Will You Watch the Debate?

In fact, it is damn near impossible because of the Constitution and its venerable checks and balances and term limits.

Quote:

In fact, it is damn near impossible because of the Constitution and its venerable checks and balances and term limits.

Apparently, it's quite possible when the Republican party currenty controls ALL branches of government.

Dookiestix wrote:

Quote:

In fact, it is damn near impossible because of the Constitution and its venerable checks and balances and term limits.

Apparently, it's quite possible when the Republican party currenty controls ALL branches of government.

Thanks to the ineptness of the current Dem party. Will we ever have a viable Dem party again?

Will we ever have a viable Dem party again?

Actually, it has a lot more to do with the neoconservative usurption of our Constitution, the Patriot Act, and using terrorism and fear to force legislation without as much as a single conference committee with the opposing party so that the average Joe doesn't get screwed.

Quote:

Will we ever have a viable Dem party again?

Do you honestly wish for a "viable" Dem party, whatever that means?

Yep. I favor a vigorous 2 party system.

You celebrate your Constitution of checks and balances while obviously realizing that there is only one party in full power, which prompted you to ask the last question quoted.

Yup, the checks and balances are more effective if there are different parties in control of the legislative and the executive, IMO. Which is why I wish the Dems would get their act together and develop an agenda the voters will not reject...again.

But then again, as you've started other more juvenile threads on able2know like this one, you perhaps aren't aware how self-denigrating you truly sound.

That does not concern me near as much as it seems to concern you. In fact, considering the source it does not concern me at all.

Yup, the checks and balances are more effective if there are different parties in control of the legislative and the executive, IMO. Which is why I wish the Dems would get their act together and develop an agenda the voters will not reject...again.

Quote:

Um, you have to be voted in office first before developing an "agenda," Larry434. It's generally how the system works.

I don't think so. A successful candidate will lay out his agenda in the campaign. Perhaps your way of thinking is why the Dems have lost every national and most statehouse elections in this decade.

As you've done nothing but celebrated George Bush's idiocy these last four years, it's impossible to imagine that you would wish the Democrats to get some power back.

You don't seem to have a great deal of trouble imagining other things, dookie.

Trust me...I want a viable 2 party system to keep the politicians on both sides of the aisle as honest as possible. That does not mean I will not support one side over the other.

My guess is November 2nd will be a referendum against Bush and his policies, and then we'll get that system back.

And if that is what you are counting on, no matter that Kerry has laid out no credible positive and progressive agenda, you are doomed to add to the serial losses of this decade.

As always, Larry434, you are a walking contradiction.

Yup, just won't stay in that stereotypical box you want me in.

Perhaps if you remember I am an independent conservative, and not a Republican, it will help.

OMIGOD about factcheck.com!!!!!!!!!!!! I had just mentioned it on another thread (.com vs. .org), hadn't actually checked factcheck.com. That is soooooooo cool! :-D

From what I understand, Soros did it. (Bought factcheck.com, redirected.) But that's just what a friend told a friend, not sure of anything.

FactCheck.com Correction
We do not own the FactCheck.com domain name and are not responsible for it redirecting to GeorgeSoros.com. We are as surprised as anyone by this turn of events. We believe that Vice President Cheney intended to direct viewers to FactCheck.org

cheney did come across more forcefully, but that is meaningless if your statements are full of lies. (yep, as i said on another thread, i'm now happy to use the "L-word" with bush/cheney)

i think that it's pretty remarkable that, at worst, edwards held his own against someone who's big whoop is his "30+ years of experience".