au1929 wrote: Don't muddy the water, can't you understand it is only invalid or shameful when used by the democrats.
I never said that, and I think I have some rather heated fights with Scrat in my profile to prove the opposite of the view you just attributed to me.
au1929 wrote: Regarding the tyranny of the majority. Because they the, republicans, hold a majority in congress and as well control the White House they can shove anything they want other than that which is unconstitutional down the publics throat.
That's how a democracy works. If you think that compatibility with the constitution is an insufficient constraint, you must be believing that the American constitution is inadequate. Based on the last 250 years of history, I'm sceptical about that view.
au1929 wrote:It is obvious that even though they did not recieve a mandate from the electorate {lost the popular vote} they want to govern as if they do.
Tennis matches aren't won by the player who wins the most rallys. Football matches aren't won by the team who wins the most yards. And according to the US constitution, presidential elections aren't won by the candidate who wins the most votes. Many people, including myself, think this rule in the US constitution doesn't make sense. It is nevertheless the rule that has been in place since 1783, and that no party has ever made any serious effort to change. Therefore the rule applies, however stupid it may be, and however little you may like the results.
The Bush administration is a really bad thing in many dimensions. But the way it came into existence isn't one of those dimensions.