A review of our democrat congress, so far...

[j2k4]

Today the republicans filibustered legislation that would have mandated better treatment of our military men and women, by placing strict conditions on how soon troops can be returned to combat after coming home from lengthy deployments.

The democrats haven't filibustered a single thing, have they?

If I began with filibusters over judicial appointments, those numbers alone would dwarf any accumulated by the republicans, so be smart and don't go there.

As to this banging on about democracy, let us not forget that the U.S. is a REPUBLIC, though few of you seem to know the difference.

[vidcc]

The democrats haven't filibustered a single thing, have they?

If I began with filibusters over judicial appointments, those numbers alone would dwarf any accumulated by the republicans, so be smart and don't go there.

As to this banging on about democracy, let us not forget that the U.S. is a REPUBLIC, though few of you seem to know the difference.

In the first sessions of the 108th and 109th Congresses combined, there were four cloture votes on motions to proceed; this year, there has already been something like 14.


And if you wish to talk blocking judges , how many of Clinton's nominees couldn't even get out of committee? Democrats allowed votes to confirm more FAR MORE of Bush's nominees than the repugs allowed Clinton.

Even with one of Bush's nominees Sam Brownback held one up because she attended, not officiated, but attended as a guest, a gay commitment ceremony.



All this aside do you think legislation supporting the troops and their families should be denied a vote?

[lynx]

As to this banging on about democracy, let us not forget that the U.S. is a REPUBLIC, though few of you seem to know the difference.

The USSR was a republic, or a collection thereof. Just so you know that republic and democracy and not interchangeable.

A constitutional monarchy can be just as democratic as the most democratic of republics, so be smart and don't go there.

As I understand it, in your system a bill goes to committee and can't return until all the members of that committee agree to allow it to do so. How can it possibly be democratic to allow one man to prevent a bill from even being debated in open chamber, let alone voted on?

[j2k4]

As to this banging on about democracy, let us not forget that the U.S. is a REPUBLIC, though few of you seem to know the difference.

The USSR was a republic, or a collection thereof. Just so you know that republic and democracy and not interchangeable.

A constitutional monarchy can be just as democratic as the most democratic of republics, so be smart and don't go there.

As I understand it, in your system a bill goes to committee and can't return until all the members of that committee agree to allow it to do so. How can it possibly be democratic to allow one man to prevent a bill from even being debated in open chamber, let alone voted on?

Precisely because we are a representative republic.

We choose our representatives, then trust them to do our bidding.

That we fail to exercise our responsibility (voter ignorance) during the election cycle is our own fault.

We do indeed get what we deserve, and the fact our representatives abuse the privilige is our failing.

We sit still for all types of silliness; McCain-Feingold comes to mind.

We allow then to build their little empires, then object when they take advantage.

It's your standard cart/horse scenario.

BTW-

Comparing us to the old USSR (I'm surprised you left out North Korea) doesn't wash, and you know it.

Be smarter and don't go there.

[bigboab]

I don't know how any place can be called a Democracy if it has a First Past The Post voting system. If someone gets elected by 50,500 to 49,500 votes. They then have to toe the party line and the other 49,500 voters are ignored.

Proportional representation is the only way. The UK has been governed right and left wing idiots all my life. My father voted Labour\Conservative and so will I. How inane is that?

I am glad to say that Scotland has finally got rid of the shackles of this system.

[lynx]

The USSR was a republic, or a collection thereof. Just so you know that republic and democracy and not interchangeable.

A constitutional monarchy can be just as democratic as the most democratic of republics, so be smart and don't go there.

As I understand it, in your system a bill goes to committee and can't return until all the members of that committee agree to allow it to do so. How can it possibly be democratic to allow one man to prevent a bill from even being debated in open chamber, let alone voted on?

Precisely because we are a representative republic.

We choose our representatives, then trust them to do our bidding.

That we fail to exercise our responsibility (voter ignorance) during the election cycle is our own fault.

We do indeed get what we deserve, and the fact our representatives abuse the privilige is our failing.

We sit still for all types of silliness; McCain-Feingold comes to mind.

We allow then to build their little empires, then object when they take advantage.
Isn't that exactly the problem, having a system where they can take advantage? Where are the checks and balances you are so famous for quoting?

It's your standard cart/horse scenario.

BTW-

Comparing us to the old USSR (I'm surprised you left out North Korea) doesn't wash, and you know it.

Be smarter and don't go there.

I didn't compare you to the USSR, and you know it.

You tried to imply that republics are democratic and by inference more democratic than other systems, I simply pointed out that republics aren't necessarily democratic either.

Please don't try the old "I'll put words in your mouth" act, it isn't very democratic.

[Busyman™]

Precisely because we are a representative republic.

We choose our representatives, then trust them to do our bidding.

That we fail to exercise our responsibility (voter ignorance) during the election cycle is our own fault.

We do indeed get what we deserve, and the fact our representatives abuse the privilige is our failing.

We sit still for all types of silliness; McCain-Feingold comes to mind.

We allow then to build their little empires, then object when they take advantage.
Isn't that exactly the problem, having a system where they can take advantage? Where are the checks and balances you are so famous for quoting?

It's your standard cart/horse scenario.

BTW-

Comparing us to the old USSR (I'm surprised you left out North Korea) doesn't wash, and you know it.

Be smarter and don't go there.

I didn't compare you to the USSR, and you know it.

You tried to imply that republics are democratic and by inference more democratic than other systems, I simply pointed out that republics aren't necessarily democratic either.

Please don't try the old "I'll put words in your mouth" act, it isn't very democratic.

The democracy is in the voting for our reprentatives and President.

Also certain laws go through referendum.

I might add that it is funny how there are those in congress voting against new congressional ethics laws.

[Busyman™]

Today the republicans filibustered legislation that would have mandated better treatment of our military men and women, by placing strict conditions on how soon troops can be returned to combat after coming home from lengthy deployments.

The democrats haven't filibustered a single thing, have they?

If I began with filibusters over judicial appointments, those numbers alone would dwarf any accumulated by the republicans, so be smart and don't go there.

As to this banging on about democracy, let us not forget that the U.S. is a REPUBLIC, though few of you seem to know the difference.

Look at what was filibustered, jay.

Repubs filibustered treatment of the military, Dems filibustered lifetime judicial appointments.

[j2k4]

The democrats haven't filibustered a single thing, have they?

If I began with filibusters over judicial appointments, those numbers alone would dwarf any accumulated by the republicans, so be smart and don't go there.

As to this banging on about democracy, let us not forget that the U.S. is a REPUBLIC, though few of you seem to know the difference.

Look at what was filibustered, jay.

Repubs filibustered treatment of the military, Dems filibustered lifetime judicial appointments.

Oh.

So there was no obstructionist intent whatsoever on the part of the Dems, then, and you think the Republicans really just want to "keep killing our young people so Bush can keep vainly trying to salvage Iraq", huh?

Your naivete is quite astounding.

[Busyman™]

Look at what was filibustered, jay.

Repubs filibustered treatment of the military, Dems filibustered lifetime judicial appointments.

Oh.

So there was no obstructionist intent whatsoever on the part of the Dems, then, and you think the Republicans really just want to "keep killing our young people so Bush can keep vainly trying to salvage Iraq", huh?

Your naivete is quite astounding.

No I actually think they don't want restrictions on soldier deployment.

They want to be able to do what they are currently doing which is rerereredeploy soldiers for this trumped up war.

No, not naive at all.

Now it could be said that these restrictions could have harmful effects on a real war like, you know, one where our or an ally's country is actually in danger.

However, the law could be changed since I'm sure this is a direct jab at this particular war and it's abuse and weakening of our military and country's moral.