorial elections than they do for gubernatorial ones.
Douglas
I guess if I were guessing, I'd be guessing that 50% of the NYC'ers don't know who the Govenor of NYS is.
And the other 50% would say "New York STATE?!"
Bismarck
Why should the vote of someone in Rhode Island count more than the vote of someone in New York?
The house of reps is where the NY voters have more power than the RI voters.
psychic_satori
And the other 50% would say "New York STATE?!"
Bismarck
Unlike the federal government, state governments have no choice but to have a balanced budget. Just becaues Pataki isn't as fiscally irresponsible as Bush doesn't make him any less of a Republican.
Unlike the federal government, state governments have no choice but to have a balanced budget. Just becaues Pataki isn't as fiscally irresponsible as Bush doesn't make him any less of a Republican.
The man isn't fiscally responsible, spending almost 90 billion dollars a year, which is a record for NY. Even when taking inflation into account, since taking office, he's increased spending by 15%. That's double the percentage of increased spending we saw under cuomo during his last 8 years.
Regarding fiscal responsibility, I think both parties don't have a very good track record.
psychic_satori
So that Rhode Island matters. The electoral college prevents gives smaller states a sometimes slightly disproportionate amount of power, considering population, on the basis that it prevents the smaller states from being voiceless.
Why should the fact that someone is a Rhode Islander count more than the fact that they're an American?
You know, without farmers, you'd have SEVERELY limited dining options. They are hardly "useless."
Without farmers, we wouldn't need to give them an insane amount of subsidies, which would allow us to cut taxes or spend more on our ridiculously poor education system (where students in NYC get ~20% less funding than students in Buffalo and Albany), and would probably lead to lower prices if the stupid tariffs on agricultural imports were removed.
Because that would require New York City becoming a state, and most Americans are satisfied with only having 50 states, as it's such a nice, round number. Besides, I doubt NYC would ratify the Constitution.
We can always get rid of New Jersey. I doubt anyone will miss it.
Douglas
It doesn't, the people from RI and NY are simply voting for their electors, each vote counts the same.
The house of reps is where the NY voters have more power than the RI voters.
The house of reps is where the NY voters have more power than the RI voters.
No, it doesn't. A vote of a Rhode Islander is worth more than that of a New Yorker. You forget that electors are chosen based on the amount of Congressmen and Senators each state has. If it was only based on the former, each vote would be worth the same. But since each state has the same amount of Senators regardless of the population, people in small states have proportionally more votes than people in large states.
Each New York voters has the same power as each Rhode Island voter in the House of Reps. It's called equal representation. Why don't you tell our fellow Brits that Northumberland should have as many MPs as London?
The man isn't fiscally responsible, spending almost 90 billion dollars a year, which is a record for NY. Even when taking inflation into account, since taking office, he's increased spending by 15%. That's double the percentage of increased spending we saw under cuomo during his last 8 years.
Regarding fiscal responsibility, I think both parties don't have a very good track record.
Regarding fiscal responsibility, I think both parties don't have a very good track record.
Bush increased spending by 25% in the last 4 years. What's your point?
I guess if I were guessing, I'd be guessing that 50% of the NYC'ers don't know who the Govenor of NYS is.
Why should we? The only time we hear about him is when he takes more money from NYC and gives it to his cronies upstate. We are a net contributor to the NYS state, yet we receive less in education spending and road maintenance than the farmers in the north. It's not like they need an education.
Bismarck
Why should the fact that someone is a Rhode Islander count more than the fact that they're an American?
It's human nature. I care more about my neighbor than I care about someone I've never met, just as I care more about an American than I do about a foreigner--because there is a greater commonality.
Without farmers, we wouldn't need to give them an insane amount of subsidies, which would allow us to cut taxes or spend more on our ridiculously poor education system (where students in NYC get ~20% less funding than students in Buffalo and Albany), and would probably lead to lower prices if the stupid tariffs on agricultural imports were removed.
Of course, you'd also be starving.
Thank you for reminding me why I am ridiculously grateful that my father moved from that wretched place before I came about...We can always get rid of New Jersey. I doubt anyone will miss it.
That is true, with their hideous accents and poor taste... Of course, one could say the same about many places...
psychic_satori
It's human nature. I care more about my neighbor than I care about someone I've never met, just as I care more about an American than I do about a foreigner--because there is a greater commonality.
And that justifies giving a Rhode Islander more votes than a New Yorker?
Of course, you'd also be starving. Thank you for reminding me why I am ridiculously grateful that my father moved from that wretched place before I came about...
Thank you for reminding me why I am ridiculously grateful that my father moved from that wretched place before I came about... Other states and other countries have a comparative advantage in producing agricultural products. New York doesn't need its own agricultural industry. The state of our education system is more important to New York's economic success than the amount of money NY farmers get paid to leave their fields empty.
That is true, with their hideous accents and poor taste... Of course, one could say the same about many places...
I would say the same thing about a certain steel town if you didn't have a certain hockey team.
Bismarck
And that justifies giving a Rhode Islander more votes than a New Yorker?
Actually, they have fewer votes in both electoral and popular tallies.
Other states and other countries have a comparative advantage in producing agricultural products. New York doesn't need its own agricultural industry. The state of our education system is more important to New York's economic success than the amount of money NY farmers get paid to leave their fields empty.
I'm not justifying the use of subsidies, but your previous comments weren't that farming is unnecessary in New York, but that farming is unnecessary. There is a huge difference between the two statements. Furthmore, I would ask how much time you have spent upstate to be aware of the employment opportunities, or lack of them?
I would say the same thing about a certain steel town if you didn't have a certain hockey team.
But, you're also the one who would love to see farms disappear, because they're "useless," so forgive me for not taking your opinions all that seriously.
Douglas
I found this............I can find dozens of others. I chose this because it does not concern Iraq.
Please note:
Iz the Wiz a long ass time ago
I bet it will consist of the doctrine "criticizing the White House = anti-Americanism."
Talk about BBC bias, here's an article on climate change:
Link
Out of the 4 people who are quoted in the article, every single one is critical of George Bush. Since when does reporting only require presenting one side of the issue? Furthermore, most of the people quoted bashed Bush, and did not say anything about climate change. A reasoning for America's stance on the issue is not given and no expert who supports America's position is quoted. Pure propaganda.
Link
Out of the 4 people who are quoted in the article, every single one is critical of George Bush. Since when does reporting only require presenting one side of the issue? Furthermore, most of the people quoted bashed Bush, and did not say anything about climate change. A reasoning for America's stance on the issue is not given and no expert who supports America's position is quoted. Pure propaganda.
Wasn't confetti supposed to fall from the ceiling once this thread hit 2,500 posts?
Bismarck
Talk about BBC bias, here's an article on climate change:
Link
Out of the 4 people who are quoted in the article, every single one is critical of George Bush. Since when does reporting only require presenting one side of the issue? Furthermore, most of the people quoted bashed Bush, and did not say anything about climate change. A reasoning for America's stance on the issue is not given and no expert who supports America's position is quoted. Pure propaganda.
Link
Out of the 4 people who are quoted in the article, every single one is critical of George Bush. Since when does reporting only require presenting one side of the issue? Furthermore, most of the people quoted bashed Bush, and did not say anything about climate change. A reasoning for America's stance on the issue is not given and no expert who supports America's position is quoted. Pure propaganda.
I doubt they would be able to find any pro-Bush or pro-US people on this issue. Denying that the world is getting warmer is downright moronic and protecting your self interest will not get you many supporters. Especially when you are the president of a country which has the 4% of the overall population and produces 25% of overall CO2 emissions.
Bismarck
Bush increased spending by 25% in the last 4 years. What's your point?
Originally Posted by Iz the Wiz a long ass time ago
I bet it will consist of the doctrine "criticizing the White House = anti-Americanism."
I bet it will consist of the doctrine "criticizing the White House = anti-Americanism."
Douglas
I didn't forget anything, and it's not "congressmen", it's "representatives". The reps represent the districts, the senators represent the states, the sum of the reps and senators are congressmen/woman, which represent the number of electoral votes for the Prez, what's the problem?
The problem is that Rhode Island has 0.7% of the vote despite having 0.3% of the population.
25% of what?
Federal spending was $1.8 trillion in 2000. $1.8 trillion in 2000 is worth $2 trillion right now according to this handy calculator. Federal spending in 2005 is $2.5 trillion. Do the math. Go to Section 1 for the stats.
Alexdel
I doubt they would be able to find any pro-Bush or pro-US people on this issue. Denying that the world is getting warmer is downright moronic and protecting your self interest will not get you many supporters. Especially when you are the president of a country which has the 4% of the overall population and produces 25% of overall CO2 emissions.
Well, you know, they could have asked someone from the Bush administration. Members of all the major British political parties are quoted.
psychic_satori
Wasn't confetti supposed to fall from the ceiling once this thread hit 2,500 posts?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
