Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBTFD who wrote (56775)	3/30/2007 4:17:51 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 90947

lolololol man like talking to a child. What does political parties have to do with the 3 branches of government ??

To: JBTFD who wrote (56775)	3/30/2007 4:18:11 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Tell that to the Dems (and Chuck Hagel) who think Congress is Commander in Chief and that policy differences are impeachable offenses.

To: JBTFD who wrote (56775)	3/30/2007 4:23:23 PM
From: Ichy Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

They didn't write in separation of powers with the intention of harbouring Criminals and child molesters.

To: JBTFD who wrote (56775)	3/30/2007 4:34:33 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 90947

Mark, that post should really embarrass you. Separation of powers has absolutely nothing to do with political parties. If you're trying to talk about having Congress and the White House controlled by persons of the same political party, you're forgetting the years when the Dems had the same situation, which again has nothing to do with separation of powers. To the extent you claim Bush had a rubber stamp Republican Congress, you're forgetting his failure to use the veto power and the number of times he---foolishly in my opinion---went along with Democrat advocated bills in the interest of getting along. You probably don't realize that you're doing your cause absolutely no favors by your discourse on this thread. What you have done is vilified---across the board---anyone who does not share your very liberal opinions. Your views are expressed in terms of black and white. Yet you rail at what you consider to be the injustice of lumping so-called fringe protesters with those whom you share a POV that you consider less extreme. When I asked you about Cindy Sheehan, you disclaimed any real knowledge of her. Yet, Sheehan was heartily embraced by a pretty wide cross section of the left and was ultimately used--in my opinion--at a time when she probably needed psychiatric care. I submit that if you are really unfamiliar with the rhetoric employed by Sheehan, then you really lack sufficient familiarity with the anti-war movement on which to base your black and white characterizations.