[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by IceFire
I vote that England comes back in and takes over...parliamentary democracy although deeply flawed works so much simpler

And a whole lot more efficiently.

I mean, look how often the American system gets itself into a deadlock.  Congress wants one thing and the president wants another, so they keep putting the smackdown on each other.  It takes them forever to get anything done.

Same with this filabustering technique they love so much.  It essentially shuts down that part of their government for hours or even days at a time.

Now, I understand the (entirely appropriate) desire for "checks and balances," but there are better, more effective ways than this to achieve that.  Parlimentary democracy has flaws of its own, but it certainly does a vastly superior job of providing checks and balances without the wasted time and deadlocks that can last for years.

[Nuke]

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing


I vote that we turn Washington in the toilet of the world, and flood them with shiit up to their eyebrows. That would rattle their cage a bit...

funny, i thought it already was

i just say nuke everything, it would be the perfect final solution to the human question. burn them alive!

*edit* forgot to dscuss the issue

i think the rebublicans of all people should understand the dangers of extreemisim. the conservative way of thinking is if something works, dont **** with it. this is definately ****ing with things. its inconsistant with traditional republican views. if there was a time for a coup in the us governent this would be it. there are plenty of republicans who see that whats ging on is bad for the government.

i dont really see the filibuster as an effective strategy in politics, it just takes time away from important issues. i dont like my tax dollars being used to generate excessive bull**** in my governemt. were not paying theese people to talk about nothing. surely the filibuster isnt the only check/balence that keeps the government stable. id like to see less bull**** in government and more work.

[Liberator]

The Filibuster has never been used to stop the voting on Judicial candidates.  There is no historical precedent for it.  It was intended to give minorities the power to stall legislation to try and tip the votes in their favor.

Here's a little tidbit for you:

Bush has only had 55%, or so, of his nominee's given an up or down vote.  In contrast Clinton, the previous Bush, and Reagan all had over 90% of their candidates voted on by this time of their term(s) in office.

The reason that the dems(liberals/communists/marxists/red diaper doper babies, ect) are scrambling to prevent these judges from even being looked over is because they are a dying party.  Their only real remaining power structure are the activist judges that currently sit on several major courts.  If they allow Bush's nominees to take a seat in whatever court they are up for, that power base disintegrates.

[Bobboau]

the reason the conservitives/facists/theocrats/****ing-morons want these juges in is because they have an inborn almost sexual need to controle every aspect of peoples lives, they can't stand the posability that someone could disagree with them because, much like a normal two year old, they are simply mentaly incapable of grasping the concept of two people not agreeing, so they must legislate there beleifes.

if you haven't figured it out that was a sarcastic jab

now, would you pease stop telling me what I beleive, want, or why I am doing something. you have a slim majority for the first time in years just because you have the majority doesn't mean your right. the reason these judges are not being confirmed is simple they are 'activist judges', who once in position will 'legilate from the bench' but because they are conservitive judges, you don't say that, no, you say they "will uphold the law" by interpeting eveything with a conservitive slant.

"...no historical precedent for it..."
wait a second, don't I remember you saying something about how precident is not something that should make any diference when interpeting laws? you know, so that you'd be able to get around that who abortion case without haveing to actualy reverse it.

[Bobboau]

I'm sorry, Ijust read this thing and the atempt to arbitraraly redefine something because you disagree with it has me a bit on the warpath right now

[Ace]

Liberator, Disciple of Darth Cheney and follower of Cheney's Little Red Book also known as a bible.

[Kosh]

I mean, look how often the American system gets itself into a deadlock. Congress wants one thing and the president wants another, so they keep putting the smackdown on each other. It takes them forever to get anything done.

The deadlocks are caused when neither side is willing to comprimise. Comprimise is what politics is all about, but the americans seem to have forgotten about that.

People in this country only have 2 parties to choose from (there are others, but put together they only get 2% of  the vote in a good year). Most people no longer vote for someone because they actually like that person, but because they have a "D" or an "R" next to their name.

When either party is in control, they just go off and do their own agenda regardless of what the people really want. To cover themselves they weave a wall of deception, and a great many people fall for it. Virtually all politicians lie to some extent everywhere, but in america it is really going way too far.

Is this REALLY a democracy? Hardly. I am proud to say that I am NOT a registered voter.

Bush has only had 55%, or so, of his nominee's given an up or down vote. In contrast Clinton, the previous Bush, and Reagan all had over 90% of their candidates voted on by this time of their term(s) in office.

I'd really like to see where you got those figures from.

dems(liberals/communists/marxists/red diaper doper babies, ect)

More name calling? Is that REALLY all you are capable of? Do you ever wonder why a lot of people here don't seem to like you? Having a political debate is one thing, but name calling is usually only something someone does when that person no longer has any valid points and/or facts to support him/her.


EDIT: Ace, can you please remove that picture? It's disgusting. If you absolutly want to show it to everybody you could just provide a link to it.

[Ace]

Something Awful seems to now have an anti-remote linking setup. The original picture was simply a Maoist poster changed to have Cheney as Mao and bibles as the red book.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
The Filibuster has never been used to stop the voting on Judicial candidates.  There is no historical precedent for it.  It was intended to give minorities the power to stall legislation to try and tip the votes in their favor.

Here's a little tidbit for you:

Bush has only had 55%, or so, of his nominee's given an up or down vote.  In contrast Clinton, the previous Bush, and Reagan all had over 90% of their candidates voted on by this time of their term(s) in office.

The reason that the dems(liberals/communists/marxists/red diaper doper babies, ect) are scrambling to prevent these judges from even being looked over is because they are a dying party.  Their only real remaining power structure are the activist judges that currently sit on several major courts.  If they allow Bush's nominees to take a seat in whatever court they are up for, that power base disintegrates.

So what, you think a single-party system is a good thing?

[Unknown Target]

It is if his party is in control.

On a related note: Kosh, that's dumb. Become a registered voter, and vote for someone who you think can make the right choices, even if it is independent and sure to lose. If you don't agree with any of their stances, fine, don't vote, but don't not vote because you don't like what others are doing. That's why we are able to vote - so that we can change our own government.


Related to that note: Become involved. Because of all of this I've already registered at the DNC website (www.dnc.org), and are looking into ways I can help put my country back on the right course. It doesn't take a hero, just someone who cares.
EDIT: And about that; there's a lot of very interesting articles on the DNC website. Yes, it is of course biased, but they link to several news sites that give credible facts to back up the claims. if you're interested at all at what's going on behind the scences, please do read up on everything.

[Kosh]

On a related note: Kosh, that's dumb. Become a registered voter, and vote for someone who you think can make the right choices, even if it is independent and sure to lose. If you don't agree with any of their stances, fine, don't vote, but don't not vote because you don't like what others are doing. That's why we are able to vote - so that we can change our own government.

You 100% missed the point of my last post. Read through what I said CAREFULLY, then step back and try to think OBJECTIVELY without your personal bias.

We can't really change our government if we don't like either of our choices.

[Dark RevenantX]

Bush=lie.  Seriously, my friend thinks that Iraq bombed us...

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Dark RevenantX
Bush=lie.  Seriously, my friend thinks that Iraq bombed us...

Why, does he watch Fox News?

[Unknown Target]

Originally posted by Kosh


You 100% missed the point of my last post. Read through what I said CAREFULLY, then step back and try to think OBJECTIVELY without your personal bias.

We can't really change our government if we don't like either of our choices.

How does saying that you should be involved in your own government make me biased?

And if you don't like the two choices, fine, don't vote - like I said. But look into doing all you can to make things right.

EDIT: And that's the last I'm going to say on the subject. I'm not going to drag the thread into a flame war.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by aldo_14


So what, you think a single-party system is a good thing?

That's really the fundamental question. I generally hope that everyone, regardless of political affiliation can see the danger in single-party rule, but sometimes I feel like I'm giving people too much credit.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
It is if his party is in control.

On a related note: Kosh, that's dumb. Become a registered voter, and vote for someone who you think can make the right choices, even if it is independent and sure to lose. If you don't agree with any of their stances, fine, don't vote, but don't not vote because you don't like what others are doing. That's why we are able to vote - so that we can change our own government.


Related to that note: Become involved. Because of all of this I've already registered at the DNC website (www.dnc.org), and are looking into ways I can help put my country back on the right course. It doesn't take a hero, just someone who cares.
EDIT: And about that; there's a lot of very interesting articles on the DNC website. Yes, it is of course biased, but they link to several news sites that give credible facts to back up the claims. if you're interested at all at what's going on behind the scences, please do read up on everything.

I have not, nor have I ever held that stance.  Do not make this about me.

But I also notice that you accuse my "side" of wanting to legislate our beliefs...you may want to have a little introspection into you're own "side" before casting that accusation about.  The most that my "side"(not party, if the Republicans deviate to much, I'll leave) can be accused of is wanting to slow down the degeneration of society and I would like...like...to see a return to a more traditional set of moral values.  I'm not talking about Puritanism either, I'm talking about a return to a society where children didn't need to be drugged because they were more intelligent than their peers and the teachers couldn't handle it.  I seek a society where right and wrong are clearly defined and people aren't celebrated because they stuck it to the Man.  A society where you are a adult not because you've ****ed someone, but because you've stepped up and started to make responsible choices and are willing to deal with the consequences, and not run and hide when they become more than you expected.  A society where Politicians didn't buy votes by adding yet another program to an already insanely oversized Federal/State budget.

I'm not so deluded to think that this can happen fully, but if even a but of comes to pass, the world would be better.

[Unknown Target]

Oh my God...I'm not even going to reply to that. If I do I might turn this into a flame war. Please, someone else educate this man on the way the world works.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator


I have not, nor have I ever held that stance.  Do not make this about me.

But I also notice that you accuse my "side" of wanting to legislate our beliefs...you may want to have a little introspection into you're own "side" before casting that accusation about.  The most that my "side"(not party, if the Republicans deviate to much, I'll leave) can be accused of is wanting to slow down the degeneration of society and I would like...like...to see a return to a more traditional set of moral values.  I'm not talking about Puritanism either, I'm talking about a return to a society where children didn't need to be drugged because they were more intelligent than their peers and the teachers couldn't handle it.  I seek a society where right and wrong are clearly defined and people aren't celebrated because they stuck it to the Man.  A society where you are a adult not because you've ****ed someone, but because you've stepped up and started to make responsible choices and are willing to deal with the consequences, and not run and hide when they become more than you expected.  A society where Politicians didn't buy votes by adding yet another program to an already insanely oversized Federal/State budget.

I'm not so deluded to think that this can happen fully, but if even a but of comes to pass, the world would be better.

A society tailored to your particular ideal of what an 'ideal' society is, you mean.  Your definition of right, wrong, values, morals, ethics, etc is not one that everyone will share; any society that is democratic and fair thus needs representation for that alternate view, and a voice.

turning it into an issue of 'right versus wrong' does not make the domination of a single ideology right; especially when the very concept of right and wrong is one that is deeply personal.

As soon as you say 'degeneration' of society, that concerns me; instantly it equates the other side as being wrong, and as such seeks to discredit legitimate dissonance from them.  If and how society is degenerating is most definately based upon the beliefs of the Republicans, and indeed any political party will make a judgement upon that as a matter of policy.

It's almost completely subjective; define a responsible choice, and it'll be the choice you think is right, that's all.  Same goes for moral values et al.  And 'better world'; the thought of one nations leadership (with what; 300m votes max) defining the rest of the world is terrifying - regardless of who that nation or leadership is.

[redmenace]

Frankly, the filibuster is a stupid idea. Being able to hold up anothers agenda for simple political pandering is stupid. It has been used to hold up such things as Equal Rights Legislation in the 50s and 60s. And can be used by either party for evil and to hold up progress. In addition, this isn't about Judges; this is a show. An act for the base of the democratic party. A waste of time and resources of the senate for 10 judges. In total, the filibuster is one of the myriad of reasons that the senate can't get **** done.

Also, Stupid bush and republicans and dick cheney is the spawn of satan. ok, whatever. People on here think that americans are stupid for voting bush into office. You don't realize that we are damned if we vote for democrats or republicans, because in the end they are all politicians and by definition don't really care about what is right and virtuous. Any person that strictly thinks that one is really better than the other is already, and simply, ****ed in the ass.

[Liberator]

Yes, please, tell me what is wrong with having some absolutes in morality and personal responsibility.  The largest problem facing the world is the fact that some people believe that all minorities, no matter the size or composition of their position, must have a voice.  

Now I am not going to say that there should only be one point of view, and I ask you to not pervert my words to indicate otherwise.  What I am saying is that a minority should not be given undue credence simply because they happen to attack you're political rivals somehow.

If I absolutely believed that Bush was from Capella-A and that he had it in for Humanity as a species.  Half of you would probably change you're opinion of me simply because I had attacked Bush.  It's really kind of pathetic.