Jump to content

Home

opposed to current government. Yes or No?


Druganator

Recommended Posts

Truthfully either, I’d really like to get rid of most of the additives, but if it was a complete redo I feel today’s society would produce a worse working government than we have now even with all the additives. I’d at least like to go back to when checks and balances were not a foreign idea in Washington. :(Hopefully, that that happens 155 days, 20 Hrs and 37 min. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Anyone here ever have to reformat their hard drive and reinstall all their software because their OS got too bogged down with junk?

 

No, because I perform regular maintenance and cull unwanted programmes, and running very strict anti-virus and anti-spyware programmes.

 

As such I suggest every 10 years having a governmental cull, and occasionally removing certain politicians, just because they don't seem to be doing a very good job - and I think imposing the death penalty for under-performing politicians might buck their ideas up ;)

 

(My last post for 10 days as I'm off, so thought I should make it as funny as possible :D)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agent 47 would be wiling to provide such services, for a price.

 

At any rate, no. The Government needs reform, but you don't reform a government by stripping everything out and then trying to reassemble it. You know what usually happens when you do that?

 

1: Nothing happens.

 

Or

 

2: Now it doesn't work.

 

Also, Socialism has yet to really be a successful system anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think imposing the death penalty for under-performing politicians might buck their ideas up ;)

 

That would at least end the debate about the death penalty in the U.S. as it would be definitely be considered cruel and usual by those in power if they were facing it. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think our government's fine.

 

Did you miss, say the last half of the century?

 

Wait, deprovements isn't in the spell checker? So it's not even a word? Bah.

 

Your kidding right? Any Government that gives you George Bush as a viable Presidential candidate clearly has issues, (please note, if you think Bush has done a good job, or is a good candidate to lead a country - I very much doubt your political savvy).

 

(Right this really will be my last post before I go on holiday :xp:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As such I suggest every 10 years having a governmental cull, and occasionally removing certain politicians, just because they don't seem to be doing a very good job - and I think imposing the death penalty for under-performing politicians might buck their ideas up

 

You mean, like we do in elections? Only with the death penalty for loosing incubents?:D

 

Also, Socialism has yet to really be a successful system anyway.

 

Really? Ever heard of the nordic countries?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who else? im actually wondering who else because i kno that britain helped a little bit but im not aware who else

 

A little bit? Maybe compared the US deployment of 248,000, our 46,00 troops may seem small, but that constitutes a hell of a lot more than a 'little bit'.

 

This is why a lot of people have problems with America, I think. Other countries get sidelined in favour of their view of things.

 

I've seen the same thing with World War II. If you spoke with some Americans, you'd think they fought the war single handedly.

 

when i think of georgia i think of the state [/Quote]

 

Try looking outside your own borders. It'll do wonders for your view of the world. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patriotism gets the best of people sometimes...also the fact that some people are just ignorant.

 

I don't begrudge patriotism, but I think that America would be seen in a more favourable light if it accepted that it's not just thanks to them that we're all free from oppression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but that's probably never going to happen. America has been a part of and has done too many things in the past to "ensure freedom", that some people are just too proud to admit that other countries have helped out too. Kids in school (my school at least) are taught about stuff that happened to America, and all the glorious (and rarely not so glorious) things that have happened to us. Other countries rarely get mentioned, and if they do, it's usually related to something evil. It's that stuff that gets stuck in everyone's minds here, because it's all we learn about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yea i agree with you on the patriotism thing most americans think simply because when they got there the war was half over that it was because they ended it and i apologize for the little bit remark in america we dont really hear about who helped us in iraq the media just tells us how bad its going

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you need isolationism to do that? How about just being rational government, instead of making such drastic changes?

 

Now I see why I'm the only one debating here. :lol:

 

The reason you're the only one who is debating is due to the lack of correct grammar and spelling in this thread.

 

Anyone here ever have to reformat their hard drive and reinstall all their software because their OS got too bogged down with junk?

 

Yes, but I'm the deity of my computer. I think I'll let the elimination of the government up to the country's God. :xp:

 

Did you miss, say the last half of the century?

 

Your kidding right? Any Government that gives you George Bush as a viable Presidential candidate clearly has issues, (please note, if you think Bush has done a good job, or is a good candidate to lead a country - I very much doubt your political savvy).

 

<3.

 

_EW_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Carter or Bush? I'd pick Bush over Carter (Or Clinton(s)) any day of the week.

 

While he hasn't done the best job possible, he's still done an okay job. Many people seem to hate him with a zeal that frightens me... why? I don't know. Maybe they're just bitter... :giveup:

 

Anyway, I am unopposed to our current government. The only thing I would suggest is an amendment to the Constitution limiting the amount of terms that you can serve in the House and the Senate, after all, that's where the real power lies.

 

But, other than that... I'd say we have a damn good system. Not the best, but a far cry from the worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Carter or Bush? I'd pick Bush over Carter (Or Clinton(s)) any day of the week.[/Quote] :lol::lol: :rolleyes:

 

The only thing I would suggest is an amendment to the Constitution limiting the amount of terms that you can serve in the House and the Senate, after all, that's where the real power lies.
A Constitutional amendment for term limits is never going to happen and that is my promise to America. The politician can promise all they want, but once they get into office why would they limit their own time in office.

 

Oh, the way the government should work is that the three branches of government share power and keep a check on the other. So the real power should be with all of the above. Over the years, especially the past seven, more and more power has been wrestled away from the legislative and even the judicial by the executive branch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. Imperialism deals more with colonies and protectorates.

Erm...

 

The first paragraph is were my point is...

Historian Paul Kennedy has called the emergence of the U.S. as player on world stage the most decisive change in late 19th century. America saw herself with a "special moral endowment" and felt justified in projecting influence beyond her borders. Americans still avoid "entangling alliances" but feel free to get more actively involved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol::lol: :rolleyes:
*looks at ForeverNight's profile. Looks at date of birth. Moves on.*

 

Over the years, especially the past seven, more and more power has been wrestled away from the legislative and even the judicial by the executive branch.
Wow, you make it sound as though the Republican Congress (with help from people like Bush's old Texas political buddy, Tom Delay) weren't handing the Executive Branch unrestricted power on a silver platter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congress switched to "Democratic control" in the mid-term elections of 2006, however I think it's important to remember that Dems only hold a slight simple majority. Republicans can (and do) exert more power than most people realize, simply because they hear "Democratic Congress" and assume that means that the Dems get to call all the shots.

 

Here's an example to illustrate my point:

 

The Democratic Caucus wants to push through Initiative XYZ. They need a simple majority for it to pass, however if the Republican President doesn't like it, then he can veto the Bill, at which point it can still become a law, but only if Congress can rally a 2/3 majority to override the Presidential veto. All the Republicans have to do is not vote for the override and the President gets what he wants. What's more, the Republicans could then sit back and deride the Democrats for being ineffective and score political points for the next election. So theoretically, one could argue that Republicans are still calling the shots even though they "lost" both the Senate and the House.

 

I hope that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...