I'm bright enough to get by; I'm certain I can keep pace with YOU.
Really? Would have fooled me.....but then, it could be you're hiding your lamp under a bushel.
It is YOU who does not understand that the Founding Fathers recognized that pure democracy can be subject to the emotional whims of the masses. As a result, we have the Senate and the Electoral College. The Founding Fathers had the good sense to buffer the running of the government from the current passions of the people. This is precisely the reason Clinton's presidency was such a failure; he didn't understand that you can't make good decisions when you're driven solely by the opinions of the masses. Look at the Don't Ask-Don't Tell fiasco as a great example of this.
Unfortunately, you don't understand as much as you think. The Senate is not an example of your thesis but rather is one of three executive branches, each of which provides the others with a check and balance. The concept was very much a democratic one. It was to keep any of the three branches from gaining control of the gov't.
In addition, the Senate allows for two senators from each state no matter the size of the state so that the voice of the smaller states would not be ignored........sounds very democratic to me.
As for the electoral college , it was controversial even back then when it was devised. It was not in keeping with the rest of the Constitution and I suspect it was a sop to keep their elitists, or soon to be Republicans, quiet.
Apparently, you don't understand much about our government.
May be not as much as you, ole wise one, but enough.
You think Bush is a good leader cause he bombed Afghanistan to hell.
This is, of course, a lie. A review of my posts prior to 9/11/2001 will confirm the clarity of my perspective on Bush's leadership.
Bush has done two things since coming to office..bombed the hell of Afghanistan and put in a tax cut. Take your pick. Your posts have been long on praise and short on substance. So excuse me if I don't have clarity. Again, what was it you like so much about Bush?
I am still waiting to hear your explanation for the list
Frankly, I thought you put that link up as a joke. It certainly isn't worthy of serious consideration. Of course, if you're a liberal and have no ammo against the conservatives, you might see that list as substantive (when all you've got is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail).
Are you saying the Packwood did not assualt any women; that J. Bakker did not rape J. Hahn; that Newt was not married three times and was caught cheating......even the Reps. couldn't make silk out of that pigs'ear and run him for President but they wanted to badly; that Nixon resigned in disgrace, etc.? I am waiting for answers ole wise one, even if they are slightly tainted.
Seriously, addressing the issues in your "list" would be giving credence to the notion that I think we ought to be involved in people's personal lives, which I don't. While I don't approve of adultery, I do believe people have the right to do as they please in their personal lives. For example, you've never heard me complain about Clinton's private sexual behavior. Only when he has abused his power, lied under oath, sexually assaulted or harrassed women, or committed rape have I spoken out against him -- these are basically violent crimes which should have resulted in his incarceration (sexual harrassment being the exception, which is a civil wrong).
Oh, I see......you really don't care about peoples' sex lives but instead you like to lie about them.........like saying Clinton raped Monica. So in other words, you are just sick.
If you want to think of something laughable, how about Dick Morris sucking toes.
That's laughable, too. He learned it from his client, Clinton.
I had heard it was Trent Lott.....it has that smell of swamp to it.
Enter symbols or keywords for search:
QuotesStock TalkChartsNewsPeople Symbol Lookup
Subject Titles Only Full Text Go to Top
Terms of Use
Got a comment, question or suggestion? Contact Silicon Investor. |
