EAGLE1

Perhaps best just to say that then.

Yes I checked the Fox website and its eleventh on the politics list and both sides have agreed to move on. Didnt the dems even offer an apology, a revote and to submit it to the ethics panel?

Trajan Octavian Titus

Hillary is a front runner because her husband was a very successful politician he came from nothing and became the President and allthough I don't like him he was among the best and the brightest, Obama is a front runner because he is also a very good Politician who rose quickly through the ranks of the Senate because he is among the best and the brightest, Kucinich isn't getting any play because allthough a career politicians he hasn't really done anything of note, and Gravel hasn't been a name since the Vietnam war. That and Charisma is also a very important characteristic and neither Gravel or Kucinich have it.

I would say that the two generally go hand in hand with one another though I would agree that because someone is rich does not necessarilly make them the best and the brightest but if they are the best and the brightest they are nearly always rich, and example of the former would be actors and athletes. Though I will make the exception for Reagan in the actor category.

If they're the best and the brightest and they haven't applied themselves and they are not rich then they are not really the best and the brightest.

Sorry but if they were really the best and the brightest they wouldn't be a highschool teacher making $30 thousand a year, that alone proves that they're not very bright.


I totally disagree, the Constitution is not outdated it was revolutionary for its day and it still is, the problem is that it is not followed strictly and that is infact due to people like you who think it's outdated.

IMO the differences within both parties in themselves are so vast that it does necessitate a measure of consensus.

Trajan Octavian Titus

The Republicans have not offered to move on.

Yes that has been rejected the Republicans are demanding that the original vote stand or that the entire bill not just the motion to recommit goes back to a revote, the ethics panel they labeled a black hole which it is so now they are setting up a special select committee on the matter. Just because Pelosi deems it a non-issue, offers a faux apology, and says it's over doesn't mean it's over, this is far from over expect legal action to be taken, the DemocRATs killed Democracy in this country and heads are going to roll.

Billo_Really

There's a good reason for that!

__________________

"With neocons, it just goes to show, when the
bar is low enough, you can never be too wrong!"

Trajan Octavian Titus

Ya because it's generally a hard thing to do to prove libel and slander infact they are two of the most difficult things to prove, but I have proven that the IVAW is responsible for the most aggregious slander of our troops thus they have lost any and all credibility. But you love them because like you they love trashing our troops.

Jray

Yes but being charismatic or where you came from does not make the person the best choice for president, haveing the best poltical ideas does.

Once again, it depends what they decide to do, an intelligent buisness man or doctor will always be rich but thet is not so for all professions.

Not true, some professions are more profitable some people choose there profesion on more than money.

Not true, i know a guy who went to yale on full scholorship, did his masters at brown and is one of the most intelligent people i have ever met but he teaches highschool history because that is what he wanted to do.

Well if you look at the constitution you would notice it wasn't meant to be interpreted stricly because of the elastic clause, which has allowed the government to infringe on the peoples rights many times. Yes it was revolutionary at the time because the only government deemed legitimate at the time was the monorchy and the US moved to the left by forming a republic, this is a natural movement in human history, i say its time to move one more step left.

I think consenus democracy can work because it would cause more cooperation between parties as opposed to what we have right now which just causes us to swing back a forth.

Also in direct and consenus democracy every group is represented as opposed to the republic system that besides a few exceptions represents only the two major parties. Which one is more likely to cause tyranny by majority?

Billo_Really

You can't prove anything because you rarely post any evidence to back up what you say. And when pressed too, all you can muster is 2. That don't prove jack s.h.i.t!

BTW, IVAW ARE OUR TROOPS!

Trajan Octavian Titus

Ya and Gravel and Kucinich do not have the best political ideas if they did they would be contendors. Though I don't know much about Gravel, Kucinich would be a disaster for this country. Just because you think socialism is a good idea doesn't mean it is nor does it mean that the majority of the citizenry believe it's a good idea.

It is for professions that produce good leaders.

And that is why they are not the best and brightest, the very fact that they chose to live a life of poverty rather than to get ahead in this world proves they lack the attributes of a leader.

Good for him, but education does not make someone a good leader.


How has the necessary and proper clause allowed the state to infringe on the rights of the citizenry, cite specific examples.

Ya I'm sure you do, but luckily we live in a representative republic in which your views aren't going to come to fruition.

A direct democracy is much more likely to cause a tyranny of the majority as is the case in every single direct democracy system. As to your "consensus democracy," basically your assertion is that unpopular and fringe parties should be given as much weight as popular and mainstream parties, the bottom line is that if people wanted these parties to have equal say they would vote for them. A Constitutional Republic in which the will of the majority is respected while the rights of the minority are guaranteed is the best system IMHO, and it is one in which that has done us fairly well over the last couple of centuries. And just how exactly would you assert that this system would function anyways? Are we to have leaders who rule by opinion poll?

Trajan Octavian Titus

Yes two examples of how the IVAW is responsible for the disgusting slander of our troops in Iraq. It proves that they have 0 credibility.

No these buddy ****ers are YOUR troops not mine.

Billo_Really

It only proves (if true) 2 have no credibility.