maybe someone can say im right or wrong on this

[bubz_bluez]

isnt their like a balance of powers.......their cant be another republican president in the next election can thier?? the balance has to shift over to the domocrats right? im gonna look up if a repulican has ever been president eleven years in row

bubz

the balance has to exsist right? wtf ?

[bangg trimm]

ronald reagan - 8 years
+ geo. h.w. bush- 4 years
----------------------------
republican prez - 12 years


just finishing up A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn; it seems he says what i have always suspected, but more articulately. in the chapter called "Carter-Reagan-Bush: The Bipartisan Consensus" he writes:

"Halfway through the twentieth century, the historian Richard Hofstadter, in his book The American Political Tradition, examined our important national leaders,f rom Jeffferson and Jackson to Herbert Hoover and the two Roosevelts--Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. HOfstadter concluded that 'the range of vision embraced by the primary constestants in the major parties has always been bounded by the horizons of property and enterprise....They have accepted the economic virtues of capitalist culture as necessary qualities of man.... That culture has been intensely nationalistic....'

Coming to the tend of the century, observing its last twenty-five years, we have seen exactly that limited vision Hofstadter talked about--a capitalistic encouragement of enormous fortunes alongside desperate poverty, a nationalistic acceptance of war and preparations for war. Governmental power swung from Republicans to Democrats and back again, but neither party showed itself capable of [fuck i might say "interested in"--bangg] going beyond that vision."




in short, government = tool of the very rich. and there's really not much difference on a fundamental level between the two current parties. they both serve corporate interest and income-- even to the point of extreme military buildup and deployment of troops to protect other nation's natural resources so that american corporations can ultimately control and profit from them. just remember to call it "counter-terrorism" or "regime change", not "war" or "greedy, heartless invasion and slaughter"

:peace:
bt

[Diamond Vision]

at least when the dems are in power the war is quiet, right? we can deal with real issues like cum stains on dresses, etc..

[bubz_bluez]

this sucks i swear ....... the questions of balace of powers doesnt really exsist from what i found damn it ..........i was wrong

bubz

:rant:

[bangg trimm]

at least when the dems are in power the war is quiet, right? we can deal with real issues like cum stains on dresses, etc..

and those Welfare Queens flaunting all their stolen business in front of my face, and all those people who keep whining about "representation" and "democracy".

they should really just buy a few shares and shut the fuck up! Hey! when's american idol on?

[JVO]

this sucks i swear ....... the questions of balace of powers doesnt really exsist from what i found damn it ..........i was wrong

Seperation of powers doesn't have anything to do with political parties. Simply stated our forefathers wanted to ensure that no one person or political body had all of the power because they believed this would lead to a dictatorship and the trampling of self evident rights. In order to do this they broke up the Federal Government into three parts, The Executive Branch(The President and all his staff, cabinent, and cronies) , The Legislative Branch (House of Representatives and U.S. Senate), and The Judicial Branch (The Supreme Court).

Some powers given to each branch include:

Executive Branch:
Sets National Agenda
Gives State of the Union
Veto power of legislation
Commander and Chief
Nominate Cabinnt members and Federal Judges including Supreme Court Justices

Legislative Branch:
Make the laws
Ability to impeach the President
Ability to override a veto
Set Political territorties (gerrymandering)
Make Treaties
Declare War
Confirm Presidential Nominees

Judicial Branch:
Able to strike down anything that they believe is unconstitutional as long as some one files suit
Handle disputes between the Congress and the President

Historically the balance seems to sway back and forth depending on who is President (FDR, Reagan and GWB are examples of very strong Presidents while Carter and Eisenhower were not strong) In the 1800's the legislative branch was by far the most powerful, but as we moved into a faster paced world (and as a result of the Civil War) the Executive Branch seems to now dominate. In my opinion the Judicial Branch is the most powerful (see election of 2000) because they can tell either of the other two branches to go to hell whenever they want and there is nothing short of a coup de ta that the other branches can do about it. Also members of the Supreme court hold life time posts and are not elected, but appointed.

There ya go BB, a little American Government 101 for you.

[JVO]

BT: "A People's History..." is one of the greatest books ever written!!!!!

I completely agree with that section that you sited. How can we expect Congressional members of the Energy Committee to legislate Oil companies when a vast majority of the money they receive for their campaigns come from oil companies???? My solution to this is TERM LIMITS for Congress. If Congresspersons were restricted in the number of terms they could serve, perhaps they would not become so cozy with those that they are suppose to oversee. Also every Congressional term would have a significant number of Congresspersons who were lame ducks and maybe then they would be more fair minded in their policies since they would have nothing to lose. I don't think this would completely solve the problem, but I think it would help.

Ever read "Of Democracy" by Alexis de Tocqueville? Perhaps the best book ever written about democracy in American. Despite the fact that it was written almost 300 years ago it is still as true today as it was the day it was written.

[slam]

BT: "A People's History..." is one of the greatest books ever written!!!!!

word. always fun to see a version of history that takes the point of view of those who lost out.

How can we expect Congressional members of the Energy Committee to legislate Oil companies when a vast majority of the money they receive for their campaigns come from oil companies???? My solution to this is TERM LIMITS for Congress.

apparently, we can't expect those congressional members to even place the oil company executives under oath during senate hearings. we wouldn't want to accidentally get one of them indicted for pergury during their lying, would we?

If Congresspersons were restricted in the number of terms they could serve, perhaps they would not become so cozy with those that they are suppose to oversee. Also every Congressional term would have a significant number of Congresspersons who were lame ducks and maybe then they would be more fair minded in their policies since they would have nothing to lose. I don't think this would completely solve the problem, but I think it would help.

i think it'd be a nice start. at least make the corporations have to spend more money buying people off.

[MigueL]

Sounds like you guys might enjoy reading "The world is flat" by by Thomas L. Friedman and "Freakanomics Freakonomics : A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything " by Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner. I advise going to this site at amazon and reading the complete reviews on both these books. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/006073132X/bookstorenow57-20/104-3469080-4974361