I bet it came about cuz of his father also being a "George Bush".
The difference was the "W" in the middle. Hence, "Dubya".
It's short, clear & rather clownish....how could we not call him that?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Republican Tax Nonsense
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
I bet it came about cuz of his father also being a "George Bush".
The difference was the "W" in the middle. Hence, "Dubya".
It's short, clear & rather clownish....how could we not call him that?
George W. Bush = George Dubya Bush.
Now thank your parents for your Scottish accent.
When I was a kid we had a neighbor named Dub. His name was William; Dub was short for Double-U, which was short for William.
Ahh I see. I say it as "Double you." Dubya never even occured to me as how some might say it lol.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Come on people now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
And vote Democrat
Right now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
And vote Democrat
Right now
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Yes, that's the other point I was going to explain. It's Dubya and not "Double-yu" because he's from the south of the country where it's pronounced "dubya".
T-Dawg
Self-appointed Lunatic
Why not Green? Or Socialist, if they're running in your area?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Because I want my candidate to win.
Smoke
Done here.
Me, too.
But then, I also want to vote for somebody who's not a scumbag.
If only I could have both.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Don't hate the playa, hate the game.
T-Dawg
Self-appointed Lunatic
But what can we do about the game if we keep electing people who want to keep the game?
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Stop electing people who want to keep the game.
T-Dawg
Self-appointed Lunatic
As Angellous pointed out, those people never win.
I see a revolution coming soon. The intelligent minority will overthrow the System and... do... something. )(
Rio Sabinas
Old Geezer
mball sez, "Stop electing people who want to keep the game"
I'm a total dummy, show me someone trying to get elected in "Politics" not playing "The Game".
I'm a total dummy, show me someone trying to get elected in "Politics" not playing "The Game".
Everyone is gaming everyone else. Tis an inexorable process which will unfold no matter what we
do about it. Democrats will vote for Democrats no matter how incompetent they are. Repubs will
vote for Repubs no matter how wide his stance in the stall. And Libertarians will vote for Libertarians
even though we lose every big election.
So why might you ask, am I here carping about it & trying to sway others? I just can't stop myself.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Then we need to start making them win.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
There aren't many, if any. But that's still the solution to the problem. It's just a complicated solution.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
It's too big of a risk right now. If the Republican party continues to fracture, then we can divide up the Democratic party and have a full reform. There's simply too much at stake to allow Republicans to have anything to do with running the government.
I don't want my friends to die for nothing in Iran and/or North Korea because I voted Libertarian or Green on a piddly issue that can be taken care of by a movement within the party.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
You mean it's too big a risk to vote for the third party because it'll just put a Republican in office?
If so, that's why I advocate alternative voting systems, where you can vote for your first choice, but also vote for the democrat in case your first choice doesn't win, so that you don't throw away your vote. Emboldened with that knowledge, I think we'd see a huge upswing in third-party votes.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Yes, that's exactly what I mean.
We're never going to be able to unify on everything, so we have to compromise and work with eachother on the lowest common denomenator first and then branch out to other interests within the party that most suits our ability to get what we want.
I don't see how your voting system would be fair - it's attractive and I'd be delighted by it, but allowing for two votes for one office for people who vote third party gives those who want to vote just for their party gives too much advantage to the third party voters.
Then you would have to consider that the same candidate would want to run on every ticket - all the third party ballots he can muster as well as all the votes from the major party. After all, the people can vote on both ballots so it's only fair that the candidate run on both ballots. This goes back to the issue of fairness - if a candidate chooses to run on two ballots, but a person can only vote once because she doesn't like the third party, the candidate and the voter are at a disadvantage.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I started a thread on this recently. The idea is everyone votes for their top two choices (or possibly three). If no one gets 51+% of the vote, then all but the top two drop off. Then for any candidates other than the top two, you count their second votes, and apply them to the top two. For instance:
Out of McCain, Obama and Nader, 40 people vote for McCain, 40 people vote for Obama and 20 for Nader. Nader drops off, and the ballots who voted for him are counted for their second votes. Out of those 20, 15 had Obama as their second choice, and only 5 had McCain, which means Obama wins.
That way, everyone can vote for their first choice, and also be assured that they aren't throwing away their vote.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Very interest-sting.