Umm... All hail king Barry?
-
John Carson wrote:
Even taking this at face value, what does it have to do with term limits? Would a succession of Democratic presidents be hugely different from one president that kept getting re-elected? And would not the Democratic party itself likely choose to change its nominee after a few terms?
John, the simple point is that the democrats, as always, are going to do evertything they can to consolidate their hold on power. And they will get away with it regardless of how aggregious their behavior is precisely because they have so many apologists out there such as yourself. What Obama has already done is orders of magnitude worse than the sum total of everything Bush is accused of doing. And no one gives a shit.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What Obama has already done is orders of magnitude worse than the sum total of everything Bush is accused of doing.
:confused: :confused:
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
So the Tweedledee and the tweedledum party have been able to stay in power 148 years. (You, yourself, in your saner moments have said that the Republicans and Democrats aren't all that different and that the true conservative cause (whatever that is) is not served by either of 'em.)
I have never said they are not different. The Republican party remains, at its heart, what it has always been - a pro-buisness, pro free market party. It is not, and has never been, a conservative party. Its leadership has been more willing to acknowledge the perceived leftward shift in American civilization since FDR than it has to fight for a true conservative agenda. They are a centrist party that courts conservatives. The democrats are controlled entirely by leftists. They are a leftist party that courts centrists. Its a big difference. Not as big as I would like, but big enough.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The Republican party remains, at its heart, what it has always been - a pro-buisness, pro free market party.
Drink all your koolaid, there's a good little boy.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What Obama has already done is orders of magnitude worse than the sum total of everything Bush is accused of doing.
:confused: :confused:
John Carson
You want to talk about overblown, John. Accusing Bush of wiretapping phones was overblown. Accusing him of torture was overblown. Accusing him of invading IRaq for oil was overblown. Accusing him of being a liar was overblown. That is what defines overblown. This[^] is not overblown. It is a flagrant assualt upon the heart of American democracy. ANd the fact that it can be done with such blatant impunity and disregard for even the slightest concern from the vast mass of reporting services is trully horifying, although not in the least bit surprising.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The Republican party remains, at its heart, what it has always been - a pro-buisness, pro free market party.
Drink all your koolaid, there's a good little boy.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Drink all your koolaid, there's a good little boy.
The kool aid is all yours, pal.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Drink all your koolaid, there's a good little boy.
The kool aid is all yours, pal.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The kool aid is all yours, pal.
Really? and whose would that be? Surely you're not quite stupid enough to accuse me of being a running dog liberal. Or are you?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
You want to talk about overblown, John. Accusing Bush of wiretapping phones was overblown. Accusing him of torture was overblown. Accusing him of invading IRaq for oil was overblown. Accusing him of being a liar was overblown. That is what defines overblown. This[^] is not overblown. It is a flagrant assualt upon the heart of American democracy. ANd the fact that it can be done with such blatant impunity and disregard for even the slightest concern from the vast mass of reporting services is trully horifying, although not in the least bit surprising.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Accusing Bush of wiretapping phones was overblown.
No, factual.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Accusing him of torture was overblown.
No, factual.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Accusing him of invading IRaq for oil was overblown.
Agreed.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Accusing him of being a liar was overblown.
No, factual.
Stan Shannon wrote:
This[^] is not overblown. It is a flagrant assualt upon the heart of American democracy.
Talk about overblown!! A dispute over ways to come up with population estimates, with maybe a couple of percent at issue. About as significant as whether or not it rains on election day. I don't have any strong views on how the census should be done. In Australia, it is a strict head count with no sampling. I just don't see it as a big deal either way. I do, however, think that these issues should be determined by an independent body, just as I think the drawing of electoral boundaries should be done by an independent body.
Stan Shannon wrote:
ANd the fact that it can be done with such blatant impunity and disregard for even the slightest concern from the vast mass of reporting services is trully horifying, although not in the least bit surprising.
I don't know about Fox News, but the New York Times, the Washington Post, various television networks and many other media outlets have covered the census controversy. Perhaps you need to read more widely.
John Carson
-
BoneSoft wrote:
And if the US keeps it up, I'll have to consider my "Taco Stand in Japan" as less of a joke and more of a business plan.
Sorry, friend, but your taco stand is not a good reason for us to spend billions of dollars buying off N Korea. However, If you need a stateside representative, let me know.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oh no no no, I wouldn't want anybody to buy them off... How much does a nuke cost these days? :laugh:
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The leadership of the party was then to be decided by a combination of (1) the Labour Party Members of Parliament, (2) The Trade Unions, and (3) by ordinary party members across the UK, not exactly one party member one vote.
Okay, but once that vote is taken, is there not a formal vote by the House of Commons? And when a vote of confidence or a budget vote is taken, surely at these times there is no referring the vote to outside souces? The MPs vote. Isn't that the case?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
The election of a party leader is done solely by the party. The Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats have no say at all in who the leader of the Labour Party is. The elected members of the Labour party would indeed have a vote on who the Labour Party leader would be alongside the block votes from the Trade Union and the ordinary members of the party throughout the UK. The formula is not straight forward. After Blair, Gordon Brown became the leader. There was no other labour party candidates. Regarding budget debate and motions of no-confidence. Budget - the government puts forward it proposals. These proposals have immediate effect in terms of excise duties yet as soon as the Chancellor sits down, the Shadow Chancellor gives a reply. Shortly after that the Commons debate happens and a vote is taken. If the government loses the vote the governments fiscal measures including spending and taxation plans cannot be put into effect and if ignored would cause paralyses as government no longer has the legal right to collect or spend monies. The government has no choice but to submit its resignation to the Queen who will authorise a General Election. Essentially the same rules are applicable in terms of "The Queens' Speech" where the Governments' legislative plans for the year ahead if failed on the Commons vote would again cause paralysis of sorts and the Government would need to submit its resignation. The provisions regarding motion of confidence is the house stating that they have no confidence in the Government and if successful, a General Election must be called to regain confidence. These being matters of constitution requires activity from HM The Queen who has special responsibilities to resolve such matters thus always ensuring that there continues to exist a Government.
-
fat_boy wrote:
The UK has no limitaiton on the number of terms a PM can serve
I don't know how to break it to you, but the U.S. doesn't have a Prime Minister. We have a President who has far more power and far less responsibility to the legislature than does the UK's Prime Minister.
fat_boy wrote:
In fact, limiting it is actually UN democratic since it FORBIDS people voting for who they want.
But a minute ago you were comparing the president of the US who at least is elected by people from all over the land, with the UK's Prime Minister who is elected by 50%+1 of one house of Parliament. Kindly make up your mind as to what method of electing a national leader works best and get back to me. The real truth is that ultimately it doesn't matter. Presidents and Prime Ministers and Glorious Leaders are all selected by a relatively small group of people who then arrange to have them put into power. This is as true of the U.S. as it is of Venezuela or France. I did grow up in a time and place where this was hidden better than it is today, but now it is pretty clear that voting rearranges the deck chairs on the Titanic, it doesn't change its course. That's up to the captain and his officers.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
but the U.S. doesn't have a Prime Minister
No shit.
Oakman wrote:
We have a President who has far more power and far less responsibility to the legislature than does the UK's Prime Minister
Only in detail. While we have a Queen the PM has almost total power, at least while having popular support of his/her party. And even without part support can so what he/she wants. Look at Iraq. Blair went to war despite massive resistance and two cabinet members resigning over the issue. The Queens spower can only be influential, and while she has the right to dissolve government would only do so in the most extreme of situations.
Oakman wrote:
But a minute ago you were comparing the president of the US who at least is elected by people from all over the land, with the UK's Prime Minister who is elected by 50%+1 of one house of Parliament
Not so. Dont mistake the fact that the party will ellect a leader who is popular to the people, and also dont forget the party is composed of huge sections of the general population all of whoom have as much a say regarding the parties leader as electing a government.
Oakman wrote:
now it is pretty clear that voting rearranges the deck chairs on the Titanic, it doesn't change its course
Thats a god analogy, and in many ways not unreasonable. I think people like being led. They want someone to steer the ship. Its only when that somneone reaches a stage where they are clearly incompetent for whatever reason then the people wil vote. Dont forget in the UK roughly only half those eligible to vote actually do so. They are happy with the general runing of the country and whether 5% more gets spent on armaments or schools and hospitals is of little interest in their lives. And also dont forget that with maturity comes the narrowing of extremes, so there really isnt much choice in the UK anyway. Blair was as right wing as Thatcher in many ways.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Oakman wrote:
but the U.S. doesn't have a Prime Minister
No shit.
Oakman wrote:
We have a President who has far more power and far less responsibility to the legislature than does the UK's Prime Minister
Only in detail. While we have a Queen the PM has almost total power, at least while having popular support of his/her party. And even without part support can so what he/she wants. Look at Iraq. Blair went to war despite massive resistance and two cabinet members resigning over the issue. The Queens spower can only be influential, and while she has the right to dissolve government would only do so in the most extreme of situations.
Oakman wrote:
But a minute ago you were comparing the president of the US who at least is elected by people from all over the land, with the UK's Prime Minister who is elected by 50%+1 of one house of Parliament
Not so. Dont mistake the fact that the party will ellect a leader who is popular to the people, and also dont forget the party is composed of huge sections of the general population all of whoom have as much a say regarding the parties leader as electing a government.
Oakman wrote:
now it is pretty clear that voting rearranges the deck chairs on the Titanic, it doesn't change its course
Thats a god analogy, and in many ways not unreasonable. I think people like being led. They want someone to steer the ship. Its only when that somneone reaches a stage where they are clearly incompetent for whatever reason then the people wil vote. Dont forget in the UK roughly only half those eligible to vote actually do so. They are happy with the general runing of the country and whether 5% more gets spent on armaments or schools and hospitals is of little interest in their lives. And also dont forget that with maturity comes the narrowing of extremes, so there really isnt much choice in the UK anyway. Blair was as right wing as Thatcher in many ways.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
No sh*t.
Then stop talking as if they do.
fat_boy wrote:
he PM has almost total power, at least while having popular support of his/her party
Our President often is the titular head of the minority party. It doesn't matter. He has, as I said, far more power and far less responsibility to the legislature.
fat_boy wrote:
The Queens spower can only be influential, and while she has the right to dissolve government would only do so in the most extreme of situations
Not quite sure why you bring her up. I certainly have never thought of her as anything more than a figurehead - kind of like our Washington Monument. ;)
fat_boy wrote:
Dont mistake the fact that the party will ellect a leader who is popular to the people, and also dont forget the party is composed of huge sections of the general population all of whoom have as much a say regarding the parties leader as electing a government
It still boils down to who gets 50%+1 votes in the House of Commons. The Labour Party may indeed permit input from others into the selection, but when push comes to shove, the selection is made by the MPs who belong either to the majority of to the coalition that forms a majority. And it can be remade at the drop of a hat by means of a negative outcome on designated votes.
fat_boy wrote:
And also dont forget that with maturity comes the narrowing of extremes, so there really isnt much choice in the UK anyway. Blair was as right wing as Thatcher in many ways.
As one of the more mature regs, I prefer to think of it as the wisdom conferred by the grace of age. :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.