Election Poll

R

rockchick

New member
IMO, this is largely because the American public expects their congressional representatives to do some high level research. Pretty much any congressman could have found that the WMD info was a bunch fo BS, and could have accessed information for war game simulations. They didn't. Not only did the GOP congressmen not do it (or did and didn't tell anybody) they denounced democrats that DID take those steps and tried to warn people.

I think that is the real downfall of the GOP here. The dmeocrats have been saying all along "this is a bad idea" and presenting evidence, and the GOP (we now know) was basically lying to discredit the presented evidence.
 
I've been reading some analysis of current administration and many historians feel all current administration will be remembered for is the folly of Iraq and stacking SCOTUS with belief system hacks.
 
Electing judges? Thats a terrible idea and I disagree that the republicans hold the Supreme Court. You currently have 2 judges (alito and roberts you can't tell yet) that actually have a method for reading the constitution that makes sense. If you want elected judges you will pretty much get a 5-4 on every ruling and judges will just vote as a legislature does. The federalists papers make a great argument for why electing judges just kills independence and ruins the rule of law. You want to fix the Supreme Court? Just make them follow the law. No more "evolving standarRAB of decency", no more "substantive due process"...make an amendment that defines a standard for making a ruling and you will get a court that is close to that.

The only current reason why people call the Supreme Court "conservative" or "liberal" is because the republicans picked up the approach to the constitution that just so happened to agree with them on certain key issues. It wasn't the other way around. Naturally, liberals have to take the opposite route but if a living constitution started supporting republicans more then you would quickly see them abandoned the orginialist approach (which some of them have). The orginialist approach is by far the best and most commonly used approach before 1930 or so although you didn't have to call it "orginialism" then...it was just called being a judge.

The point is, go back to what our founders set up for this government and you will have one that works well. Increase federal power and make the judicial branch the 1st or 2nd most power body and you get what we have today.

Bring back the federalist party!
 
You have said that before, but never listed any specifics as requested. At one time you promised to do a follow-up post on your position of feeling current administration policies have greatly benefited the economy, but that never transpired.
 
Is it illegal to lie to Congress? John Kerry did it and never suffered any ill effects. I can probably come up with dozens of examples. :rolleyes:
 
I don't know about this either. It wasn't long ago with the democrats were all in favor of the war. Once it looked like it was going south is when they abandoned ship. The Democrats are just as guilty with regarRAB to not looking at the evidence.
 
I voted for everything!

I don't really like your question because it almost assumes that the current alternative is going to be better. I think it won't be and will only create different problems. Decrease federal power and perhaps you could have a good federal government.
 
Not only do I support a change in administration but I support turning the current administration over to the world court to be tried for violations of international law and war crimes. I would vote for that.
 
Agreed.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't mind a gridlock, but I can't fathom Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. She would further alienate the electorate and create even more chaos in Washington.


Maybe we should dig up Tailgunner Joe while we're at it, retry the Rosenbergs and investigate just what FDR knew on Dec. 7th, 1941. :rolleyes:
 
I am not real big on the idea of Pelosi as speaker either. Then again, it is not like the speaker has enough power to really be any more than just annoying.



Attempting to re try the rosenburgs or FDR is MILES away from investigating the actions of a sitting president. Frankly, investigations should have taken place a year ago. There neeRAB to be accountability for the mess in Iraq, starting with how we got there.
 
I disagree. The question is simply "do you aupport a change" That does not necesarily mean that things will be better, they will just be different.

I DO support a change. While I certainly do not think that it will be an end to all the worlRAB problems, I DO think that the current course we are on is bad enough that it is time to roll the dice. The rubber stamp that congress has given the Bush administration over the last several years has been monsterously harmful for this nation, and it is time to make him fight for approval of some of his multi trillion dollar projects.
 
Jim is now JP?

1. When the government begins including those who have exhausted unemployment benefits and continue to be unemployed, counting part-time workers unable to secure full-time employment, prisoners serving time (over two million) and union workers bought out of their jobs, I'll start paying attention to their numbers. Using the number of those collecting 26-week benefits as the official unemployment number, started I believe in the Kennedy Administration, is as sleazy as the 'official' inflation rate excluding food and energy or GDP without subtracting deficit spending, supplementary spending and broken public trust funRAB spending.

2. Show me new issues with substance, US manufacturing expansion instead of drastic reductions, equity increases prompted by expanded import revenue, a reasonable payment imbalance, reduced consumer credit and I might be tempted to go back in for other than blue chip dividenRAB. Otherwise, I consider increases as more suckers making 401k contributions and their dividenRAB being reinvested for baby boomers to pull out when they discover they can't live on their dividenRAB. Want to speculate on how much residential mortgage paper is being used by investment firms as equity trading collateral to churn commissions?
 
Attempts have been mounted, difficult to get out of committee with administration holding a rubber stamp congress. It's still CYA time on Iraq for all who rubber stamped it in both parties. The general public is so apathetic both parties will be forced by economic conditions to use get out of Iraq campaign planks for 2008 and that public will quickly forget any logical purpose for accountability. This is the land of immediate gratification, encouraged by corrupt government, a major factor in the decline of our empire.
 
Just like georged is Daewoo, huh? ;)

The reporting rules haven't changed significantly since GW took over, so your comments also apply to previous administrations, don't they. :confused:


Unlike the .Com boom under Clinton which was highly speculative and consisted of people buying ether, today's stock prices are based on companies making profits. But don't take my word for it, look it up. :xgood:
 
If we were having a conversation about an investment, the wording I would use would not be "risk adverse". I would walk away and say "that guys a freaking idiot". :)

Lets put this in other terms. Lets say you have an investment that is loosing you 10% per year. There is absolutly no evidence at all that there is going to be any kind of turnaround.

Do you pull your money out, or do you leave it in, since there is a chance that if you pull it out and put it somewhere else, you MIGHT loose money there as well? Hell no. You cut your losses and swith to the other investment, even if it does carry some risk. The investment that is loosing you 10% is a known looser. The other way, at least you have a shot.

In the short term, there is virtually no question in my mind that the democrats will mind their behavior for the next couple of years and do their best to bring our government back in line wiht peoples wishes, including fiscally, becuase they want the white house. If they go crazy, they won't get it, and everybody knows it.
 
They do. The published statistic has long been manipulated by exclusion. That's the reason I stopped following it as a primary economic indicator. Just another cooked number.

The real estate bubble deflation is eventually going to make .com look like a solid investment. If the bond market on residential housing goes in the toilet good luck with traded equity positions regardless of earnings. Bond people will be cashing out equity along with the baby boomers.
 
Back
Top