Promise to Ironworks - Page 2

Rokenn · 02-04-2004, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
Maybe I need to revisit 8th Grade Civics class, but I thought the electoral college had to vote the way the state goes.

As I remember that varies from state to state.

Skunk · 02-04-2004, 03:10 AM

Well.... we live in a newspaper age where headlines are often short to the point that it has become a style. I have never seen a headline like:

"Prime Minister Blair announces resignation"
rather, it would always be given in the format of:
"Blair announces resignation"

There are also cultural issues to take into account. Most of us Brits FROWN when people use titles (even if they have a right to use them), considering it to be pretentious to use both title and name.

Thus you will often hear us refer to the:
The Queen, The Prime Minister, The Defence Minister, Lizzie, (Tony) Blair, (Geoff/rey) Hoon
but almost never:
Queen Elizabeth, Prime Minister (Tony) Blair, Defence Minister (Geoff/rey) Hoon

It is NOT a sign of disprect to the office that they hold, rather a distaste in the usage of titles as if the title-holder is somehow 'better' than the rest of us.

The only exception are the princes (Prince Charles, Andrew, Edward, Philip) whose names are curiously linked to their titles. Perhaps it is because we never refer to their surname?

[ 02-04-2004, 03:12 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

Chewbacca · 02-04-2004, 03:26 AM

Well I have no problem refering to President Bush as simply Bush. Perhaps to keep somewhat in line with the appearance of repesctful ettiquite, it would be appropriate to come up with more specifically topical titles, like instead of "Bush's Budget" it could be "The new Budget". Instead of "Bush and the enviroment" it could be "Enviroment policy news concerning the executive branch"(bad example) In other words, leave Bush out of title.

When crafting titles, I usually favor either catchy titles that have impact (like 'Give me your poor...and I'll lock em up') or ones that imply going straight to the topic (like 'Powell and Kay on WMDs').

*shrugs* Whatever works I guess.

Memnoch · 02-04-2004, 03:59 AM

Why don't you blokes just call him Geedubya?

WillowIX · 02-04-2004, 07:00 AM

Timber, there's only one reasonable answer in that poll of yours and you know it Sir kook! [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Call me rebellious but I'll never type anything but Bush, Chretien, Thomas whatever the last name may be. Were I addressing him I'd probably call him Mr Bush. He's not my president you know. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Seraph · 02-04-2004, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
Maybe I need to revisit 8th Grade Civics class, but I thought the electoral college had to vote the way the state goes.

(The following is from November 2000) This is true in 25 states. The other 24 states still do not require their members of the Electoral College to vote for their party's designated candidate. Some states have pretty weak penalties for faithless electors, things like $1000 fines.

The Virginia (13 votes) statute may be advisory - "Shall be expected" to vote for nominees.

The 24 states that do not require pledges add up to 257 votes.
Add Virginia and you get 270 votes.

[ 02-04-2004, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Seraph ]

Timber Loftis · 02-04-2004, 09:21 AM

Seraph, thanks for the info.

Well, the results are in, and it looks like only one things for certain: my sanity is questioned.

Stratos · 02-04-2004, 10:08 AM

Then why, O why, did you put that as an option?

Skunk · 02-04-2004, 10:20 AM

I'll give you one extra thing to mull over Timber.

I for one have absolutely no problem in insulting and attacking Bush, Clinton, Reagan or Carter etc.

I have every problem conceivable with the notion of attacking the office of President of the United States.

Consequently, I much prefer the man and the office to be separated on those grounds alone...

Timber Loftis · 02-04-2004, 10:29 AM

Fair enough, Skunk. But, I think the respect for the Office, not the man, is exactly what's behind the US Code's statutes on addressing the president ("Mr. President," etc.).

Anyway, this was intended to be more about the prevalence of the word "Bush" more than whether or not he should be called "President Bush." Somehow the tail began wagging the dog. No matter, though, this "dog" of a thread was just for fun anyways.

But, why should I bother anymore, you all think I'm fruity as a nutcake.... erm, that didn't come out right.

View Poll Results: Promise to Ironworks
I'm with ya, Timber, good idea. I accept the charge.	8	24.24%
I disagree Timber, more Bush is good bush I say!	6	18.18%
Timber, you sir are a kook! I mean it. Certifiable. Straight Jacket Style.	19	57.58%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

02-04-2004, 03:26 AM	#13
Chewbacca Zartan Join Date: July 18, 2001 Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth Age: 50 Posts: 5,373	Well I have no problem refering to President Bush as simply Bush. Perhaps to keep somewhat in line with the appearance of repesctful ettiquite, it would be appropriate to come up with more specifically topical titles, like instead of "Bush's Budget" it could be "The new Budget". Instead of "Bush and the enviroment" it could be "Enviroment policy news concerning the executive branch"(bad example) In other words, leave Bush out of title. When crafting titles, I usually favor either catchy titles that have impact (like 'Give me your poor...and I'll lock em up') or ones that imply going straight to the topic (like 'Powell and Kay on WMDs'). shrugs Whatever works I guess. __________________ Support Local Music and Record Stores! Got Liberty?

02-04-2004, 03:59 AM	#14
Memnoch Ironworks Moderator Join Date: February 28, 2001 Location: Boston/Sydney Posts: 11,771	Why don't you blokes just call him Geedubya? __________________

02-04-2004, 07:00 AM	#15
WillowIX Apophis Join Date: July 10, 2001 Location: By a big blue lake, Canada Age: 50 Posts: 4,628	Timber, there's only one reasonable answer in that poll of yours and you know it Sir kook! [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] Call me rebellious but I'll never type anything but Bush, Chretien, Thomas whatever the last name may be. Were I addressing him I'd probably call him Mr Bush. He's not my president you know. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] __________________ Confuzzled by nature.

02-04-2004, 09:21 AM	#17
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	Seraph, thanks for the info. Well, the results are in, and it looks like only one things for certain: my sanity is questioned. __________________

02-04-2004, 03:10 AM	#12
Skunk Banned User Join Date: September 3, 2001 Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands Age: 62 Posts: 1,463	Well.... we live in a newspaper age where headlines are often short to the point that it has become a style. I have never seen a headline like: "Prime Minister Blair announces resignation" rather, it would always be given in the format of: "Blair announces resignation" There are also cultural issues to take into account. Most of us Brits FROWN when people use titles (even if they have a right to use them), considering it to be pretentious to use both title and name. Thus you will often hear us refer to the: The Queen, The Prime Minister, The Defence Minister, Lizzie, (Tony) Blair, (Geoff/rey) Hoon but almost never: Queen Elizabeth, Prime Minister (Tony) Blair, Defence Minister (Geoff/rey) Hoon It is NOT a sign of disprect to the office that they hold, rather a distaste in the usage of titles as if the title-holder is somehow 'better' than the rest of us. The only exception are the princes (Prince Charles, Andrew, Edward, Philip) whose names are curiously linked to their titles. Perhaps it is because we never refer to their surname? [ 02-04-2004, 03:12 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

02-04-2004, 10:08 AM	#18
Stratos Vampire Join Date: January 29, 2003 Location: Sweden Age: 43 Posts: 3,888	Then why, O why, did you put that as an option? __________________ Nothing is impossible, it's just a matter of probability.

02-04-2004, 10:20 AM	#19
Skunk Banned User Join Date: September 3, 2001 Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands Age: 62 Posts: 1,463	I'll give you one extra thing to mull over Timber. I for one have absolutely no problem in insulting and attacking Bush, Clinton, Reagan or Carter etc. I have every problem conceivable with the notion of attacking the office of President of the United States. Consequently, I much prefer the man and the office to be separated on those grounds alone...

02-04-2004, 10:29 AM	#20
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	Fair enough, Skunk. But, I think the respect for the Office, not the man, is exactly what's behind the US Code's statutes on addressing the president ("Mr. President," etc.). Anyway, this was intended to be more about the prevalence of the word "Bush" more than whether or not he should be called "President Bush." Somehow the tail began wagging the dog. No matter, though, this "dog" of a thread was just for fun anyways. But, why should I bother anymore, you all think I'm fruity as a nutcake.... erm, that didn't come out right. __________________

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Alzheimer's drugs show promise	Dreamer128	General Discussion	1	07-24-2004 04:37 PM
Another republican breaking a promise	Rokenn	General Discussion	2	07-08-2003 12:12 PM
ok last one for awhile...but it is better i promise	Stormymystic	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	5	04-27-2003 10:08 PM
ok last joke for today...I promise	Stormymystic	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	7	04-24-2003 04:28 PM
Last post--I promise	DavidL	Icewind Dale \| Heart of Winter \| Icewind Dale II Forum	2	06-29-2001 06:56 PM