checks and balances

[PNAC]

Wouldn't our country be in better shape if we had a balance of power? like maybe having the democrats control either the senate or the congress. this way we would have more checks and balances and less chance for corruption.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Wouldn't our country be in better shape if we had a balance of power? like maybe having the democrats control either the senate or the congress. this way we would have more checks and balances and less chance for corruption.

Sure. You run off and teach the Democrats how to win an election or two, and we can talk. Giving control over a portion of the government solely because another portion is controlled by the opposing party is pathetic.

And lazy.

 

[PNAC]

please explain why it is pathetic?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

please explain why it is pathetic?

Control of the government should not be doled out through a pity policy.

 

[PNAC]

you are right it should not be doled out as a pity policy but you missed the point. you don't elect the other party out of pity. you do it for the betterment of the country to keep checks and balances. A one party system is a blank check for corruption. I ask you, do you prefer a corrupt government?

 

[MtnBiker]

The constitution does not mandate a one party system. The electorate is free to vote for who they wish.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

you are right it should not be doled out as a pity policy but you missed the point. you don't elect the other party out of pity. you do it for the betterment of the country to keep checks and balances. A one party system is a blank check for corruption. I ask you, do you prefer a corrupt government?

Giving away control to those who do not earn it is no less corrupt.

 

[PNAC]

to allow corruption is ok? the polticians are voted in. They don't earn their way into office now do they? Would it be against your very fabric to vote for any party but the gop regardless of whether there is corruption? is a corrupt republican still better than a democrat? Would you vote for Bush if he changed parties but not policy?

 

[MtnBiker]

Why would the PNAC be concerned about such matters? Not only that but William Kristol wouldn't ask such stupid questions.

Again you are not what you claim to be. Fraud.

 

[GotZoom]

to allow corruption is ok? the polticians are voted in. They don't earn their way into office now do they? Would it be against your very fabric to vote for any party but the gop regardless of whether there is corruption? is a corrupt republican still better than a democrat? Would you vote for Bush if he changed parties but not policy?

I don't vote party. I vote message and who I think will do the best for me and my country in line with my political thoughts.

It just so happens that every election I have voted in, it has been the Republican party.

If an Independent or Democrat can convince me that they have my and my countries best interest in mind, then I will vote for them.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

to allow corruption is ok? the polticians are voted in. They don't earn their way into office now do they? Would it be against your very fabric to vote for any party but the gop regardless of whether there is corruption? is a corrupt republican still better than a democrat? Would you vote for Bush if he changed parties but not policy?

You aren't making sense. Try rewording.

 

[PNAC]

Why would the PNAC be concerned about such matters? Not only that but William Kristol wouldn't ask such stupid questions.

Again you are not what you claim to be. Fraud.

Are you really a mountain biker?

 

[MtnBiker]

A mountain biker or not has no bearing on my posts. You claimed to represent a political think tank, which you are not. You are a fraud.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Are you really a mountain biker?

Hey. Sparky. Stay on topic. It's not hard.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

you are right it should not be doled out as a pity policy but you missed the point. you don't elect the other party out of pity. you do it for the betterment of the country to keep checks and balances. A one party system is a blank check for corruption. I ask you, do you prefer a corrupt government?

Checks and balances are between the branches, dumbass, not the parties.

 

[PNAC]

you are not completely correct. checks and balances occur between the branches and also the parties.

jack Abramoff

 

[The ClayTaurus]

you are not completely correct. checks and balances occur between the branches and also the parties.

jack Abramoff

Wow. Twice in one day:


How old are you?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

you are not completely correct. checks and balances occur between the branches and also the parties.

jack Abramoff

But the only constitutionally intended checks and balances are between the branches. Any check and balance between parties is inadvertant and not constitutionally mandated. Theoretically we can have republicans elected in every single position and there's not one damn thing you whiny libs could do about it, except cry.

 

[PNAC]

But the only constitutionally intended checks and balances are between the branches. Any check and balance between parties is inadvertant and not constitutionally mandated. Theoretically we can have republicans elected in every single position and there's not one damn thing you whiny libs could do about it, except cry.

is an increasing national debt in your best interest? How about the corruption between our congress and the likes of jack Abramoff? would you vote for Duke cunningham? taft?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

is an increasing national debt in your best interest? How about the corruption between our congress and the likes of jack Abramoff? would you vote for Duke cunningham? taft?

You're a joke.