The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Can democracy survive George W. Bush? > Comments

Can democracy survive George W. Bush? : Comments

By Jan De Pauw, published 19/1/2007

President George W. Bush's legacy is far from inconsequential, but far from detrimental - his tenure as a 'war president' may even help invigorate democracy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Let me make it clear at the onset, I do not have any expertise whatsoever in either constitutional history or law. This is an entirely lay opinion.

The three branches of government (judiciary, legislative and executive), can work well under certain circumstances. There is much historical evidence for this. There is however an underlying assumption that the practitioners of the three branches enjoy a common heritage, common education and common traditions.

It is like a coach pulled by three horses. If the horses work as a team, and pull in the same direction it is a smooth ride. But if the horses become ill disciplined, pull in different direction then there may be chaos. This in is what happens when one factor becomes obstructionist. We have seen in Australia how a hostile senate can block government legislation. It maters little if the obstruction is due to philosophical differences or a play for power. There is talk of a “balance of power.” This means minor parties can manipulate the situation and exercise power disproportionate to their community representation. In my view the “wheeling and dealing” in the Senate is both the negation of democracy and an elevation of the personal interests of politicians over and above the National Interest.

This chaotic situation is essentially unstable and sooner or later one of the “horses” may find a way to dominate the other two. Did not the Republic of Ancient Rome collapse into the dictatorship of Julius Caesar and the Empire of Octavius (Augustus)?

Should no “horse” succeed in domination, then the society is very likely to disintegrate and suffer obliteration by enemies.
Posted by anti-green, Friday, 19 January 2007 10:23:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The image of Mr Bush flaunting international law inserted some welcome humour.
Posted by Henery, Friday, 19 January 2007 10:42:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Quite so, Henery. "Look at me! I'm President! Check out this international law I'm flushing down the toilet! Who needs laws when we have faith, eh?"

An excellent and balanced article. Unfortunately, the standard of political debate in Australia extends only to statements like "right wing good, left wing bad" or vice versa.

Unlike the Americans, we reward our leaders for cheating and deceiving us.
Posted by Sancho, Friday, 19 January 2007 2:37:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given that the republican supreme court stole the election from
Al Gore and handed it to George and Co, given that electronic
voting with no paper trail is becoming common in the US, I don't
have much faith in their system.

What the US public has learnt the hard way, is that if they
appoint an idiot, along with an attack dog to lead their
country, they will pay a heavy price. The US has come down
a long way in the last 6 years, the public are finally waking
up to just how much. Repairing the damage that the Bush/Cheney
team have inflicted, will take a long long time.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 19 January 2007 8:40:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This thread is one of the best I've seen here. Agree with all your comments with a couple of riders.

What democracy? It's not practiced anywhere in the world. Australia doesn't have it. We have a two Party tag team which gives the elctorate no choice at all.

Bush has caused the Atomic clock to tick two minutes in his short holiday in the White House. Perhaps historical leadership at war should be mandatory. If so, no wars from us in the West.

The Australian media has pointed the Fox inspired finger at Iran and Korea for the Atomic clock movement. More widely read opinion points where it belongs. At George's bunch of $ oriented morons.

Bush and the US is the only country to use the overwhelming force of atomic power and George's shaky grip on the button is becoming shakier.

His lunacy in invading Iraq has done exactly what Bin Laden wanted. Divided the threat of US domination by exposing them as vulnerable as all civilsations are. George is sending the US broke, turning even Republicans against him but he insists he has the "power". Which he does much to the world's horror. But he certainly does not have the will of his people behind him today.

Exposing the underlying weakness of an army filled with National Guard and the youth is exactly where bin Laden was aiming. Why? Clinton trained Al Qaeda troops in Afghanistan and then abandoned them versus the Russians. Therefore the turn towards Bush and the US. George perhaps cannot reead or speak without his earphone.
Posted by RobbyH, Saturday, 20 January 2007 6:58:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Bush may indeed reinvigorate American democracy but what kind of democracy was it that elected him in the first place?
Its totally undemocratic on a global scalre that the majority population of the world should be anxious about who the present of next president of the 'free world' is or should be
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 20 January 2007 7:21:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I appreciated the clear way in which this article laid down reasons to keep faith with the inherent checks and balances of the American system.In fact I came to the end very thoughtfully and almost ready to adopt a cautious form of optimism.

But then, like Yabby, I found it impossible to push to the back of my mind the way in which GW came to power in the first place. The failure not only of the checks and balances of the system, but of the attempts of the people themselves to prevent this from happening continues to erode the optimism I would much prefer to adopt.
Posted by Romany, Saturday, 20 January 2007 10:09:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Could all the OLO readers vote in a replacement for the USA?

Name your choice of country that may be willing and able to enforce the next repetitive & impotent UN resolutions.

China?
Russia?
France?
Canada?
Poland?
Italy?
Bosnia?
Cuba?
Iran?
North Korea?
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Monday, 22 January 2007 12:13:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very interesting article.

Main problem with the US political system is, aside from the two main parties, it is impossible for another party to obtain a seat in congress.

I have no idea what Cowboy Joe is going on about, but it seems to be off the topic.
Posted by David Latimer, Monday, 22 January 2007 1:10:38 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

Agree. Same as here in Australia isn't it? Two parties, money controls power.

I notice Hillary Clinton has made her announcement, prompted by Senator Barack Obama's earlier move. Both democrats yet Hillary is reported to already have a warchest of $13 million, just to win the Democrat job.

Interesting situation for the US. Given Bush's shambles it would seem the Democrats are in the box seat, far out from election but who will the Republicans come up with? McCain seems likely.

So the Democrats have an African American and a female candidate as frontrunners at this time. Very interesting but as written the choice is limited to the rich and the voter numbers are poor.

What does Australia have? The Coalition with their record to stand on. Interest rates appear to be fading fast as a plus for Howard and of course he has no policy on Iraq. It'll be just George and the Aussies shortly as Blair starts to pull back from there.

Has Labor a real chance this time? I'm starting to think so.

Add in Turnbull's insanity re adding a "temporary" block to the Murray River to conserve Adelaide's drinking water. I think it was $140 million mentioned. And at last, floods north of Adelaide. May save the destruction the Turnbull plan would create in the longer term.
Posted by RobbyH, Monday, 22 January 2007 11:31:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the contrary it goes to the core of the discussion. David said

"media has pointed the Fox inspired finger at Iran and Korea for the Atomic clock movement. More widely read opinion points where it belongs. At George's bunch of $ oriented morons."

The in-adequateness of USA policies and actions are being enumerated ... so which country will be available to take their place? Please post your vote.

Australia's democracy is definitely far superior as our left wing media will vilify both the membership and candidates of populist movements and then the citizenry will allow a state government to throw the leading figures of the emerging political party in gaol. That is real democracy after all.

Recent revelations have shown that our federal government knew that Australian journalists were executed by Indonesian troops and then lied to the populace about the facts.

In reality the two party system in the US encompasses a wide range of philosophies within one party, for example Southern Democrats who occasionally behave as if they were Republicans and Californian Republicans who sometimes behave as if they are Republican. George B has been criticised by his own supporters for doing nothing about illegal Mexican immigration, just as we would expect our Labor party to do if the same situation existed here.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Monday, 22 January 2007 2:14:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Response to RobbyH:
I don't think it is the same in Australia. There are three major parties, and three minor parties with legislative influence.

The Liberals and Nationals are in coalition. The Greens, Democrats, One Nation and Family First have all managed to obtain seats in the Senate. They do have the opportunity to win lower house seats and preferences do offer indirect influence. It is therefore possible for a minor party to build up support over several years and win power. This is more evident at the state govt level.

Response to Cowboy Joe:
You have misquoted me. I never said that. And you are confusing George Bush and/or the executive administration with the United States. If someone criticises Geroge Bush, they are not trying to "replace" the United States with another country. Let's not be flippant.
Posted by David Latimer, Monday, 22 January 2007 3:42:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cowboy Joe. T'was I you quoted indeed.

Off topic still mate. We don't have democracy here, just someone's version of it. Quoting other's comments is a lazy way of pursuing an issue and is indicative of your innacurate quote, mine, not David's. There is no vote on a replacement. Start a thread yourself on that.

The revelation you refer to has been government knowledge since it happened mate. It's just they didn't tell us.

David,

The three Parties I guess are Labor, Libs and Nats? ( The Greens? Not in my view) I see Libs and Nats as one despite the QLD charades. Of course nationally they do have numbers but essentially most electorates have two choices, Labor or coalition.

Agree of course on the minors and I would greatly wish there were and will be more. Anything to break the hold the 2 majors (my view) have on government. Don't forget the DLP in Victoria either. They're back!

Re minors building up in State. Not here in QLD David. Beattie has a stranglehold and we all saw what Abbott, Beattie and Howard did to remove the danger of One Nation. There's still one or two up here but it's over for them. Other States do have more too but the NT doesn't. Not sure of numbers elswhere.

I'm strongly for minors and always vote that way David. In the end it's mostly a choice at the bottom of the ticket for Labor or Coalition. No choice I see or want.

Democrats seemed to have a conscience but Meg Lees and the GSt blew that out of the water. Therefore their demise. Minors who make deals for the brief spotlight are a waste of time.

Thank goodness Family First changed the deal with Howard, after being let down of course but he has seen the light and lost what he bargained away too.
Posted by RobbyH, Monday, 22 January 2007 11:00:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is an interesting thread.

Anti-greens analogy of three horse carriage is apt. One would say the skill of the driver should also be the determining factor. I would hope that the driver was the electorate and if one horse tried to dominate too much the electorate use the whip hand of the ballot box, which it gets opportunity to do for the Congress, Senate and for some of the judiciary as well as the President/Vice President.

As for complaints about lack of democracy, well we have had the same comments in threads here and it is a furphy. I guess some just don’t get it. “Democracy” is the process which sees the candidates for public office competitively and regularly tested at the ballot box. That some do not like of the outcome of that process is not justification for criticisng the process, it merely identifies a churlish nature.

Cowboy Joes question is an intriguing one. I am particularly interested in the views of those who seem to be professional malcontents.

Who would they seek to replace USA as the dominant economy and political / military force in world affairs?

I, for one am happy the US (with the Western Allies in close support) prevailed over the last great test of tenacity.

Russia, it cannot feed itself, let alone lead others.
China is still recovering from years of self-imposed exile during which it went backwards.

The EU (that is who would be a runner, not France) is a parochial collection of diverse states.

South American or African States?. The only one which comes close, South Africa, is self destructing as we speak.

Australia does not have the population base to support a world-leader role, same for Canada.

The one who most closely preceded USA was UK.

The UK has a tradition, through Empire, of understanding world power in a unique way. Whether those skills and the will to exercise them remains is hard to guess and might have been discarded in the dalliance with EU; so, I doubt it.

Ultimately, Joe, there is no one else.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 22 January 2007 11:33:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apologies to other posters here. Col is following me like a pet blue heeler. Of course he's off track and needs no response.

He either tag teams with Joe or is indeed both.

Any thought of your own opinion anywhere Col? End of discussion.
Posted by RobbyH, Tuesday, 23 January 2007 1:29:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RobbyH “Col is following me like a pet blue heeler”

I suppose an egoist might delude themselves to that.

In fact nearest I could come to describing such coincidence is

“It is simply SH * T before the shovel”

I just caught a whiff of the smell and there you were, RobbyH,

so here I am, shovelling.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 23 January 2007 8:57:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think alot of people are missing the point here.

I certainly don't think that we need a self appointed
world's policeman. If the US wants to appoint themselves
as such, it would be great if their leaders developed
at least a smigeon of people skills, or they will only
make things worse.

As we have seen in Afgahnistan, Iraq, Vietnam etc, owning
lots of bombs does not solve anything, it takes more then
that.

Sadly this present Bush/Cheney team, have the people skills
of a wild bush pig, so no wonder America has made so many
enemies and gone downhill so much in the last 6 years.

People such as Cheney/Armatige etc, who have nothing but
major arrogance to show, have much to learn. Threatening
to bomb Pakistan back to the stone age, refusing to even
talk to Iran, are not the way to make progress.

Bill Clinton did much to promote the US. He very nearly
solved the Middle East problem, he understood people skills.
He won respect wherever he went around the world.

This mob have become a laughing stock. Zawahiri is sitting
in the hills laughing at the US, they have been unable to
even find him. The Taliban are reforming, we have civil
war in Iraq, more Americans have been killed in Iraq then
in 911, far more are injured and maimed for life.

What democracy has shown is that if you make a mistake
and put an idiot up top, you might well pay a huge price.
Americans are learning the hard way it seems.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 23 January 2007 9:21:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Iran talks to Americans

Iranian Ambassador Makes Inflammatory Remarks About Holocaust, at Columbia University
Thursday , December 07, 2006
By Catherine Donaldson-Evans

NEW YORK — The Iranian ambassador to the United Nations sparked a furor Wednesday night when he said at a speech in New York that Palestinians are suffering today because of "atrocities" that happened in World War II, specifically against the Jews.

Comments made by Javad Zarif about the Holocaust at Columbia University were met with animated protests from some students in the audience.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly denied that the Holocaust happened and has also called for the destruction of Israel.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Wednesday, 24 January 2007 12:09:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In March 2003 there were forty-nine countries (=10% of the forces) publicly committed to the Coalition in Iraq, including:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Tonga
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

All self appointed or is that a contradiction?
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Wednesday, 24 January 2007 12:18:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6355412,00.html

kind of shows Cheney's arrogant attitude again and again.

Fact is, if people stopped talking to anyone who has made
outrageous statements as Iran has, then there would be alot
more fighting. I remind you that Clinton sat down with Arafat
and got a long way, despite Arafat's past history. People
skills matter in politics! History has shown that the US
can't run its foreign policy anymore, by simply threatening
to bomb the heejeebies out of some place. Its a dismal failure.

Yes, lots of countries nominally put their name down to
support George's war, after lots of diplomatic pressure
etc. Those who refused, as some European countries did,
were not exactly treated nicely. Lots of flawed intelligence
was used too.

A country like the US, who claims to be a world leader, should
at least have halfway intelligent leaders. History shows
that George and Dick have so far been dismal failures.
Most Americans now agree with that. Just look at the polls.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 24 January 2007 9:27:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cowboy - sure, there's a lot of nations on that list.

How many are committing substantial numbers of troops to actual combat, aside from the US and the UK?
Yes the US is the world superpower - they need people to back them up so they don't look appear to be alone in Iraq - even if it's a token effort at assistance.
Why wouldn't these nations, if it means buying some favour with the US at little cost?

(If Australia was really in this war, don't you think we'd have had some combat fatalities by now? I'm not saying this is a bad thing, on the contrary, but it is a relevant point.)

In any case, I have digressed from the central topic here, which as I see it, is whether or not the checks and balances of the US system of government are sufficient.

To Cowboy Joe and Col... I ask your views as to how much latitude the US administration should have?
What is going "too far" in the following issues:

Legal: i.e. The US justice system was founded on precepts such as trial by jury and habeus corpus. These have been jettisoned by the Bush administration. Is this acceptable in the 'war on terror' and if so, who should decide if it's acceptable? Should they be scrutinised by other institutions?

General policy: i.e. How should other institutions be able to curb the actions of a president in the event a president is acting outside the constitution? What institutions should decide this? How can it be ensured they are not pawns of those in power?

Corruption: The US administration is often perceived as a 'revolving door' between corporate industries and high positions in the executive. Should there be requirements to prevent individuals such as Dick Cheney, who has had strong ties to Halliburton (who are no longer operating in Iraq and have been widely criticised) being in a position where they can promote these corporations?

I'm curious as to the views of those who favour the approach used by the Bush administration in these areas.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 25 January 2007 11:48:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TLTR
“The US justice system” is overseen by the US Supreme Court who sits as a separate authority outside of the President / Administration , The Congress or the Senate.

“What institutions should decide this” I thought Congress does decide and when needed, has impeached Presidents.
The Congressional committee on oversight and reform, as its name suggests, oversees.

It always amazes me that people see USA and the see GWB and think, pretty much that is it, ignoring the other institutions, federal and state and county which comprise the bureaucracy of USA.

Just the same as Australians do not vote just for John Howard versus whoever the opposition tries to stand against him, the US electoral cycle does not simply evolve around who will be the President.

I always step back from suggesting a US president is going too far, I think Americans are in a far better position to decide that for themselves, it is, after all their taxes and their forces who the president is going too far with.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 25 January 2007 1:28:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col... I take your point about other institutions, but the fact of the matter was that checks and balances are only as effective as the people enforcing them.

As I recall, the supreme court found that a great deal of what was going on at Guantanamo was unconstitutional.

And yet... little seems to have changed. Bush was given a rap over the knuckles. That was about it.

Were it not for the fact that the democrats are now gaining influence, I rather suspect there would be little change at all.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 25 January 2007 2:21:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe, How many today?

Col. Step back. US election doesn't revolve around the President? Get real.
Posted by RobbyH, Saturday, 27 January 2007 2:00:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A main difference between Western governments is variance of tenacity and activity levels of their media. There are plenty of skeletons in Australia's closet but it is very convenient to have rich Uncle Sam (tall poppy) to denigrate and act as a scapegoat for marginally competent and corrupt governments around the world.

One point was made about $driven morons. Money is a major motivator and those who generally deride this concept are likely to be on the bottom end of the economic scale. China's emergence and skyrocketing economy is the result of a general rejection of a philosophy that has been summarily proven to be plausible on paper but a total disaster in reality.

As to the poor being the core voters in the USA -- this is a moot point because few of them make an effort to vote. The only way Democrats can get elected is to mount massive quasi-military operations to transport the lower class to the polls, walk them by the hand to the booth, put a pen in their hand, tell them who they are voting for and then provide them afternoon refreshments on the way home.

How many morons does it take to fly a jet fighter?

Is it possible that morons get elected because the competent ones get paid 50 million a year to run a corporation (and don't get shot at) and the others, not unlike OLO readers are too busy keeping their families afloat to become involved in politics? The last figure I remember, President of the USA was paid $500,000.

Or do they really believe in the institution of public service and wish to make a difference; even if it is a difference that many people do not value.

After all 51% is a majority. Contrary to media reports the recent US election was NOT a landslide, many electorates had a one percent majority, a couple were less than that. To argue the election result was more heavily skewed is a distortion of the facts. Mid term elections often generate this type of vote against the sitting majority.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Sunday, 28 January 2007 10:54:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Prisoners of war do not have a right to trial, are kept imprisoned until hostilities cease. OBL declared war long before 9/11; few choose to remember. A declaration of war = war. IN Vietnam POWs were kept after the war.

Hicks should be tried, since a member of the Taliban government has been released (unbelievable), but not because he has the right to be released as HE IS A PRISONER OF WAR. The complexities of the world seem to have complexity upon complexity with few clear cut right and wrong decisions that world leaders make.

How would things have panned out if Bush "forgave" 9/11 and asked for peace table discussions. 1) who would be invited 2) what would the organisations do that were not a part? 3) would Israel be handed over to whom, by who?

I noted agreement that very few countries have the ability to operate on a global scale, consequently, argument about the relative morality of the US is a weak argument since other countries behaviour can not be monitored, as they do not have the resources.

However, we do know how many mini powers behave, Bosnia, Lebanon, Syria, Mugabe, Iran, North Korea and Tienanmen Square etc.

Hillary & Kennedy voted to attack Iraq, morons as well? I agree it was a mistake -- Iraq as a nation doesn’t deserve the sacrifices.

Mike Carlton’s description of the US -- the best of the best and the worst of the worst.

Iraq broke the treaty / cease fire agreements of Gulf War I, then ignored 16 UN resolutions. Many think this is acceptable or a minor consideration and urge more dialog. When the 17th resolution was ignored, Iraq was invaded with 6 months notice. Forget the 150,000+ gassed to death, as most OLO writers do.

The initial article is irrelevant. US democracy has survived 200 years with more turmoil at different times compared to now; it will survive. The question is juvenile/naive.

Without prevailing America bashers the article could be titled -- Can Democracies Survive Corporations, Can Democracies Survive Uncontrolled Migration or Can Democracy Survive Islamic Extremists.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Sunday, 28 January 2007 12:34:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TRTL “but the fact of the matter was that checks and balances are only as effective as the people enforcing them.”

The devil is in the detail TRTL, from the obscurity of our lounge rooms and the pacific dividing us from the action, what is relayed through the news headlines from USA might be completely different to what happens on the ground, so to speak. Part of a belief in Democracy is a belief that we elect people with like values to ethicacy and honesty.

As Cowboy Joe states “The initial article is irrelevant. US democracy has survived 200 years with more turmoil at different times compared to now; it will survive.”

And British Democracy even longer and the differences between them are profound, yet they are both “democracies”.

RobbyH “Col. Step back. US election doesn't revolve around the President? Get real.”

Tell me, who elects the US Senate, the US Congress?”

Who has power to Impeach a President?

That the machinations of elections to Senate and Congress or for many levels of the judiciary do not get the air-play offered to the carnival of election of the President, means little, in practical terms. US politics is equally dependent upon all the institutions as well as the figure head. Especially when we consider the Vice President is also chairman of the Senate.

Only a Gingoistic moron would presume the practicalities of government of USA revolves only around the Presidential elections and Office, to the exclusion of all other institutions.

The US have a term for it, when the President does not control the Majority in the Congress or Senate, it is “Lame Duck”.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 29 January 2007 4:53:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe/Col,

No listing of today's countries in Iraq? What a surprise. No info, right?

Re Mr Hicks. What war? Do you mean the US invasion of Afghanistan? Never was a war, it's an invasion. As such even Howard now admits it is "wrong" to keep him in Guantanamo. Keep up with it Joe/Col.

Col jingoistic has a J not a G. Perhaps you were thinking of Geckos. Or some other BS, as usual.
Posted by RobbyH, Monday, 29 January 2007 5:24:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robby enthusiastically fumes about American arrogance.

Unthinkingly, he then arrogantly dismisses the contribution of numerous smaller nations. I do not think these countries would consider their contributions insignificant but conversely a sacrifice -- financially, politically and emotionally. The Ugly Australian surfaces.

Authoritative Robby possesses a very rare intellectual capacity ie the ability to arbitrarily assess the worth of each nation's contribution from the comfort and safety of his home.

The family of the Polish soldier killed in battle deserves to be incensed about Robby's arrogant assertions.

The derogatory & insensitive dismissal of each Nation's contributions unmasks his elitist, bigoted and hypocritical nature.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Monday, 29 January 2007 9:04:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Female caller to Sydney talk back radio circa 1999.

She said, "Women create reality with words and men describe reality with words, but always remember that SOME men think like women".

I nearly drove off the road a cognitive light bulb exploded in my brain, finally, an explanation for the RobbyHers of the world!

Robby has also taken a page out of the Israel/Arab conflict ie begin to count repetitive grievances & violent acts at some arbitrary date that lends credence to your own point of view.

I repeat a declared war is a war. OBL, on behalf of the militaristic Islamists, declared war on Western democracies, it was broadcast on Al Jazeera TV long before the war in Afghanistan. I saw it myself.

My history teachers taught that a war is not a war unless it has been declared, that is right, a simple statement is the difference between a war and a non-war. Why wasn't OBL's declaration big news? Because the progressives who dominate media outlets were unable to compute the critical significance of the event.

RobbyH should throw away his bias and come clean by declaring war on common sense and those who have the ability to describe reality.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Thursday, 1 February 2007 10:21:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy