I’m not opposed to constitutional editing (with extreme care), but yes, there is a Ron Paul sticker on the dangling bumper of my former vehicle. I’ll be streaking 3rd in red, white, & blue bodypaint if either he or Obama win next November.
So tell me how a system so praised by it’s supporters can allow a State to execute people but won’t let them mandate Electric cars?
Or whats coming, overrule the people of Alaska, kill all the cariboo, and pump out a trickle of ANWAR oil, rather than allow them?
I just watching the episode of Futurama where they steal “Passion of the Christ 2”, and Brian’s Prius has a Kucinich '04 bumper sticker on it
I’m not praising the State, I’m supporting the constitution. Unfortunately, there’s a huge difference these days. I’d love to discuss each and every of the issues you mentioned and hopefully debunk some American vilifications, but this isn’t the proper thread to dissect macropolitics.
Isn’t that what “the United States” of America is (or was, to begin with)? A union of separate jurisdictions that wanted to trade freely with each other, and supply a joint military for defense? And everything other than that was solely the responsibility of the individual members?
The American system works just fine when there are people in politics with a backbone. I think the current process of getting elected (fundraising being more important than issues) has crippled the system somewhat – the only leaders elected are the ones that can raise money. And you know how they raise their money.
Iraq wouldn’t have happened without all those in congress agreeing to it. If a majority disagreed, then no Iraq. The “checks and balances” would have worked just fine. The problem was that a majority of Americans really did want to go to war – remember the polls that showed a majority of Americans thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11 ?
As for Canadian “real” checks and balances, how about Mulroney passing the GST bill? 80% of Canadians opposed him, even the Senate opposed him. And he was still able to do it. Where were the “real” checks and balances then?
Seems to me that a government that can do something that is opposed by 80% of its population and is opposed by its senate (which is supposed to be the balance!) doesn’t have any “real” checks and balances other than an election…
This is why the ultimate “checks and balances” government is a minority government. Witness the backing down on the Canadian DMCA last month…
Mulroney and the GST will stand forever as a major failing of our Democratic process.
As was the entire US media and Congress lining up to smack down Iraq.
"Somebody gonna get hurt really, really bad."
Too bad it was the wrong somebody.
I find it really sad that the Democrats re-took both houses yet they’re acting like lame-duck weenies. They were elected because America was disgusted with the war in Iraq. The Dems promised change…yet they’re behaving like they’re afraid of Bush. Pathetic…( I do like the Dems a lot more than the GOP btw).
I don’t like this weird guy…Romney. He’s doing well in Wyoming…lots of Mormons out there.
(CNN) – Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will win the Wyoming Republican caucuses, CNN projects.
We were wrong about Iraq being involved with 9/11… we now know without a doubt that it was all masterminded by Iran!!
It is somewhat disconcerting to think that Bush is currently engaged in a battle of wits with Ahmadinejad.
Have no fear. There are more fingers on my hands than voters in Wyoming, and they’re the kind of voters who are missing several fingers. He can have em.
The latest poll today shows that Obama is surging ahead of Clinton, he has a 10 point lead on her in NH. Tuesday will be interesting.
MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) – Two days before New Hampshire’s Democratic primary, Sen. Barack Obama has opened a double-digit lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton in that state, a new CNN-WMUR poll found Sunday.
Partially because the entire form they use to debate is lost on Americans.
Hillary was pretty damn good in that debate, not that Obama wasn’t. But Obama looked and sounded greedy for the job, and extremely hawkish and ignorant of foreign policy (which they LIKE down there).
The Democrats did a hell of a lot of sniping against each other, and Obama and Edwards really, really aimed at the “her record means dick, experience means dick” type of argument. It was actually a disgusting display and showed the extreme anti-intellectual slant that the public has bought into thanks to GW and his dinosaur crowd.
On the Republican side, they seemed to snicker over Ron Paul as a flake, but Guilliani and McCain are fucking warhawks to the bone. Bombs may fly, but BC gold and Alberta oil will do well if either of them wins.
I’d go for Hillary if I was a Yank. Obama has zero qualifications for the job of President. And his view of universal medicare is really wonky. Start with 2 tiered?
I don’t think I’d vote for either of them if I was a Yank, I’d support Edwards. I just can’t see Clinton or Obama as President.
Whether you’re a Republican
or a Democrat
You can send your thoughts near and far…
The Democrats did a hell of a lot of sniping against each other, and Obama and Edwards really, really aimed at the “her record means dick, experience means dick” type of argument.[/quote]
So it doesn’t bother you that Hillary is running on “experience,” yet won’t release records of her activities as first lady? Experience is valuable, but a veneer of experience means dick.
It was actually a disgusting display and showed the extreme anti-intellectual slant that the public has bought into thanks to GW and his dinosaur crowd.[/quote]
I’m presuming that you find Hillary to be the sole beacon of intellectualism within her party. Unless you want to somehow substantiate that argument, I’d suggest that you do a little less watching and a little more reading.
You can discredit the election process all you like (I agree that it’s broken), but summarily judging the American populace’s taste for foreign policy knowledge – or their ability to follow debates – is lazy and ignorant.
I made no statement about the American public’s foreign policy knowledge. That would require an entire book.
Obama’s reply to the first question asked, that implied he would go into Pakistan unilaterally without first mentioning any diplomatic options is lazy and ignorant. As ignorant as Guilliani’s statement that America is “at war”.
The fact that no one from the gallery, the media, or the candidates themselves questioned the slant, or the validity of any questions asked was as I pointed out, ignorant.
And the second remark you quoted refers to how in the last decade "he who out-disses the other’ wins the argument in the minds of many people. Bush calling Kerry a ‘leftist’ and then dodging the question entirely was seen as a legitimate response in the last Presidential debate.
I’m not sure if this has been posted here or not but it fits in nicely with this thread.
I think you just want to vent about it, rather than discuss it. Well then, as you were; I’m out.