In Australia and I think England, the majority leader of the House would be the Prime Minister......thus for us the results of the American election would be a change in gov't.

Do Americans see this result as change in gov't?

Yes, absolutely. I'm not very familiar with the specific powers of the House Majority Leader or exactly what the ramifications are for the President when an opposing party controls the House; the general concept, though, is that those who disagree with the President's policies now have much sharper teeth to oppose him and to hold members of his administration accountable for their actions.

Or to put it another way, from now on Bush will have to have the support of the vast majority of the country - rather than just the Republicans - in order to do anything. He no longer has the luxury of being the President who sticks to his guns and damn what anyone else thinks.

If I'm reading the question correctly, we do not see the same change. The president is elected separately from the members of the House, so regardless of the results of this election, Bush is president until 2008.

As Kraj has described, the dynamic of the situation changes, but not the president. It's quite conceivable (and has happened before) that the president's party is the minority in both the senate and house.

If I'm reading the question correctly, we do not see the same change. The president is elected separately from the members of the House, so regardless of the results of this election, Bush is president until 2008.

As Kraj has described, the dynamic of the situation changes, but not the president. It's quite conceivable (and has happened before) that the president's party is the minority in both the senate and house.

Yes but it's harder for the President to get anything done if it's an issue on which the parties are divided and the Senate and House are controlled by the opposite party.

Yes but it's harder for the President to get anything done if it's an issue on which the parties are divided and the Senate and House are controlled by the opposite party.
Won't he just sign an executive order or something?:confused:

And of course the Speaker of the House is the third in line for the Presidency.

And of course the Speaker of the House is the third in line for the Presidency.
So... now all we need to do is impeach Bush and wait for Cheney to have another big one in the next two years and POW!... the first female U.S President! Wouldn't that just burn Hilary's buns. :D

In a parlementary democracy, the Prime Minister is head of the executive branch (technically its the Queen or the GG, but really its the PM). He is also the head of government. The PM must still be elected to the House as an individual and is still answerable to the House as the head of government.

In the republican system, the head of the executive is the president who is elected separately. A president of one party and a majority in the Houses of Congress of the other party is not an uncommon. It just makes it harder to get anything done.

In the republican system, the head of the executive is the president who is elected separately. A president of one party and a majority in the Houses of Congress of the other party is not an uncommon. It just makes it harder to get anything done.



Sometimes I think that is a blessing. Because both parties (in America) have too many people way out on the fringes; trying to reform the world in their image. So when the government is divided the less changes we see for the worst.

Won't he just sign an executive order or something?:confused:

He could Rich, but in the American system of checks and balances, most decisions by the President has to be approved by Congress. Actually the President cant even put a bill into congress, he has to have a senator or representative do it for him. it is a great system of red tape

The party that leads each house of congress also controls every committee in that house. Every committee (appropriations, ways and means, armed services, etc.) will now have a democrat leading it and a democratic majority in its membership. This is huge, because bills don't make it out onto the floor for debate and vote until they are passed on by the responsible committee. The president can veto a bill he doesn't like and the dems don't have enough of a majority to over-ride, but at least different bills will be voted on, rather than buried in committee.

Also, the congress must approve all appointments made by the president, including judges and cabinet members.

The biggest power the congress has is to convene hearings. They probably don't have the spine to investigate war profiteering or impeach the president, but at least it's a possibility now.

Go Idjit! Thanks for the info; you summed it up wonderfully!

So... now all we need to do is impeach Bush and wait for Cheney to have another big one in the next two years and :D
Doesn't Bush have to have sex with a tart before he can be impeached and what's a big one?:confused:

Doesn't Bush have to have sex with a tart before he can be impeached and what's a big one?:confused:

He tried, but he couldn't find any takers.

and what's a big one?:confused:

What bush needs to have sex with a tart?

brian

Doesn't Bush have to have sex with a tart before he can be impeached and what's a big one?:confused:
a big one in the context I think it is meant here is a heart attack Rich

He tried, but he couldn't find any takers.
Not even Laura? :confused:

a big one in the context I think it is meant here is a heart attack Rich
Thank you, well as much as I dislike the man and his politics, I wouldn't wish that on anyone

Not even Laura? :confused:

Laura's a lady.

If a senator dies during his/her term are they replaced by someone of the same party. If there is no election is the new senator appointed by the state governor.

If a senator dies during his/her term are they replaced by someone of the same party. If there is no election is the new senator appointed by the state governor.

In many cases (someone correct me if I am wrong) the deceased's spouse serves out the rest of their term. Otherwise I'm not sure if it's the governor who appoints or the party leader for that state (it would be odd for a democratic governor to appoint a replacement for a republican senator, or vice versa).

In many cases (someone correct me if I am wrong) the deceased's spouse serves out the rest of their term. Otherwise I'm not sure if it's the governor who appoints or the party leader for that state (it would be odd for a democratic governor to appoint a replacement for a republican senator, or vice versa).

What if the senator's husband is not of the same party?

In Australia the new senator is appointed by the state premier and precedent usually dictates the new senator will be from the same party.

Both in America and Australia only part of the senate is up for election at each election. I wonder if this was designed to prevent dramatic changes in the senate.

In Australia the new senator is appointed by the state premier and precedent usually dictates the new senator will be from the same party.

Both in America and Australia only part of the senate is up for election at each election. I wonder if this was designed to prevent dramatic changes in the senate.

Absolutely. On third of the Senate is elected every 2 years. Not just dramatic, but also inexperienced. Although now days that might be a blessing.

In Australia and I think England, the majority leader of the House would be the Prime Minister......thus for us the results of the American election would be a change in gov't.
Do Americans see this result as change in gov't?
No, I go back to what I said before.
During the Clinton lame duck years, when the house and senate went from Demo control to Repub control, and there were all these "new young faces" (news media kept harping on that) and how they were going to change the "way things are done" in Washington. Seems the older ones that have been there awhile, finally subdued them into the "old ways", and nothing really changed. A lot fo them even dropped out next election because they were frustrated with not being able to get anything done. I would think if we (USA) really wanted change, we would put in Term Limits and do away with straight ticket voting.
But how do you get those that benefit from NOT having that, enact changes?

Doesn't Bush have to have sex with a tart before he can be impeached and what's a big one?:confused:

Like that movie, American Pie?

Another question, Hilary Clinton has just been re-elected as the Governor of New York (I think) if she (or any other newly elected Governor) goes for president and are in the final running. Do they have to resign from being Governor when they run for President? Or can they return to Governor if they lose if they win who become State Governor?

I haven't checked the facts, but if memory serves correctly a candidate does not have to resign their office in order to run for another. If they win they must resign, of course, and if they are up for re-election the same year they can't run for two offices at once. If Hilary runs for President in 2008 she would not be up for re-election to the senate, so if she loses she would remain a senator.

I might be wrong; I'm not positive. But I also remember when Bob Dole ran against Clinton he resigned from the senate to focus on his campaign and it became a big controversy/joke, so it obviously wasn't the norm. The thing I'm really unsure of, though, is what happens to their vacant seat if they win.

Like that movie, American Pie?
I've only ever seen that clip, is the rest of it anygood?

It has its moments. It's mostly juvenile humor but it's definitely one of the better films of the genre (i.e., the stupid/sexy teen comedy).

Laura's a lady.
Was she a lady when she killed another motorist and didn't even face prosecution for the offence?:rolleyes:

It is my understanding that in the US, when a senator dies or resigns, the state governor appoints the replacement. The replacement is not necessarily of the same party. It is also a tradition in some states that when a senator loses an election he will resign and the new senator will be appointed to serve the last few months. This gives the new senator seniority over the rest of the incoming group. Good for plumb committee assignments etc. Its in the states best interest to have the most senior senators.
Hillary was re-elected as senator from New York, not govenor.
Compared to other first ladies, Laura Bush has kept a pretty low profile.
I'm not sure what the law is in the US, but in Canada a person may only hold one elected position. They are not required to resign the first position until they are elected to the second.

Was she a lady when she killed another motorist and didn't even face prosecution for the offence?:rolleyes:
Didn't that happen to Eddie Kennedy? something about a girl - a bridge etc:confused: or am I on the wrong track

Col

Didn't that happen to Eddie Kennedy? something about a girl - a bridge etc:confused: or am I on the wrong track

Col

He prefers "Teddy", but yep, you're thinking of Chappaquiddick. But Laura had her own little "incident".

When people started coming down on Hastert for not investigating the charges against Foley, a republican from out east actually played the Chappaquiddick card - he said "At least he (Hastert) didn't drive off a bridge and leave a girl to die." It made me wonder whether the republicans are supposed to get a free pass for everything short of negligent homicide.

Thanks Idjit.

Your signature says "No sprinkles. For every sprinkle I find I shall kill you."

wouldn't you need only find one sprinkle? after that the sprinkle (ee) would be dead, so sprinkles numbering from 2 to. . . . . whatever would be irrelevant? How can you kill someone lots of times?:D ;)

BTW - I used to live in Lancing, Sussex UK

Col

wouldn't you need only find one sprinkle? after that the sprinkle (ee) would be dead, so sprinkles numbering from 2 to. . . . . whatever would be irrelevant? How can you kill someone lots of times?:D ;)


Col, that's the joke. It's a line from 'Family Guy'.

Thanks Idjit.

Your signature says

wouldn't you need only find one sprinkle? after that the sprinkle (ee) would be dead, so sprinkles numbering from 2 to. . . . . whatever would be irrelevant? How can you kill someone lots of times?:D ;)

BTW - I used to live in Lancing, Sussex UK

Col

I kind of thought that's what made it funny. But maybe you had to be there. :D

I've been thinking I need a new signature and avatar anyway. Given my screen name, maybe a photo and quote from Bush?

Col, that's the joke. It's a line from 'Family Guy'.

Exactly. It's also funny because it's delivered by an evil genius baby.

Col, that's the joke. It's a line from 'Family Guy'.
Oh right - a joke from an American TV show. Thats ok, not sure we get "Family Guy" here:confused:

It just struck me when I read your post just now.

Actually, I don't know what sprinkles are, do we have those in the UK?

Col

Oh right - a joke from an American TV show. Thats ok, not sure we get "Family Guy" here:confused:


Yes you do. I was an avid viewer before I left the UK. I believe SJMcAbney used to have one of the characters as his avatar.


Actually, I don't know what sprinkles are, do we have those in the UK?


Gorwing up, I knew them as 'Hundreds and Thousands'.

Gorwing up, I knew them as 'Hundreds and Thousands'.

OH s**t, here was me thinking along the lines of that rhyme
"If you sprinkle when you tinkle
Please be sweet and wipe the seat"

:o :o

Brian

Yes you do. I was an avid viewer before I left the UK. I believe SJMcAbney used to have one of the characters as his avatar.



Gorwing up, I knew them as 'Hundreds and Thousands'.
Thanks Matt - its nice to have a "plant" over there who can interpret these weird saying and words;)

Family Guy was not on my viewing list, I remember Mile-O had a stunning young lady as his avatar at one point.:o some French tart if I remember rightly:D ;)

Col

OH s**t, here was me thinking along the lines of that rhyme
"If you sprinkle when you tinkle
Please be sweet and wipe the seat"

:o :o

Brian

Oh dear, am I so crass that it seemed perfectly in character for me to have a reference to sitting in someone else's urine in my signature line? :o

Oh right - a joke from an American TV show. Thats ok, not sure we get "Family Guy" here:confused:

Col

Better? :D

Oh dear, am I so crass that it seemed perfectly in character for me to have a reference to sitting in someone else's urine in my signature line? :o

Nope, I reckon it was me, never having heard of sprinkles I guess I never gave it much thought but just remembered that rhyme from somewhere. It did seem to be an odd signature. Sorry no offence intended, will creep back under my stone:o

Brian

Nope, I reckon it was me, never having heard of sprinkles I guess I never gave it much thought but just remembered that rhyme from somewhere. It did seem to be an odd signature. Sorry no offence intended, will creep back under my stone:o

Brian
I thought sprinkles was something to do with snow falling - don't really know why though:confused:

Col

that particular quote is in reference to little candy or suger pieces that bakeries in the US and I am sure other places "sprinkle" on top of cookies and cupcakes and sometimes even donuts.

Thanks Matt - its nice to have a "plant" over there who can interpret these weird saying and words;)


You're very welcome.

I do still slip up and use British terminology here, but the blank/quizzical looks are getting less frequent as their education is progressing nicely ;) .

You're very welcome.

I do still slip up and use British terminology here, but the blank/quizzical looks are getting less frequent as their education is progressing nicely ;) .
Good, good - we have to keep the colonials on the correct path or they could become corrupted by their neighbour.:rolleyes: :cool:

Sadly, its too late for the Aussies, they've totally lost it;)

Col

Didn't that happen to Eddie Kennedy? something about a girl - a bridge etc:confused: or am I on the wrong track

Col

http://postmodern-research.blogspot.com/2006/08/laura-bush-in-high-school-killed-her-ex.html

(In) Australia only part of the senate is up for election at each election. I wonder if this was designed to prevent dramatic changes in the senate.
You sure about that? I've never heard that before...
In that case, how did we end up with the Libs getting such a big majority at the last election? (well, that's a mystery whichever way you look at it :rolleyes: )

Sadly, its too late for the Aussies, they've totally lost it;)
Hey! We still use a lot of Brit slang over here!
(and an increasing amount of Yankee slang, sadly... less colourful I think)
We've just added to it with our own... :D

* To the Americans: When we use the term "Yankee" we're referring to your whole country, not just one side of your civil war

Adeptus

Half the senate is up for election at each Federal election.

The exception is when the Prime Minister calls for a double dissolution at election time. In that case the whole senate is up for election. That scenario favours minor parties since the quota to win a senate seat is halved and that one is rerason why double dissolutions rarely done.

Since normally only a half the senate is up for election (1/3rd in the US) then a significant shift in the vote as compared to previous elections is blunted because the change in voting will only impact on 1/2 of the senate ot 1/3rd in the US of A.

Mike

Adeptus

PS. the majority the Lib/Nat have in the senate is very small. It would hgave been much bigger if a double dissolution was called and the the whole senate up for election.

Mike.

Am I the only one who is going to say this?

"Holy Crap! It's Mike375!! What rock did he crawl out from under?"

No offense Mike, just haven't seen you in the 'cooler since I first came in. Was it something I said?

Lisa

Am I the only one who is going to say this?
I said it too, but you said it better. ;) :D

And I absolutely LOVE your new avatar/tag!

"Holy Crap!
Lisa
Please don't make posts that are highly inflammatory to the religious cults on this forum

Please don't make posts that are highly inflammatory to the religious cults on this forum

Rich,

That's not inflammatory - I said it was holy.

Lisa

Rich,

That's not inflammatory - I said it was holy.

Lisa
Very good :D

Lisa

No offense taken. Actually, I don't think I can be offended:D

Mike

Lisa

No offense taken. Actually, I don't think I can be offended:D

Mike
Your a stinking liberal!
:D

Yes...I believe we should all be liberated from any and all gov't intervention:D

Yes...I believe we should all be liberated from any and all gov't intervention:D

You mean like the CDC, the FBI, and the EPA.

Next we'll hear that OSHA has made America uncompetitive.

You mean like the CDC, the FBI, and the EPA.

Next we'll hear that OSHA has made America uncompetitive.
OSHA has contributed to the cost associated with doing business, and so, has contributed to the uncompetitiveness of America.
However I can't at least in the case of OSHA, that is bad thing. Safety first!
But as with any government agency, they grow and dictate to increase they power, not always to the original mission they were created for.
About the ONLY government agency that was NOT true for was the Military, until Katrina and the national Guard kicking people out of their houses.....
I took the military oath, it says (paraphrasing here) to protect from enemies, foreign and domestic. I didn't see any enemies in those people being kicked out of their homes by the National Guard, at least until after they were kicked out....

About the ONLY government agency that was NOT true for was the Military, until Katrina and the national Guard kicking people out of their houses.....
I took the military oath, it says (paraphrasing here) to protect from enemies, foreign and domestic. I didn't see any enemies in those people being kicked out of their homes by the National Guard, at least until after they were kicked out....

It was my understanding that in the US the National Guard is run by the States. In essence a state militia. The Guard can be federalized on a direct order of the President but do they take the same oath as the regular Army?
Isn't it the Govenor of LA who should take the fall for this one?

Sometimes I think that is a blessing. Because both parties (in America) have too many people way out on the fringes; trying to reform the world in their image. So when the government is divided the less changes we see for the worst.

From over the waters, it is very difficult for Brits and other Western 'democracy' types to distinguish between the US Left and Right. The appear mostly right and very right, in the wrong kind of way.

I add the caveat as I am not a lefty as such, although I have a tender heart, but mostly I'm into small (read miniscule) government and everything that exceeds the absolute bare minimum required for cohesion is some sort of ill defined corruption.

getting back to your post, the best US goverments/presidents have been those innefectual ones that are mostly lambasted if ermembered at all, and the reason they are best is that they were weak and inefectual and so didn't have th power to eff anything up. Don't missunderstand this as an anti-US tirade as I see the same dynamic developing in other Western Democracies, but the US is leading the rest of us over the cliff. :)

It was my understanding that in the US the National Guard is run by the States. In essence a state militia. The Guard can be federalized on a direct order of the President but do they take the same oath as the regular Army?
Isn't it the Govenor of LA who should take the fall for this one?
When I took the oath, National Guard and part timers (inactive) were taking the same oath with me. Now I could be wrong, but I think the National Guard fall under the federal gov. but are assigned to the states (basically).
I also believe it is the governor of LA that was to blame. mostly because of the of the laws that force the federal gov. out until the local (state in this case) request action.

From over the waters, it is very difficult for Brits and other Western 'democracy' types to distinguish between the US Left and Right. The appear mostly right and very right, in the wrong kind of way.

Because we aren't socialists, basically.
Now with the current admin. this seems to have changed somewhat. But typically the left believes in bigger gov. to control mostly everything (big brother knows best). The right believes in bigger business, smaller gov. and people should make the most of their lives (basically).

I add the caveat as I am not a lefty as such, although I have a tender heart, but mostly I'm into small (read miniscule) government and everything that exceeds the absolute bare minimum required for cohesion is some sort of ill defined corruption.
Maybe the definition of left and right is different and there might be the issue. Just guessing mind you. I have faith RICH will set us straight.

getting back to your post, the best US goverments/presidents have been those innefectual ones that are mostly lambasted if ermembered at all, and the reason they are best is that they were weak and inefectual and so didn't have th power to eff anything up. Don't missunderstand this as an anti-US tirade as I see the same dynamic developing in other Western Democracies, but the US is leading the rest of us over the cliff. :)
I am going to agree somewhat, and disagree somewhat.
ineffectual presidents are good thing when we have someone like Clinton in. But then there becomes a time when you have to move forward.
Now I don't 100% get the "leading over a cliff" statement, as I don't think that. I don't also think Iraq is working out for the best either, and I can't say was the proper choice going there or not. BUT as long as all those extremist Muslims want to fight in Iraq rather than other countries, well I can't really say that is bad thing either. AND if you think you are being lead "over a cliff", what does that say about you?:eek:

BUT as long as all those extremist Muslims want to fight in Iraq rather than other countries, well I can't really say that is bad thing either.
What a pity extremist Yanks don't stay at home rather than invading other countries. Why not start your own civil war again instead of using somebody elses country:mad:

What a pity extremist Yanks don't stay at home rather than invading other countries. Why not start your own civil war again instead of using somebody elses country:mad:
Yea, Yea, I repeat what you quoted.

Yea, Yea, I repeat what you quoted.
Why, lost for words?

Why, lost for words?
Nope, nothing to respond to other than that.

Nope, nothing to respond to other than that.
The response is as nonsensical as your original post:rolleyes:

The response is as nonsensical as your original post:rolleyes:
Umm, sorry to point out, if something was nonsensical, it was your reply.
It contained no new information from a RICH perspective.
It did not add to the conversation.
It was either just a poor "off-the-cuff" response OR a response in the guise of an attack to elicit an emotional response from others.
In short, :p

I don't also think Iraq is working out for the best either,
why's that then Fo? seems ok from America's perspective surely, plenty of killing, loads of innocent people dead, loads of US soldiers dead. Thats what Bush is striving for.

Whats the problem?

Col

why's that then Fo? seems ok from America's perspective surely, plenty of killing, loads of innocent people dead, loads of US soldiers dead. Thats what Bush is striving for.
Whats the problem?
Col
And the speech where Bush actually said that?
And how is it all of a sudden you can speak on the American perspective?

And the speech where Bush actually said that?
he's doing it
And how is it all of a sudden you can speak on the American perspective?
You said Iraq was not working out for the best.
But being as Americans love guns, killing things, blowing things up, holding people without trial etc - I would have thought it was ok from an American perspective - lots of deaths, guns and the like.

Col

Umm, sorry to point out, if something was nonsensical, it was your reply.
It contained no new information from a RICH perspective.
It did not add to the conversation.
It was either just a poor "off-the-cuff" response OR a response in the guise of an attack to elicit an emotional response from others.
In short, :p
And your original post contained nothing more than a typical Republican response. Create the conditions for a civil war and then blame somebody else for it. Who were the extremists in your own little squabble back in the 19th cent. by the way?:confused:

And your original post contained nothing more than a typical Republican response.
All I said was I found it humorous, you added all that extra stuff that had nothing to do with my post.
So like the typical European, you just in with no good reason.
Telling others where they are wrong in your opinion.
Telling others basically how if you had your way......
Yet you have no real clue as to how the world may work outside your little world.

he's doing it
Doing what? I can't find him giving any speeches right now.

You said Iraq was not working out for the best.
But being as Americans love guns, killing things, blowing things up, holding people without trial etc - I would have thought it was ok from an American perspective - lots of deaths, guns and the like.

You are right, I did say that, but no where did I say all that other stuff.
Like the typical European you add to it to fit your little world, even though it might not have any real bearing on the world as a whole.
Oh, the big guy is beating up on the little guy, owwwww.
No wonder the Germans ran amuck over most of Europe. Probably would have had Britain if it wasn't for that whole channel thing you had going in your favor. Oh wait, now you have a big tunnel to help out the next time one of your fruitcake breatheren decide to take over the world.

Yet you have no real clue as to how the world may work outside your little world.
ROFL from an American :rolleyes:

As for America looking after other's interests, crap America cares only for American interests. Oh and you'll forgive me for not finding the subject of so many innocent deaths thanks to Bush and Bliar's policies as being the least bit humorous

ROFL from an American
See, you make my point, C-L-U-E-L-E-S-S

As for America looking after other's interests, crap America cares only for American interests. Oh and you'll forgive me for not finding the subject of so many innocent deaths thanks to Bush and Bliar's policies as being the least bit humorous
Once again, you take one little piece of a whole document, and try to turn the meaning of the whole, in to the partial piece. Kind of reminds me how the news media tries to control our thinking by using sound bytes.
Wonder if that is a European thing. Would figure.

See, you make my point, C-L-U-E-L-E-S-S


Not about this subject I'm not.

Not about this subject I'm not.


Really?

Oh Oracle, what is a real solution to the Iraqi crises?

First things first, from a Katrina victim speaking of immediate knowledge. In any area where the National Guard in Louisiana dragged someone out of a house, there was a danger of contamination or pollution that was a health hazard. Some of the crud in the flood waters in New Orleans etched stainless steel after less than 20 days of immersion. I know some folks whose heavy gauge stainless restaurant hardware did exactly that.

The governor of Lousiana DOES have the power to force evacuations from areas for public safety. (I got out voluntarily while the getting was good so I didn't have to wade around in the two feet of water that flooded my house.) But if you are going to ping governor Blanco, at least ping her for the right reason. The dumbo argued with Mayor Nagin about the authority involved - essentially a political power pissing match - while the water level rose and the pumps faltered. Both of them needed to be shaken firmly.

Second, I'll try to clarify the issues involved in having a political party change in Congress by defining the theory of American Government:

1. If no party has a super-majority in both houses of Congress, nobody can push legislation through that is unilateral in nature. In other words, it becomes necessary to compromise. In GWB's previous Congress, he didn't have a super-majority but he had a simple majority - so simple bills that didn't have minimum-margin limits (called a super-majority) could be passed and he could sign them pretty much as a rubber stamp assembly line. Now - it is a new game in town.

2. By basing one house on population and the other on geography, a new bill has to have widespread appeal to all regions of the country. Having one party control both houses thwarts this idea. Returning control to GWB's opposition makes things better regarding the need for compromise.

3. The Senate's election phasing means you can't get rid of all your opposition at once (without assassination). So an idea has to be good enough to attract support immediately or it will languish and die in the bowels of some committee. (Devil's Dictionary: A committee is the only animal with many stomachs and no brains.)

4. The convolutions of the American government are designed to slow down all actions, to give folks time to think. Time to react to new ideas. The issues with 9/11 empowered the war-mongers to be able to react without slowing down to plan. Bad idea. I'll be honest, Saddam had to go - but it was done really badly.

Where the USA has broken down (IMHO) comes under two categories:

A. The 9/11 attack polarized our attention to the exclusion of cooler heads. So the war-mongers got elected. Not saying we wouldn't have gone to war, but it might have been on different terms. The Democratic party victories will force all legislation to be the result of compromise. It might very well put a lot of GWB's programs down the commode. But at least he will be forced to consider a way to "throw the dogs a bone or two" in order to get things done. And THAT is sometimes a waste of money, but it at least forces some money in other directions than plain old war expenditures. And THAT is a good thing.

B. Lobbyists have a lot of influence because they spend a lot of money that is finely targeted to the Senators and Representatives who can push their agendas through. So a bunch of politicos are now beholden to someone else's money and can't vote for a good thing even if someone rubs their faces in it. Myself, I would take the approach as a variant of Shakespeare. First we'll kill all the lobbyists... This factor doesn't get affected by the party in power. The money gets spent either way.

First things first, from a Katrina victim speaking of immediate knowledge. In any area where the National Guard in Louisiana dragged someone out of a house, there was a danger of contamination or pollution that was a health hazard. Some of the crud in the flood waters in New Orleans etched stainless steel after less than 20 days of immersion. I know some folks whose heavy gauge stainless restaurant hardware did exactly that.

The governor of Lousiana DOES have the power to force evacuations from areas for public safety. (I got out voluntarily while the getting was good so I didn't have to wade around in the two feet of water that flooded my house.) But if you are going to ping governor Blanco, at least ping her for the right reason. The dumbo argued with Mayor Nagin about the authority involved - essentially a political power pissing match - while the water level rose and the pumps faltered. Both of them needed to be shaken firmly.

Second, I'll try to clarify the issues involved in having a political party change in Congress by defining the theory of American Government:

1. If no party has a super-majority in both houses of Congress, nobody can push legislation through that is unilateral in nature. In other words, it becomes necessary to compromise. In GWB's previous Congress, he didn't have a super-majority but he had a simple majority - so simple bills that didn't have minimum-margin limits (called a super-majority) could be passed and he could sign them pretty much as a rubber stamp assembly line. Now - it is a new game in town.

2. By basing one house on population and the other on geography, a new bill has to have widespread appeal to all regions of the country. Having one party control both houses thwarts this idea. Returning control to GWB's opposition makes things better regarding the need for compromise.

3. The Senate's election phasing means you can't get rid of all your opposition at once (without assassination). So an idea has to be good enough to attract support immediately or it will languish and die in the bowels of some committee. (Devil's Dictionary: A committee is the only animal with many stomachs and no brains.)

4. The convolutions of the American government are designed to slow down all actions, to give folks time to think. Time to react to new ideas. The issues with 9/11 empowered the war-mongers to be able to react without slowing down to plan. Bad idea. I'll be honest, Saddam had to go - but it was done really badly.

Where the USA has broken down (IMHO) comes under two categories:

A. The 9/11 attack polarized our attention to the exclusion of cooler heads. So the war-mongers got elected. Not saying we wouldn't have gone to war, but it might have been on different terms. The Democratic party victories will force all legislation to be the result of compromise. It might very well put a lot of GWB's programs down the commode. But at least he will be forced to consider a way to "throw the dogs a bone or two" in order to get things done. And THAT is sometimes a waste of money, but it at least forces some money in other directions than plain old war expenditures. And THAT is a good thing.

B. Lobbyists have a lot of influence because they spend a lot of money that is finely targeted to the Senators and Representatives who can push their agendas through. So a bunch of politicos are now beholden to someone else's money and can't vote for a good thing even if someone rubs their faces in it. Myself, I would take the approach as a variant of Shakespeare. First we'll kill all the lobbyists... This factor doesn't get affected by the party in power. The money gets spent either way.

Damn Doc nicely put...

I do agree that their was some mistakes made with Iraq and that their should have been more planning and it may have been rushed. Sometimes that happens unfortunately under certain circumstances. Saddam was a dictator and brutal man and its best he is gone...torturing people, invading Kuwait, attacking Iran...those are the best characteristics.

Talking about rushing into a war...the recent conflict between Israel and Hezbollah was very similar. The offensive that happend over the summer was misplanned as well. Israel rushed into that and didn't get the results it wanted as well. The head of their military just resigned and Olmert's politcal life is on the line for that mismanaged offensive.

Damn Doc nicely put...

I do agree that their was some mistakes made with Iraq and that their should have been more planning and it may have been rushed. Sometimes that happens unfortunately under certain circumstances. Saddam was a dictator and brutal man and its best he is gone...torturing people, invading Kuwait, attacking Iran...those are the best characteristics.
How odd that you condemn him for fighting an American war against Iran:rolleyes:
As for looking for reasons to justify Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, don't bother, you haven't got a leg to stand on

As for looking for reasons to justify Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, don't bother, you haven't got a leg to stand on
It's only illegal if we say it's illegal.
Just because you Europeans don't have enough "umph" yourself, you are forced to hide behind the UN.

It's only illegal if we say it's illegal.
Just because you Europeans don't have enough "umph" yourself, you are forced to hide behind the UN.
Legal 'cause the boy with the biggest stick says so. Lovely.

Legal 'cause the boy with the biggest stick says so. Lovely.

I hate to say this, because I am just opening myself up for "attacks", but isn't that how history of the entire world has been written? the person with the biggest stick makes the rules and the laws? sounds to me a lot like human nature or whatever. but hey that is just my humble opinion

I hate to say this, because I am just opening myself up for "attacks", but isn't that how history of the entire world has been written? the person with the biggest stick makes the rules and the laws? sounds to me a lot like human nature or whatever. but hey that is just my humble opinion
Well I thought the UN was set up to make and police international law, the US of course simply ignores the UN because it thinks that since it's the largest contributor to the UN it should thus control it

Well I thought the UN was set up to make and police international law, the US of course simply ignores the UN because it thinks that since it's the largest contributor to the UN it should thus control it

Didnt we create it as well...

It could be worse. What if it wasnt the US and was China. Then there would be blantant human rights abuses, sensored media, no intellectual property rights and who else knows. Or even if it was Russia...same thing.

Iran might be a good candidate...lets face it. If it was any other European Country...or Cananda...or Austrailia it would be the same...were all Western. Just happens the guys who ride horses with cowboy hats happen to be riding shotgun.

Just happens the guys who ride horses with cowboy hats happen to be riding shotgun.
And in the true tradition of the wildwest you shoot first and ask questions later:rolleyes:

And in the true tradition of the wildwest you shoot first and ask questions later:rolleyes:

Damn fine motto too.

I hate to say this, because I am just opening myself up for "attacks", but isn't that how history of the entire world has been written? the person with the biggest stick makes the rules and the laws? sounds to me a lot like human nature or whatever. but hey that is just my humble opinion
No. History is perhaps written by the winner in war, but in the last 100 years what war has been won by the aggressor? Rule of law as opposed to the "biggest stick" has always yielded a happier, more productive society or association of societies. Aggressor nations don't make friends, and not having friends is just bad for business.

No. History is perhaps written by the winner in war, but in the last 100 years what war has been won by the aggressor? Rule of law as opposed to the "biggest stick" has always yielded a happier, more productive society or association of societies. Aggressor nations don't make friends, and not having friends is just bad for business.

But dont the winners usually ahve the biggest sticks? WWII the atom bomb that was a pretty big stick, though Vietnam, alot of that we did not have the support of the people which is also a very big stick. if you can get the people of your country behind you and have the biggest stick. there will not be much that can stop an aggressor nation

Then there would be blantant human rights abuses, Like the Patriot Act? Like Guantanamo Bay?
sensored media, Like Fox "News"?

there will not be much that can stop an aggressor nation
Like Iraq? Vietnam? Soviets in Afghanistan? Soviets? Germany and Japan in WWII?
I believe that the universe favours a just and noble cause. All things being equal, this cause will be to combat the aggressor.

It could be worse. What if it wasnt the US and was China. Then there would be blantant human rights abuses, sensored media, no intellectual property rights and who else knows.
The USA does all that, now list what it would be like if China was the 'superpower' (which it will be soon)

Col

Damn fine motto too.
No wonder the Iraqis don't want you there :rolleyes:

No wonder the Iraqis don't want you there :rolleyes:
Until they look over the hill and see the Iranians.

Until they look over the hill and see the Iranians.
Well it can't be any worse for them now that the USA has made a dogs dinner over the whole issue and made things 100 times worse than it was before 2003.

Col

Until they look over the hill and see the Iranians.
Well we do know just how bad you guys history lessons are but where were you when your ally Sadam was fighting your war against evil Iranians.
Ah yes of course, you were supplying the Iranians weapons on the sly whilst supplying your ally with the technology to develop and use chemical weapons :rolleyes:

Like the Patriot Act? Like Guantanamo Bay?
Like Fox "News"?

Fox news happens to be my fav...go figure:rolleyes:

Patriot Act...Cmon Britain has the most closed circuit cameras in the whole world...talk about big brother watchin you.

Guantanamo Bay now thats a touchy subject...lets put them all in Austrailia and they can join that radical cleric who is being shunned for hatered and inciting violence...calling for death of jews and marytrs...in his selling of videotapes...theres hundreds more just like that at Guantanamo.

Where else do you put people who would love at the first shot...kill you in a heart beat?

Well we do know just how bad you guys history lessons are but where were you when your ally Sadam was fighting your war against evil Iranians.
Ah yes of course, you were supplying the Iranians weapons on the sly whilst supplying your ally with the technology to develop and use chemical weapons :rolleyes:

Ahh very good and we were using the money to fund the reblels in Nicaragua because of the evil dictator Noreiga which happens to be back and seems like a nice guy...he wants good relations with the US.;)

Where else do you put people who would love at the first shot...kill you in a heart beat?
Send 'em to America, they'd be well at home there:rolleyes:

Send 'em to America, they'd be well at home there:rolleyes:

Actually not a bad idea...I mean LA might be a good spot and let the gangs take care of them...or put them in Harlem or the Bronx and let them have a little NYC love...:cool:

Actually not a bad idea...I mean LA might be a good spot and let the gangs take care of them...or put them in Harlem or the Bronx and let them have a little NYC love...:cool:
Nah, sign 'em up for the NYCP, they'd be even more at home:rolleyes:

Guantanamo Bay now thats a touchy subject...
Certainly is. Australian David Hicks is still in there. The Brits got sent home because their government asked for it. Australian government hasn't done the same for its citizens, despite the public feeling they should be.
lets put them all in Austrailia and they can join that radical cleric who is being shunned for hatered and inciting violence...
Notice that the government are saying that if he feels that way he should stay out of Australia. Also, most of the Australian muslims are saying they don't want anything to do with him either.
Where else do you put people who would love at the first shot...kill you in a heart beat?
Give them a trial. Prove that they have committed a crime. Then give them punishment fitting that crime. Don't lock them up & throw away the key (and "allegedly" torture them) without even formally charging them with a crime.

Certainly is. Australian David Hicks is still in there. The Brits got sent home because their government asked for it. Australian government hasn't done the same for its citizens, despite the public feeling they should be.

Some still think Australia as a penal colony anyway :eek: ref (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=555574&postcount=27)

Some still think Australia as a penal colony anyway :eek: ref (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=555574&postcount=27)
No we all know just how jealous the Yanks are of it but Australia is a welcome member of The Commonwealth:p

No we all know just how jealous the Yanks are of it but Australia is a welcome member of The Commonwealth:p

born from the fruit of your convict labor. How lucky they are :D

born from the fruit of your convict labor. How lucky they are :D
As your country was born from our emigrés, however something went wrong with America:p

Anyone seen this poll? It covered 25 countries about the US attitude and foreign policies:D ref (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6288933.stm)

I bet the results are censored in the USA

It says "This poll underscores conclusions drawn from several other surveys - that anti-Americanism is on the rise, and the more the US flexes its hard power - the more it deploys troops abroad or talks tough diplomatically - the more it seems to weaken its ability to influence the world."

In other words, not many people like what the USA has turned this world into.

I like this quote -

"What is striking in this survey is how negatively the US is seen across a range of diverse countries."

and you lot thought Me and Rich were making it up??

Col

I like this quote
"To communicate effectively," he has written, "Americans must first learn to listen."


ROFLFHOff

I like this quote

ROFLFHOff

this ones good

it suggests that America's image problems are only getting worse.

The global image of the US has significantly deteriorated over the past 12 months, . . . . . . . . .the slide in America's standing has steepened.

Odd that the Yanks here still can't admit it. Are they really so blind to it?

Col

As for looking for reasons to justify Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, don't bother, you haven't got a leg to stand on -- Rich

Remind me again why the British invaded the Falklands? What was the public justification? Remind me again why Henry V invaded France (that led to the battle of Agincourt, an historic slaughter in its own right), an event so notable that even the Bard of Avon tossed in his two cents' worth? Look at what England did to Scotland in the time of William Wallace, until Scotland stood up and said "NO." (And backed it up with armed force of their own.)

Rich, I'm not saying the USA is pure as the driven snow. We are not. It is just that "he who is without sin" should be casting those stones, and I very respectfully suggest it aint' your homeland. No personal offense intended. I'm just saying that all countries have had their "I've got to invade that blighter and whomp his sorry butt for him" moments So perhaps it would be appropriate to lighten up the accusatory rhetoric just a smidgeon, pigeon!

Having said that, I firmly believe that GWB will have a lot of issues to answer and the history books will not be kind to him.

Despite the comments being made, it is not the victors of the war who write the histories. It is the guys who are in power when the books are written that write the history. Take a good look at the re-thinking of WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc. as the guys who were personally involved finally let go of the past.

I like this quote:
Opinion polls, by their very nature, are a snap-shot. They ask very particular questions and they need to be interpreted with caution.

Oh dear Doc you are going to have to come up with better examples than those, try looking at our role in Africa.
Do you really want me to explain the Falklands to you, even America invaded there once to throw out pirates.
As for our long running war with France if the channel handn't been there France and England would be one country , albeit speaking French since English kings for generations after William the Conqueror were French and believed that they should rule both countries.

Brian

Remind me again why the British invaded the Falklands?
The British didn't invade the Falklands. The Falklands was invaded by Argentina in 1982. The British sent a fleet down there to protect British sovereign territory and to protect the British Commonwealth citizens, the same as we would do if the USA decided to invade Australia just for the hell of it.

General Galtieri (an evil dictator) had it in his mind to invade a foreign land just for the hell of it - a bit like your evil dictator strutting round the white house invaded Iraq, the difference being that Bush wanted the USA companies to control the oil and he was paid mega bucks to do it.

Col

the difference being that Bush wanted the USA companies to control the oil and he was paid mega bucks to do it.


Well, there's your reason! At one that, at base, EVERYONE can understand. Money! So... what's the problem again?

Guys, I voted for GWB not because I agree with him, but because I disagreed with his opponents more. Sort of a "lesser of two evils" choice. If I had it to do over again knowing today what what I didn't know at the time, it would be a much harder choice. For what it is worth, it is terrible choices such as that one that cause voter apathy and low turnout.

Guys, I voted for GWB not because I agree with him, but because I disagreed with his opponents more. Sort of a "lesser of two evils" choice. If I had it to do over again knowing today what what I didn't know at the time, it would be a much harder choice. For what it is worth, it is terrible choices such as that one that cause voter apathy and low turnout.

That is exactly what I did. Kerry according to his senate record voted against everything he said he was for, and Bush I think killed him in the debates. I am actually more a democrat than republican...just lately have been leaning a little to the right. Bush has made mistakes, but to me believes in what he thinks and doesnt run the country on opinion polls...hes not here for a popularity contest

So I disliked Kerry more and voted for Bush...even though NY State always goes to the Democrats anyhow.

Jakboi, I think that sums it up exactly. I disliked Kerry more because he was so inconsistent within himself. GWB, for all his wrong-headedness, has the courage of his convictions.

Oh dear Doc you are going to have to come up with better examples than those,

Here's three (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Afghan_War#The_Second_Anglo-Afghan_War):)

I could go on and explain the consequences of the East India Company's taxation system in the sub-continent, if you like.

and Bush I think killed him in the debates.
What a pity all those innocents killed by Bush's stupidity can't live to tell the tale:rolleyes:

Here's three (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Afghan_War#The_Second_Anglo-Afghan_War):)

I could go on and explain the consequences of the East India Company's taxation system in the sub-continent, if you like.
Typical Yank, donkey's years out of date:rolleyes:

GWB, for all his wrong-headedness, has the courage of his convictions.
Shame somebody else is paying every day for his convictions with their lives:rolleyes:
How about he should be convicted!

Typical Yank, donkey's years out of date:rolleyes:

No justice (http://www.itn.co.uk/news/headlines_23b09474131bcc52e784140e3ac10bc2.html) nowadays either it seems.

No justice (http://www.itn.co.uk/news/headlines_23b09474131bcc52e784140e3ac10bc2.html) nowadays either it seems.
Sayeth the man from the country that brought us Rendition and Gitmo:p
try again:cool:

try again:cool:

I can't, my ammo is limited and you know it :D

I have to go back centuries to get my ammo and all you have to do is play the 'out-of-date' card. :mad: :p

Here's three (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Afghan_War#The_Second_Anglo-Afghan_War):)

I could go on and explain the consequences of the East India Company's taxation system in the sub-continent, if you like.

I suggested Africa because the Europeans only seem to have given that Continent trouble and heartache, however even Indians say that we left them certain benefits , a legal system railway system and civil service for example, but of course we were not all saints especially measured against modern thinking.

Brian

I can't, my ammo is limited and you know it :D

I have to go back centuries to get my ammo and all you have to do is play the 'out-of-date' card. :mad: :p

I see nothing wrong with the 'out-of-date' card.:D

So in a few hundred years then the US wrong doings will be forgiven too under that theory as well...:rolleyes:

Sayeth the man from the country that brought us Rendition and Gitmo:p
try again:cool:

When did 2 wrongs make a right, you cannot defend Britain just by saying the Americans are worse.

Brian

I suggested Africa because the Europeans only seem to have given that Continent trouble and heartache, however even Indians say that we left them certain benefits , a legal system railway system and civil service for example, but of course we were not all saints especially measured against modern thinking.

Brian

I was kind of edging towards the Bengali famines etc etc

I'm not Brit bashing here :) But that piece of foreign policy has been argued to have cost millions of lives. The dominant global power's mistakes have always manifested themselves in this way. To remain dominant you need cash. Taxation back in the 1800's. Domination of energy supplies today.

I just hope that Iraq gets something back in the deal like India did. At the moment it just looks plain bleak.

When did 2 wrongs make a right, you cannot defend Britain just by saying the Americans are worse.

Brian

No you defend Britain by saying that anything post-empirical is irrelevant :D

Hey Dan I didn't take it as Brit bashing, I told The Doc to came up with something better and you did, how can I complain, that 's what debate is about, not glib one liners about how mine's better/worse than yours .

Brian

Hey Dan I didn't take it as Brit bashing, I told The Doc to came up with something better and you did, how can I complain, that 's what debate is about, not glib one liners about how mine's better/worse than yours .

Brian

It's a shame that I felt I had to put that in there. The context is so long-in-the-tooth, it's got as if you need to clarify that's not what you're up to. :(

America gets bashed, quite rightly sometimes, by Col and Rich mainly, but you might like to think of the words spoken to me by a Chinese lady I had a conversation with in the Forbidden City,sorry just had to name drop:D . We were discussing Mao and some of his actions, and she said " big men make big mistakes".

Brian

When did 2 wrongs make a right, you cannot defend Britain just by saying the Americans are worse.

Brian
Aside from the actions of the idiot Bliar, Britain has spent the last 60yrs building a reputation for justice and fair play. The US resorts to bombs and bullets on anyone who gets in its way

Aside from the actions of the idiot Bliar, Britain has spent the last 60yrs building a reputation for justice and fair play. The US resorts to bombs and bullets on anyone who gets in its way

Once again you don't address the question asked.

Brian

Aside from the actions of the idiot Bliar, Britain has spent the last 60yrs building a reputation for justice and fair play.

Yes this notion of fair-play gets a little difficult to grasp at times. ref (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/812146.stm)

Well Dan you posted the link but do you have a comment on the issue, I'm not sure of your opinion but I think its on our side.

Brian

America gets bashed, quite rightly sometimes, by Col and Rich mainly, but...

Try to counter that with my Patriotism and love for the land...but thats great...if we all agreed this forum would well...suck.:cool:

Yes this notion of fair-play gets a little difficult to grasp at times. ref (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/812146.stm)
As you've been told so many times, they attacked British territory first

Once again you don't address the question asked.

Brian
Which was? :confused:

Try to counter that with my Patriotism and love for the land...but thats great...if we all agreed this forum would well...suck.:cool:
Blinded by patriotism, still it's nearly time for the State of the George address

Well Dan you posted the link but do you have a comment on the issue, I'm not sure of your opinion but I think its on our side.

Brian

I just find the whole situation about the exclusion zone and fair-play in this case as weird. Both parties were at war. The Belgrano was an Argentinian war-ship, so where's the issue :confused:

so where's the issue :confused:
There is no issue for us, we won:cool: :p

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianwarnock
America gets bashed, quite rightly sometimes, by Col and Rich mainly, Brian...


Try to counter that with my Patriotism and love for the land...but thats great...if we all agreed this forum would well...suck.:cool:
I think you have taken that quote right out of context, far enough out to change what i was saying in the whole post.

Brian

As you've been told so many times, they attacked British territory first

Here's my point exactly. The presumption that I'm Brit bashing.

Which was? :confused:

Do 2 wrongs make a right.

Brian

Here's my point exactly. The presumption that I'm Brit bashing.
You can't, we've very little to bash:cool: :p

Here's my point exactly. The presumption that I'm Brit bashing.

You're right Rich is back with his smart alec 1 liners, only half reading the posts , and not considering the whole dicussion.
I'm outa here

Brian

Do 2 wrongs make a right.

Brian
I never said they did:confused:

You're right Rich is back with his smart alec 1 liners, only half reading the posts , and not considering the whole dicussion.
I'm outa here

Brian
Tell you what ,I'll leave and then you can have your intellectual discussion without anyone else having a point of view.

Tell you what ,I'll leave and then you can have your intellectual discussion without anyone else having a point of view.

Divide and conquer LMAO :D

.. Britain has spent the last 60yrs building a reputation for justice and fair play.

And in the last three years it's built a really big dining fly...:p :p

And in the last three years it's built a really big dining fly...:p :p

and that big ferris-wheel thingy :p

and that big ferris-wheel thingy :p
I wonder if the old queen lady has ever ridden in that thing - :confused: :D

I wonder if the old queen lady has ever ridden in that thing - :confused: :D

Must get a good view of her subjects from it :D

"God bless you, my little people" *wave wave*

Must get a good view of her subjects from it :D

"God bless you, my little people" *wave wave*

I wonder if she rode out to it in the gold plated chariot - :p

I wonder if she rode out to it in the gold plated chariot - :p

http://www.royalinsight.org.uk/files/images/carriage_lower_img.jpg

I'd melt that sucka down and sell it on the nasdaq. Golden MP3 player and all. :p

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianwarnock
America gets bashed, quite rightly sometimes, by Col and Rich mainly, Brian...



I think you have taken that quote right out of context, far enough out to change what i was saying in the whole post.

Brian

Just noticed I put your name instead of the word "but"...huh wierd. I was trying to take the first portion of the sentence before the transitional word "but", you know usually used when changing ideas, thoughts or directions in a sentence.

Think I typed you name instead by accident - my fault.:o

Fixed it in the original.

Just noticed I put your name instead of the word "but"...huh wierd. I was trying to take the first portion of the sentence before the transitional word "but", you know usually used when changing ideas, thoughts or directions in a sentence.

Think I typed you name instead by accident - my fault.:o

Fixed it in the original.

Oh its because I didnt use the whole thing...sry just wanted to comment on part of what you said...

"dont mind the dumb american with the flag avatar"

Oh its because I didnt use the whole thing...sry just wanted to comment on part of what you said...

It doesn't stand up to being quoted in parts as the whole says American mistakes get noticed as America is big, who would notice if the head of say Luxemburg had an off day.


"dont mind the dumb american with the flag avatar"

LOL

Brian