Originally posted by jammerAnd... the Republicans did nothing to erode the 'checks and balances' any further whilst cornering all the power?
The "checks and balances" got out of whack for about 6 years.
The Republicians had all the power cornered.
The Donkeys emploded ... and are still floundering around in a daze.
No leadership on the Left .. they went over the edge and out of touch with the mainstream American people.
That's my story .. and i'm stickin' to it.
The mainstream American people don't really seem too keen on the war in Iraq any more - surging and refusing any timetable for withdrawal doesn't really indicate that this administration is in touch with the American people ... wouldn't you say?
Originally posted by Sam The ShamYeah....that's happened a bunch of times before, and it's one of the things I don't like about our system. We can have a republican president with a democrat-controlled congress, or vice-versa, and it can be a troublesome combination. I believe the English parlimentary system requires that their Prime Minister be a member of the majority party, and that would make for a smoooooooooth transition of power if the people are unhappy, but I'm not big on foreign governments.
Then the legislative branch can overide the executive if it feels strongly enough about it. If it's just a whisper thin majority and the president doesn't like it, he can tell them no and have them rethink it for more debate. Seems like a good system.
Anyone from the UK want to comment?
Originally posted by hamltnblueDo you salivate when you hear a bell?
The reason the veto wasn't used much is that the negotiating was done before the vote took place in the first place. This includes things passed by the Democrat Congress. The current issue is basically this: The majority of the Democrats behind the surrender bill voted for us going in the first place, and before the usual "bush lied" comment, read the r ...[text shortened]... ate that they want immediate withdrawal? Because they would go down in history as cowards.
I can understand college age people falling for the rhetoric that is being thrown out about the war. When this all started back in the 80's most people under 30 weren't born or weren't old enough to be paying attention to what was going on. That's why I recommend that people read up on the history of the first Iraq war and the years before. Also on the 90's with the cat and mouse games sadam played while using Gas on hundreds of villages. There were over a dozen UN resolutions saying basically "this time we really mean it". before that there was the Afghanistan war with the Soviets. We helped the Afghans win there. The mistake was that when the war was over there was no follow up by us or anyone else. the result was the Taliban and Alquida (spelling?) took over and created a terrorist state. We paid for that in 93 with the first world trade center attack, along with several other attacks. The final result was 911. It's not popular but there really is a need to clean things up over there to prevent the same thing from happening. At some point we will probably have one or more bases over there just like we did with Germany, Japan, Phillipines etc after WWII. We're still in Germany and Japan today.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamI am at my happiest when the pres. and congress are of opposite parties. Anytime legislation can come to a standstill, we are better off.
Yeah....that's happened a bunch of times before, and it's one of the things I don't like about our system. We can have a republican president with a democrat-controlled congress, or vice-versa, and it can be a troublesome combination. I believe the English parlimentary system requires that their Prime Minister be a member of the majority party, and tha ...[text shortened]... are unhappy, but I'm not big on foreign governments.
Anyone from the UK want to comment?
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeone small clue ... you have opened a thread titled "Bush the Dictator?" ...
I'm not; I'm aware that the post 9-11 political climate combined with the domination of the houses by the republicans over the past 6 years has not provided many reasons to use the veto. My questions are more along the lines of 'is the veto necessary?', so I should have titled the thread better.
Anyway what makes you think I am anti-Bush?
Originally posted by treetalkNah, it's always been a one way street. Back in the 80's the don't ask, don't tell policy wasn't enacted yet so your type wasn't allowed in. There were a couple of shipmates however that probably wouldn't have minded seeing the top of your head dancing around. 🙂
Liberty?
Ah - your back door wasn't used for entry/exit. 🙂
Originally posted by hamltnblueHard for them to have seen past your belly, though. 😉
Nah, it's always been a one way street. Back in the 80's the don't ask, don't tell policy wasn't enacted yet so your type wasn't allowed in. There were a couple of shipmates however that probably wouldn't have minded seeing the top of your head dancing around. 🙂