Political question

[element]

Originally posted by: 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.

I don't care that you're anti-Bush. You have a right to voice your opinion and have your vote count against a president you disagree with. The problem is you're anti-U.S.A.

 

[element]

Originally posted by: 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.

Bush isn't isolationist, Kerry is. Bush is for multilateral negotiations with NK and a half a dozen other nations. Kerry was not until he realized he was wrong then he tried to flip flop his way out of it again.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: 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.

Bush isn't isolationist, Kerry is. Bush is for multilateral negotiations with NK and a half a dozen other nations. Kerry was not until he realized he was wrong then he tried to flip flop his way out of it again.

Oh yes, of course, Bush isn't an isolationist. Just like he's a uniter, not a divider. Or how about that one about being a "compassionate conservative"?

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: 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???

LOL..you're kidding right?

LETS GET THIS STRAIGHT...BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN POSTERS HAVE PROVEN THEMSELVES TO BE COMPELTE IDIOTS. (not all of them obviously I mean some of each)

Blaming the other just proves my point that much more....

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: element
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.

Eh? Why would I leave? I *like* Oregon (for the most part). In fact, the NE US ain't bad, either. It's the middle part of the US I'm not terribly fond of (and I'm not just referring to the election results, I've driven over the entire country. NE is nice, Coastal West is nice. Everything in between is crap.)

The US 'tearing itself apart' may well NOT be a bad thing. I'd happily join an Oregon militia if we seceded.

Somehow, I doubt it would *actually* come to that, though. I don't forsee any states REALLY seceding.

Still, those 'pack your bags' comments are asinine. If I disagree with you, why should I have to turn MY property over to YOU because I think YOU are wrong?

 

[element]

Originally posted by: dderidex

Originally posted by: element
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.

Eh? Why would I leave? I *like* Oregon (for the most part). In fact, the NE US ain't bad, either. It's the middle part of the US I'm not terribly fond of (and I'm not just referring to the election results, I've driven over the entire country. NE is nice, Coastal West is nice. Everything in between is crap.)

The US 'tearing itself apart' may well NOT be a bad thing. I'd happily join an Oregon militia if we seceded.

Somehow, I doubt it would *actually* come to that, though. I don't forsee any states REALLY seceding.

Still, those 'pack your bags' comments are asinine. If I disagree with you, why should I have to turn MY property over to YOU because I think YOU are wrong?

First of all, I wasn't talking to you I was talking to jpeyton. What rock did you crawl out of to join the discussion with your assinine militia and U.S. tearing itself apart may not be a bad idea talk?

Why would you pack your bags? You want to stick around for mayhem? Oh yeah you want to CAUSE the mayhem. Have fun in pound me in the ass prison dumbass.

 

[breweyez]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: 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???

LOL..you're kidding right?

LETS GET THIS STRAIGHT...BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN POSTERS HAVE PROVEN THEMSELVES TO BE COMPELTE IDIOTS. (not all of them obviously I mean some of each)

Blaming the other just proves my point that much more....

lets make sure you realize......most of the people posting have been dems/libs....and they have been rotten lil sh!tz.....thats why i said "how can you possibly ask that???"

im glad to see them fall on their face....they were rude lil sh!tz

 

[b0mbrman]

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?

No, it doesn't look like my candidate is winning but I think it's less of a disaster and more of an indication of a shift of the median American voter.

Don't be surprised if the years that follow bring us Democrat candidates for office who look more Republican than they have in previous years.


Don't forget, the American people and states re-elected Bush and elected the new more-conservative face of Congress.

 

[Red Dawn]

If the Dub replaces Conservatives Justices with other Conservatives Justices the balance will stay the same.

 

[xype]

Originally posted by: 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...

Because we could then see whether they're real patriots or not. Anyone who loves his country will surely sign up for Iraq.

Nothing beats the patriotism out of your head better than your kid shot dead because of it.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: xype

Originally posted by: 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...

Because we could then see whether they're real patriots or not. Anyone who loves his country will surely sign up for Iraq.

Nothing beats the patriotism out of your head better than your kid shot dead because of it.

Have you ever heard of a fallacy? If not, well you were too mentally immature to vote... Finally, can we stop the trolling in P&N. Anyone who says something like xype is a total true. Not only because the draft won't happen again in my lifetime, but because he's being a partisan hack about pariotism.

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: element
First of all, I wasn't talking to you I was talking to jpeyton. What rock did you crawl out of to join the discussion with your assinine militia and U.S. tearing itself apart may not be a bad idea talk?

Why would you pack your bags? You want to stick around for mayhem? Oh yeah you want to CAUSE the mayhem. Have fun in pound me in the ass prison dumbass.

Please, with all the whining you do about the liberals, you'd think you'd be HAPPY to see some left-wing states secede. What use do the bible-thumpers have with the western coastal states or godless NE states, anyway?

Or, wait, that's right, you are trying to *force* everyone to your point of view, and you can't very well do that if the states just up and leave once you finally get your dictator-wannabe in power.

Ah, well, not like it's going to happen, anyway. Would certainly be interesting to see what would happen, though.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: jpeytonThat'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.

Are you a nihilist or something?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

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.

Wow. You are hoping that thousands of Americans die and the country tears itself apart, just because you don't like the president?

You are a seriously, morally bankrupt person.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

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.

Wow. You are hoping that thousands of Americans die and the country tears itself apart, just because you don't like the president?

You are a seriously, morally bankrupt person.

Yeah, the troll has been on a rage this morning.

 

[351Cleveland]

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.

What is wrong with you? You would rather misery on the country for your own political satisfaction than a good outcome to the situation because your guy isnt in office?

 

[351Cleveland]

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?

So a democracy is only viable if everyone disagrees?

There are national elections. Nothing is permanent. The people decide what they want and vote for it. How can it be a disaster if the people are being represented?

 

[sygyzy]

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.

Exactly. I can't believe that element thinks the solution is just getting stuff done. It's about what's right and wrong.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If the Dub replaces Conservatives Justices with other Conservatives Justices the balance will stay the same.

It is not that simple, Red. The judiciary is not as red/blue as Congress is... Differences are more subtle in the high court.

These are the justices that may be up for replacement:

Rehnquist
Stevens
O'Connor
Ginsberg


The Conservative Core of the Court is:
Scalia
Rehnquist
Thomas

The Moderates are (from Conservative to Liberal):
O'Connor
Kennedy
Souter
Breyer

... and the Liberals are:
Stevens
Ginsberg

Bush actually has a chance to obliterate the far left of the court, if his appointments can survive a Democratic filibuster. The Dems need to appoint a strong Minority Leader to keep the party in line.

 

[ITJunkie]

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 also remember, there a good many seats, both republican and democrat, that will be up for re-election in two years.

Realistically, that gives the republican party a couple of years to show us what they can do without "partisan-politics" being a big problem. If they do well, they will gain more seats, if they do poorly one would hope the "checks and balances" will come into play at that point and people would turn control of the senate and house to Democratic candidates.

Of course, this is all in theory

 

[element]

Originally posted by: sygyzy

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.

Exactly. I can't believe that element thinks the solution is just getting stuff done. It's about what's right and wrong.

What good is knowing what's right if it never gets done?

Besides, what makes you think the right won't do what's right?

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: sygyzy

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.

Exactly. I can't believe that element thinks the solution is just getting stuff done. It's about what's right and wrong.

What good is knowing what's right if it never gets done?

Besides, what makes you think the right won't do what's right?

Truely, that is the quandry that the nation is in. Clearly some of Bush's actions during his first term as President were motivited by his impending relection campaign as is common. With such a shrewd stance and determination that seems unwearving, Bush has brought the world to the brink of war and I see no signs of slowing down. We have no way of knowing what was election driven, and what we should expect more or less of in the future.

It is my hope that the radical conservatism displayed by the administration will cease and prudence and more conservative (term, not party) actions will prevail.