Treason

[jonnythan]

He walked the walk.
He can talk the talk.

Oh I see.

You can only disagree with a war if you've fought in the war.

I forgot that line of the First Amendment.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Oh I see.

You can only disagree with a war if you've fought in the war.

I forgot that line of the First Amendment.

Umm no that is not at all what I said. Seems like you like to insert words into others peoples mouth so to speak.

 

[Rickster71]

like Sun Tzu said, managing a large group is no different than managing a small one; it's simply a matter of organization.

True.
Then again...he didn't come from a country of whinny babies.

 

[Rickster71]

Oh I see.

You can only disagree with a war if you've fought in the war.

I forgot that line of the First Amendment.

IMHO, he's earned it; others have not.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

IMHO, he's earned it; others have not.

True and he is also not standing before the whole world claiming we lost the war for all our enemies to hear as well. There is a big difference there.

 

[rnatalli]

IMHO, he's earned it; others have not.

In "your" opinion as you stated, but that's not how the laws are currently written. I can't say I disagree. I think the right to vote should be earned through military service or other means and not granted to anyone born when they hit 18. But that's not how our country is setup. Ultimately, if we don't like it, we're free to leave for new homes overseas.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

In "your" opinion as you stated, but that's not how the laws are currently written. I can't say I disagree. I think the right to vote should be earned through military service or other means and not granted to anyone born when they hit 18. But that's not how our country is setup.

I don't exactly disagree with that last part at all.

 

[jonnythan]

Umm no that is not at all what I said. Seems like you like to insert words into others peoples mouth so to speak.

I didn't quote you. I wasn't talking to you.

 

[jonnythan]

IMHO, he's earned it; others have not.

This is an opnion. Your opinion is valid, and I can't disagree with it.

However, in the eyes of the law - which is what we are discussing - everyone has the same freedom of speech, regardless of whether they've served in the military or not.

 

[jonnythan]

I think the right to vote should be earned through military service or other means and not granted to anyone born when they hit 18. But that's not how our country is setup. Ultimately, if we don't like it, we're free to leave for new homes overseas.

That's an incredibly stupid, terrible, dumb idea.

I can't believe how many people on this forum despise the Constitution. I'm ashamed.

 

[rnatalli]

Here are some other radical ideas. Outlaw this whole business of making contributions and lobbying. Also, anyone serving a political position shall not be allowed to accumulate wealth. They are to serve for their term and nothing else. Implement those two rules and watch 95% of our politicians leave office.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

I didn't quote you. I wasn't talking to you.

You didn't. I am starting to loose track.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Here are some other radical ideas. Outlaw this whole business of making contributions and lobbying. Also, anyone serving a political position shall not be allowed to accumulate wealth. They are to serve for their term and nothing else. Implement those two rules and watch 95% of our politicians leave office.

Keep it up, your on a roll

 

[rnatalli]

Okay, one more

Enough of this business of not being able to get things done. Attach a time limit to legislation bills. So when the senate disagrees and can't get anything done as a result (i.e. immigration bill), then the President, Consul, whatever decides whether option A or B moves into law. Although, not sure I'd want Bush getting his way on certain bills Although this is easy to counter. Make it so that if 67% of the voters disagree, it gets thrown out. 50% is no good as you have equal sides, but if 67% disagree, it's 67% vs. 33%. Better to piss off 33% than 50%.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Okay, one more

Enough of this business of not being able to get things done. Attach a time limit to legislation bills. So when the senate disagrees and can't get anything done as a result (i.e. immigration bill), then the President, Consul, whatever decides whether option A or B moves into law. Although, not sure I'd want Bush getting his way on certain bills

Not sure I like that one, but I do like the line item veto.

 

[rnatalli]

Not sure I like that one, but I do like the line item veto.

Well if the head cheese has the ability to single-handedly stop legislation, they should have the ability to move it through as well IMO.

 

[mudrummer99]

Legislation was set up the way it is for a reason, giving the president to power to move it through gives him more power than the other 2 branches of the government and throws out the "checks and balances" that our system is based on. I personally do want a single person to have to power to create legislation, that starts sounding like a monarchy or in extreme cases dictatorship.

 

[rnatalli]

I believe MA has a balance of all three, but if I recall, most states lean a bit heavier on the Legislative branch.

 

[rnatalli]

Legislation was set up the way it is for a reason, giving the president to power to move it through gives him more power than the other 2 branches of the government and throws out the "checks and balances" that our system is based on. I personally do want a single person to have to power to create legislation, that starts sounding like a monarchy or in extreme cases dictatorship.

It's not as they're not the ones writing legislation and if you leave the other mechanisms in place and include one for the people, problem with creating a monarchy or whatever is solved.

 

[mudrummer99]

It's not as they're not the ones writing legislation and if you leave the other mechanisms in place and include one for the people, problem with creating a monarchy or whatever is solved.

I think the president has a lot more to do with writing legislation than he really should. I mean, let's say you are a member of congress and the president himself comes to you to ask you to draft a bill that would do this or that towards his agenda, tell me you wouldn't jump at the chance to get on his good side. For example, how many of the candidates that are currently running for president aren't talking about this legislation that they would like to introduce for tax cuts or housing relief? The president's job was not originally intended to have anything to do with legislation except for enforcing it. The veto power was given to keep congress in check and not let anything that would be out of line from getting through. This has changed substantially in the past 231 years.