USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]Republicans are not all for increasing the control of the government of both free market and civil liberties so it wasn't that bad so far.

If only that were true . Some Republicans seem very lukewarm in their free-market beliefs, and as for civil rights... They do protect them, unless you're gay, need an abortion, or are fond of making phone calls without Langley listening in (And some are very shaky on gun rights, freedom of speech, you name it).

Republicans are going to spend the next two years (At absolute minimum) reaping what Dubya sowed for the last eight years. Republicans fought for huge growth in the power of the "unitary executive", and now they're going to see what happens when the other guy gets his hands on the power structure they built.

[scubaman3D 0]

Well hopefully we can contain the damage until the next election in 2 years.

[General Barron 0]

The united Nations should send peace keepers to america and remove the weapons from the dangerous americans so their kids don't get shot  

I'd be willing to bet FAR more kids die from drowning in their family's pool, compared to accidents with firearms.

Would you support sending the UN in to fill in all residential swimming pools? After all, nobody "needs" a swimming pool at their house, right?

I never understood how people can be so afraid of guns, but not other, far more risky inanimate objects. But then, I guess they have no real knowledge or exposure to them. People always fear the unknown, right?

Quote[/b] ]

in my opinion, the president should at most have more or less the same role as the Queen : a mediating public face of the country, as opposed to someone who wields actual executive power. For that we have the elected representatives of the people, and the government : the president is, as it were, nothing but a third wheel in that equation.

That notwithstanding, I recognize that the US (and large parts of the world) have a different system of governance where they allow a single person to have a little bit too much power, but that's not something I can do anything about.

Actually, in the US we have something called the "balancing of powers" or "checks and balances".

There are 3 separate branches of government: executive (the president and cabinet), legislative (the congress), and judical (the federal courts). Each branch holds certain powers, and has a certain ability to override another branch's power (kinda like a big game of rock-paper-scissors).

So the idea is that no one branch of government can become too powerful. Typically, it seems that people think the president has far more power then he actually has. In reality he is only 1/3 of the whole equation.

And that is only considering the federal government. The US is a bunch of individual states, each of which was originally supposed to have more power than the federal government.

So, suppose there is a 50/50 split of power between the states and the federal government: that would leave the president with only 1/6th of the total governmental power in the US. In the earlier days of the country (when the states had more power), that number would have been even smaller.

[echo1 0]

Quote[/b] ]

in my opinion, the president should at most have more or less the same role as the Queen : a mediating public face of the country, as opposed to someone who wields actual executive power. For that we have the elected representatives of the people, and the government : the president is, as it were, nothing but a third wheel in that equation.

Actually, in the US we have something called the "balancing of powers" or "checks and balances".

That was exactly what Wolfrug was getting at. In most countries (as far as I know) the head of state and head of government are seperate roles. Putting the two most important roles in the hands of one man is dangerous.

[scubaman3D 0]

I'm going to have to agree with that.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

Obama may be the right choice but, we will not find out for several months.

A lot of his antics do worry myself, such as my 401k turning into a taxable 101k.

My collection of firearms, all rifles, some dating back to WW1 & 2. Those have been handed down for many decades, and the only way I see someone taking them from me, would be after I fire them a final time.

Hopefully Obama will not be hit with such a task as G Bush, within his 1st year of service. Obama will not handle a crisis such as 9/11 properly.

[mr burns 131]

Obama will not handle a crisis such as 9/11 properly.

You think bush did right?

Damn, im happy being able to watch the elections from the outside. Surprises me that seemingly every disappointed mc cain voter gets all wound up on this issue. It´s simply another face on the same franchise. No need to worry, it´ll be shitty nonetheless

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

The part Bush did right was, nothing has happened on our soil since then.

[mr burns 131]

Besides higher class society loading their pockets with taxpayers money on behalf of your soldiers lifes .. no, nothing else happened. The feeling of safety that bush administration pretended to offer must be quite deep within the heads of some people..

We´ve even had the terrorist guys reside in hamburg for a time, and a luckily failed train bombing in cologne sometime later, but it´s neither schroeders or merkels fault/merit in any of both cases - at least i dont see any responsibility there. Politicians are good for 'blabla', not solutions.

[General Barron 0]

That was exactly what Wolfrug was getting at. In most countries (as far as I know) the head of state and head of government are seperate roles.  Putting the two most important roles in the hands of one man is dangerous.

I guess I'm a bit confused them, as to what the "head of state" means here.

As for the "head of government", I'm arguing that the president is NOT the head of government. Theoretically, he shares the power equally with the other 3 branches of government.

I guess its like the knights of the round table (to make a lame analogy): nobody sits at the "head" of the table. All 3 are equal.

------

Here's a practical example: say Obama decided overnight that he wanted to confiscate all guns in the US (I'm not saying he wants to do that).

First of all, he couldn't do that because he can't make laws (he can only veto them). But say he issues an executive order, like what was used to imprison Japanese-Americans during WWII.

The congress would still be able to overturn this order by passing a law. Or, the order could be challenged in the courts, eventually being ruled on by the Supreme Court, who would (supposedly) have to decide if such a law violates the US Constitution.

As you can imagine, this could be fairly difficult in practice. The president has power, but it is "checked and balanced" by the other 2 branches of government.

[chops 111]

The part Bush did right was, nothing has happened on our soil since then.  

Hmmm....coulda sworn there was some anthrax flying about the place...

No massive financial catastrophes or abandonment of New Orleans. Phew!

War is the victory of forgetting over remembering, or something like that.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

The part Bush did right was, nothing has happened on our soil since then.  

Hmmm....coulda sworn there was some anthrax flying about the place...

No massive financial catastrophes or abandonment of New Orleans. Phew!

War is the victory of forgetting over remembering, or something like that.

Your to funny.........if you knew what the facts to the points you post.

[jakerod 254]

Well hopefully we can contain the damage until the next election in 2 years.

you mean 4 years?

[billybob2002 0]

Well hopefully we can contain the damage until the next election in 2 years.

you mean 4 years?

Congressional races.

And, I was dead wrong.

[scubaman3D 0]

you mean 4 years?

no, I meant 2.

[max power 21]

I wonder if the Republicans had won if the Democrat supporters would be so whiny.

[scubaman3D 0]

I think its their trademark, actually.

[jakerod 254]

you mean 4 years?

no, I meant 2.

ah okay. You are refering to the congressional ones. Thought you mean't the president.

[soul_assassin 1723]

The part Bush did right was, nothing has happened on our soil since then.  

Hmmm....coulda sworn there was some anthrax flying about the place...

No massive financial catastrophes or abandonment of New Orleans. Phew!

War is the victory of forgetting over remembering, or something like that.

Your to funny.........if you knew what the facts to the points you post.

not to mention the educational system went to shit

j/k. sorry for the flamebait

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

You still do not know ehh?

[froggyluv 2130]

You still do not know ehh?

Please enlighten us oh Riddler...

[ralphwiggum 6]

keep it civil. or I'll have to take some actions.

General Barron, consider yourself warned, as I explicitly said no gun politics discussino here.

Billybob, watch out. I'm really tempted to chage your member title.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

You still do not know ehh?

Please enlighten us oh Riddler...

Oh my.. 2 comedians that apparently have no future building within the financial system of the "U.S.A'............I give up this thread.

[froggyluv 2130]

You still do not know ehh?

Please enlighten us oh Riddler...

Oh my.. 2 comedians that apparently have no future building within the financial system of the "U.S.A'............I give up this thread.

I thought you had a point to make

And I for one could care less about Liberal/Conservative bickering, I care about getting our National Budget balanced again as under Bill Clinton. I welcome the return to his tax rates as I'm a small business owner who makes under the $250,000 ceiling. I welcome regaining our standing as a fair and admired Nation by the World community. I welcome a President that thinks and weighs consequences before taking critical action.

There's a new wave of optimism that has been long sought after and I for one welcome that too.

[Call911-AGE- 0]

Obama will not handle a crisis such as 9/11 properly.

You think  bush did right?

Damn, im happy being able to watch the elections from the outside. Surprises me that seemingly every disappointed mc cain voter gets all wound up on this issue. It´s simply another face on the same franchise. No need to worry, it´ll be shitty nonetheless

Amen!