BBB
I have no respect for a House and Sentate and Executive Branch whose actions are based on retaining their power rather than for the common good of the country.
This is typical behavior of dictatorships around the world. They all behave the same way, which eventually brings their downfall, usually at the costs of uncountable lives and the destruction of their countries into failed states.
BBB
You should be sure to move before that happens. I am sure that a country that has the same freedoms and oppotunities should be easy to find. Why you could move to, um, say..., uh, well, I am sure you can think of one.
BBB
McGentrix wrote:You should be sure to move before that happens. I am sure that a country that has the same freedoms and oppotunities should be easy to find. Why you could move to, um, say..., uh, well, I am sure you can think of one.
Are you advising me to cut and run?
If you love your country and see it doing wrong, a real patriot tries to correct it, not leave it.
BBB
"I have no respect for a House and Senate and Executive Branch whose actions are based on retaining their power rather than for the common good of the country."
Aunt Bea, you talk as if this is a recent development. It is not. Incumbents and wanabe incumbents from the late 18th century onward have all worked as hard for retaining power as they have for the common good of the country. Actually, its not an "either/or" situation. One can best serve the common good of the country by occupying a position charged with setting , or constraining, public policy. In earlier times, the political wars to get into, or stay in, office were far worse than anything during our lifetime. The electorate is more independent today than at any time in our political history.
There is also a great deal of ambiguity as to exactly what is "for the common good of the country". Not everyone agrees on that, and if they did then the two Party system so essential to our representative system would be in trouble. In fact, no one can accurately foretell what the outcome of various policies will be. What is intended to do one thing may fail entirely, or result in consequences far different than was intended. Only a lot of water under the bridge will make possible some objective evaluation of whether any particular policy/program was even of consequence, much less successful in producing a result that was "for the common good of the country". Andrew Jackson's brutal removal of the Civilized Tribes is rightfully pointed to as a monstrous crime, as was the too frequent injustices visited upon the aboriginal inhabitants of North America. However, after a hindered years or so the the consequences of those acts have been "for the common good of the country"... and even the world at large. Some decry the acquisition of large parts of the American Southwest after the Mexican War, but the "for the common good of the country" is evident today. Would you prefer living in Albuquerque, New Mexico, or in Albuquerque, Mexico? Would the country be better off if illegal Mexican immigrants were slipping across the border into Colorado, or Oregon?
"The phony uproar about Press revealing Bush's secret programs is nothing more than mining for conservative base votes in the November election".
Revealing to the enemy the means and methods being utilized to track their financial dealings is, in my opinion, ill advised at best. If the press had not chosen to go public, then there would have been no "uproar". I would have thought from many of the posts we've seen here on A2K, the "uproar" is more generally believed to be a Democratic ploy to further erode faith in the administration, and to boost Democratic chances in the up coming polls. It appears to me that international Islamic terrorist organizations and the Democratic Party are the beneficiaries of this, not the GOP, nor the War on Terror.
"The current congress is not fulfilling it's oversight responsibilities leaving the Press as the last protection the citizens have when one party controls all of the government. The Republican party has sold it's soul to the devil as the price of retaining it's monopoly power. Shame on them. Shame on the timid democrats and the Press for not raising more hell about it to protect the citizens".
This is the opinion of a sizable number of Democrats. Actually, the Democratic Party still holds a sizable number of seats in Congress and they have demonstrated on many occasions their ability to stall or block GOP initiatives. Democratic legislators are doing their job as representatives of their constituents, and their views do have great impact on how the nation is run. Votes are often along Party-lines, but that is very normal in American politics and isn't likely to change no matter who has the majority in Congress.
It is the Executive, Congress and Supreme Court and not the Press who are responsible for legislation, foreign policy, military action, and preservation of the Constitution. You've said above that Congress is only interested in retaining power. Well, the Press is only interested in selling newspapers and advertising. The Press both reflects and molds popular opinion, but popular opinion should have next to zero affect on national policy ... especially during times of crisis. Both Parties, and our enemies, are very aware of the Press and all of them manipulate/use the Press to their own ends. Nowhere is this more evident than in the thinly disguised editorial commentaries that masquerade as news. Many of our most vocal postings here at A2K consist of lengthy quotes from these sources, and all they amount to is the opinion of some commentator flacking for their client's interests. Personally, I'm much more interested in reading the thoughtful personal reflections on issues of other A2K writers. The Press is only a watchdog that is never, and should never, be entirely privy to the inner councils of government.
