Political question

[Goosemaster]

Assuming that Bush has indeed won the election, that the presidet will appoint a conservative supreme court judge if Renquist dies, and now that many addittional republicans have been elected to office, I have a question to pose.

With such a loppsided government, how can a fair actualization of the system of checks and balances exist? Simply, it forces the constituency of the United States to rely solely on the neutrallity of these officials, and it all but silences any voice minority issues might have in government.

Isn't this a democratic (regarding the term, not party) disaster?

 

[tec699]

That's life kid. Personally, I hope more people are sent to Iraq and Bush starts the draft. It would be fun to watch.

 

[Mojoed]

It's not just Renquist Dems need to be concerned about. EIGHT out of NINE Supreme Court Justices were born between 1920-1939. Wouldn't surprise me to see 1-3 new justices within the next four years.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: tec699
That's life kid. Personally, I hope more people are sent to Iraq and Bush starts the draft. It would be fun to watch.

It'd be fun to watch why? Just wondering how far your rhetoric is willing to go...

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: tec699
That's life kid. Personally, I hope more people are sent to Iraq and Bush starts the draft. It would be fun to watch.

That is seriously what I'm hoping for. I want to see Bush's policies drive America into a messy war that requires a draft...the country will tear itself apart when that happens.

 

[Mill]

Ok, I think people way overreact to the USSC justices. There is a confirmation process(regardless of the Reps being in control) and Justices do NOT always turn out to be the same persuasion that their appointee held them to be. See many choices over the past 100 years have ended up decidedly to the other side of who appointed them.

 

[element]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Assuming that Bush has indeed won the election, that the presidet will appoint a conservative supreme court judge if Renquist dies, and now that many addittional republicans have been elected to office, I have a question to pose.

With such a loppsided government, how can a fair actualization of the system of checks and balances exist? Simply, it forces the constituency of the United States to rely solely on the neutrallity of these officials, and it all but silences any voice minority issues might have in government.

Isn't this a democratic (regarding the term, not party) disaster?

This is actually a pretty good point. I'm surprised an Atoter came up with it so quickly.

It's true things may be a bit lopsided at least for the next 4 years. But wouldn't you agree that more things tend to get done when more people agree on what needs to get done?

 

[cmdavid]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: tec699
That's life kid. Personally, I hope more people are sent to Iraq and Bush starts the draft. It would be fun to watch.

That is seriously what I'm hoping for. I want to see Bush's policies drive America into a messy war that requires a draft...the country will tear itself apart when that happens.

hmm.. and thats what you want? thats optimistic...

 

[faiznne]

The people choose to elect Republicans and therefore the government has Republicans. There is no democratic disaster.

We made our choice and I love it.

 

[Rob9874]

If that's what the American public voted in, then the message is that they don't want a check/balance of the liberal viewpoint. They have spoken, and want to see what a Republican government can do.

 

[element]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: tec699
That's life kid. Personally, I hope more people are sent to Iraq and Bush starts the draft. It would be fun to watch.

That is seriously what I'm hoping for. I want to see Bush's policies drive America into a messy war that requires a draft...the country will tear itself apart when that happens.

thanks ahole. at least we know where you stand. firmly against the U.S. Does your myopic mess of a mind realize that you reside here too when you say you hope the U.S. tears itself apart?

Are you going to move to some 3rd world craphole to prtect yourself from your imagined "war that tears the U.S. apart?

pack your bags you're not wanted anyway if that's your attitude.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Assuming that Bush has indeed won the election, that the presidet will appoint a conservative supreme court judge if Renquist dies, and now that many addittional republicans have been elected to office, I have a question to pose.

With such a loppsided government, how can a fair actualization of the system of checks and balances exist? Simply, it forces the constituency of the United States to rely solely on the neutrallity of these officials, and it all but silences any voice minority issues might have in government.

Isn't this a democratic (regarding the term, not party) disaster?

This is actually a pretty good point. I'm surprised an Atoter came up with it so quickly.

It's true things may be a bit lopsided at least for the next 4 years. But wouldn't you agree that more things tend to get done when more people agree on what needs to get done?

It's not about "getting things done." It is about doing the right things. Altough the former is the ideal, haste all but gurarentees nothing.


For some time now I have been expressing my desire to have Kerry win the Presidency while having most of the senate and the Congress remain republican.

It would create such deadlock that decision making would come under universal scrutiny, which in a time of war, it truely needs.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, prudence solves more than premption when it comes to world issues.

 

[KevinH]

Originally posted by: tec699
That's life kid. Personally, I hope more people are sent to Iraq and Bush starts the draft. It would be fun to watch.

Jesus. Tell me you're not serious. As a supporter of Kerry, tell me you're not. It's Michael Moore sh1t like this that drives more people away from the more sensible aspects of liberalism. Disgusting.

 

[tec699]

Originally posted by: KevinH

Originally posted by: tec699
That's life kid. Personally, I hope more people are sent to Iraq and Bush starts the draft. It would be fun to watch.

Jesus. Tell me you're not serious. As a supporter of Kerry, tell me you're not. It's Michael Moore sh1t like this that drives more people away from the more sensible aspects of liberalism. Disgusting.

I'm kidding. I'm just a bit dissappointed.

I can take Bush in office, but a House and Senate full of Republicans scares me. No ones goign to be held accountable!

 

[element]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Assuming that Bush has indeed won the election, that the presidet will appoint a conservative supreme court judge if Renquist dies, and now that many addittional republicans have been elected to office, I have a question to pose.

With such a loppsided government, how can a fair actualization of the system of checks and balances exist? Simply, it forces the constituency of the United States to rely solely on the neutrallity of these officials, and it all but silences any voice minority issues might have in government.

Isn't this a democratic (regarding the term, not party) disaster?

This is actually a pretty good point. I'm surprised an Atoter came up with it so quickly.

It's true things may be a bit lopsided at least for the next 4 years. But wouldn't you agree that more things tend to get done when more people agree on what needs to get done?

It's not about "getting things done." It is about doing the right things. Altough the former is the ideal, haste all but gurarentees nothing.


For some time now I have been expressing my desire to have Kerry win the Presidency while having most of the senate and the Congress remain republican.

It would create such deadlock that decision making would come under universal scrutiny, which in a time of war, it truely needs.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, prudence solves more than premption when it comes to world issues.

More good points but I still disagree. i would say those doing harm the the U.S. don't have the same kind of opposition you would like to see in the U.S. govt.

I would also say that it is possible to be prudent even if one party hold a majority. Also keep in mind the govt. is still accountable to the people of the U.S.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: tec699
That's life kid. Personally, I hope more people are sent to Iraq and Bush starts the draft. It would be fun to watch.

That is seriously what I'm hoping for. I want to see Bush's policies drive America into a messy war that requires a draft...the country will tear itself apart when that happens.

thanks ahole. at least we know where you stand. firmly against the U.S. Does your myopic mess of a mind realize that you reside here too when you say you hope the U.S. tears itself apart?

Are you going to move to some 3rd world craphole to prtect yourself from your imagined "war that tears the U.S. apart?

pack your bags you're not wanted anyway if that's your attitude.

I agree. I love it when liberals say such antagonistic things and I hope they truely hope they don't believe their own crap.

I am a stonch believe in that wrong doing and failure must not be proven and actualized to be repespected and understood.

For me at least, it is easy to see how dreary the future might look if Bush wins. Still, I have the respect for what might happen in that I will never ever gloat on it for the sake of making others look bad.

i say what I say or type what I type because I truely want a better today and a better tommorow, not because tommorow serves to prove you wrong.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: KevinH

Originally posted by: tec699
That's life kid. Personally, I hope more people are sent to Iraq and Bush starts the draft. It would be fun to watch.

Jesus. Tell me you're not serious. As a supporter of Kerry, tell me you're not. It's Michael Moore sh1t like this that drives more people away from the more sensible aspects of liberalism. Disgusting.

yep, that's the attitude that'd turn off people, it sure as hell isn't one that help your cause out.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Assuming that Bush has indeed won the election, that the presidet will appoint a conservative supreme court judge if Renquist dies, and now that many addittional republicans have been elected to office, I have a question to pose.

With such a loppsided government, how can a fair actualization of the system of checks and balances exist? Simply, it forces the constituency of the United States to rely solely on the neutrallity of these officials, and it all but silences any voice minority issues might have in government.

Isn't this a democratic (regarding the term, not party) disaster?

This is actually a pretty good point. I'm surprised an Atoter came up with it so quickly.

It's true things may be a bit lopsided at least for the next 4 years. But wouldn't you agree that more things tend to get done when more people agree on what needs to get done?

It's not about "getting things done." It is about doing the right things. Altough the former is the ideal, haste all but gurarentees nothing.


For some time now I have been expressing my desire to have Kerry win the Presidency while having most of the senate and the Congress remain republican.

It would create such deadlock that decision making would come under universal scrutiny, which in a time of war, it truely needs.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, prudence solves more than premption when it comes to world issues.

More good points but I still disagree. i would say those doing harm the the U.S. don't have the same kind of opposition you would like to see in the U.S. govt.

I would also say that it is possible to be prudent even if one party hold a majority. Also keep in mind the govt. is still accountable to the people of the U.S.

And yet they seem to have dealt with accountability quite hastely it seems....

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: tec699
That's life kid. Personally, I hope more people are sent to Iraq and Bush starts the draft. It would be fun to watch.

That is seriously what I'm hoping for. I want to see Bush's policies drive America into a messy war that requires a draft...the country will tear itself apart when that happens.

thanks ahole. at least we know where you stand. firmly against the U.S. Does your myopic mess of a mind realize that you reside here too when you say you hope the U.S. tears itself apart?

Are you going to move to some 3rd world craphole to prtect yourself from your imagined "war that tears the U.S. apart?

pack your bags you're not wanted anyway if that's your attitude.

That's the second time tonight someone has told me to pack my bags. Why on earth would I do that? I want a front row seat when this country goes to sh1t.

And if you think I'm not being realistic, you do realize that we just re-elected George W. Bush to a second term in which HE WILL have to deal with Iran and North Korea. It sure is nice to have a gun slingin' cowboy as our President (with a Repub. Congress to give him the blank check) to solve our issues with two (nuclear) members of the "Axis of Evil".

If that doesn't spell "messy war", I don't know what does.

 

[KevinH]

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Assuming that Bush has indeed won the election, that the presidet will appoint a conservative supreme court judge if Renquist dies, and now that many addittional republicans have been elected to office, I have a question to pose.

With such a loppsided government, how can a fair actualization of the system of checks and balances exist? Simply, it forces the constituency of the United States to rely solely on the neutrallity of these officials, and it all but silences any voice minority issues might have in government.

Isn't this a democratic (regarding the term, not party) disaster?

This is actually a pretty good point. I'm surprised an Atoter came up with it so quickly.

It's true things may be a bit lopsided at least for the next 4 years. But wouldn't you agree that more things tend to get done when more people agree on what needs to get done?

It's not about "getting things done." It is about doing the right things. Altough the former is the ideal, haste all but gurarentees nothing.


For some time now I have been expressing my desire to have Kerry win the Presidency while having most of the senate and the Congress remain republican.

It would create such deadlock that decision making would come under universal scrutiny, which in a time of war, it truely needs.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, prudence solves more than premption when it comes to world issues.

More good points but I still disagree. i would say those doing harm the the U.S. don't have the same kind of opposition you would like to see in the U.S. govt.

I would also say that it is possible to be prudent even if one party hold a majority. Also keep in mind the govt. is still accountable to the people of the U.S.

I agree that in an ideal political climate, the government were indeed accountable to us. The last year has proven to me that too many questions can be left unanswered with zero accountability. I don't need to make a list but I'm sure that anyone that follows politics can list them (hali, Abu, etc. etc.). That's where Goosemaster's sentiment holds true for me. Unfortunately, it seems like there is a huge contingent that will believe whatever the administration tells them, and there's another that says those are lies even if it were true. It's sad.

 

[conjur]

Christian Reconstruction...the first wave has hit.

 

[breweyez]

MIND YOUR FVKING MANNERS IN HERE

have you not noticed how nasty the libs/dems have been here????

how can you possibly ask that???

 

[KevinH]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: tec699
That's life kid. Personally, I hope more people are sent to Iraq and Bush starts the draft. It would be fun to watch.

That is seriously what I'm hoping for. I want to see Bush's policies drive America into a messy war that requires a draft...the country will tear itself apart when that happens.

thanks ahole. at least we know where you stand. firmly against the U.S. Does your myopic mess of a mind realize that you reside here too when you say you hope the U.S. tears itself apart?

Are you going to move to some 3rd world craphole to prtect yourself from your imagined "war that tears the U.S. apart?

pack your bags you're not wanted anyway if that's your attitude.

That's the second time tonight someone has told me to pack my bags. Why on earth would I do that? I want a front row seat when this country goes to sh1t.

And if you think I'm not being realistic, you do realize that we just re-elected George W. Bush to a second term in which HE WILL have to deal with Iran and North Korea. It sure is nice to have a gun slingin' cowboy as our President (with a Repub. Congress to give him the blank check) to solve our issues with two (nuclear) members of the "Axis of Evil".

J., do you really wish this? HOnestly, I'm trying to understand this sentiment. Why?

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: KevinH

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: tec699
That's life kid. Personally, I hope more people are sent to Iraq and Bush starts the draft. It would be fun to watch.

That is seriously what I'm hoping for. I want to see Bush's policies drive America into a messy war that requires a draft...the country will tear itself apart when that happens.

thanks ahole. at least we know where you stand. firmly against the U.S. Does your myopic mess of a mind realize that you reside here too when you say you hope the U.S. tears itself apart?

Are you going to move to some 3rd world craphole to prtect yourself from your imagined "war that tears the U.S. apart?

pack your bags you're not wanted anyway if that's your attitude.

That's the second time tonight someone has told me to pack my bags. Why on earth would I do that? I want a front row seat when this country goes to sh1t.

And if you think I'm not being realistic, you do realize that we just re-elected George W. Bush to a second term in which HE WILL have to deal with Iran and North Korea. It sure is nice to have a gun slingin' cowboy as our President (with a Repub. Congress to give him the blank check) to solve our issues with two (nuclear) members of the "Axis of Evil".

J., do you really wish this? HOnestly, I'm trying to understand this sentiment. Why?

Ask him in a couple weeks. Right now, he's just bitter and pissed off.

 

[jpeyton]

It's an inevitability.

America has chosen to keep Bush's pre-emptive foreign policy as we face the challenge of stopping nuclear proliferation, not only in Iran and NK, but also securing the large number of nukes in Russia.

Use your heads for a second. Do you think there is any GREATER threat to our security beyond nuclear proliferation? Our isolationist pre-emptive policies will leave us with dangerous choices to make to stop proliferation.