bush=dictator?
Yes.DITTO THAT 8)
Hope this helps. :)
Between a a tin-pot dictator who helps the poor [Chavez] and one who doesn't [Bush], I'll take the former.
Just sayin'.
bush=dictator?
I don't believe so.
I do however believe Bush has fucked with the Checks and Balance during his reign.
Who can honestly say that the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) and the Legislative Branch (House and Senate) are as powerful as the Executive branch ( President) these days?
But he's no dictator.
And, thankfully, he will be gone in little over a year pretty much.
Also, good to see that the Legislative branch since the mid-terms has started to little by little gain back some of the power, balancing it out some.
As far as Chavez goes: I believe Venezuela definitely should nationalize its own oil resources.
Look at Norway(oil:Statoil,Norsk Hydro), Saudi Arabia(oil:Aramco) Russia(gas, Gazprom). In these three countries, the natural resources are owned in part or wholly nationally, either by the government or by different citizens of the country in question.
It has been key to boost the national economy of each of these countries.
In contrast, look at Nigeria. A country where all the oil resources are owned by multinational oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon.
All the earnings are brought out of the country. And Nigeria is still poor.
Hence, it's easy to see why oil resources in Venezuela should be nationalized. Only then will the citizens of Venezuela reap the benefits of the oil riches.
The benefit for USA, and the rest of the world, is that a better economic situation for Venezuela's citizens is a good platform for good education and democracy, a sound society.
-Hedge
Yes.
Hope this helps. :)
The far left is an abettor of anti-American forces everywhere. Chavez is a pain in America's ass; therefore, he's a darling of the left.
The far left is an abettor of anti-American forces everywhere. Chavez is a pain in America's ass; therefore, he's a darling of the left.
The far left is an abettor of anti-American forces everywhere. Chavez is a pain in America's ass; therefore, he's a darling of the left.
Why does Liberal mean "Dislike of America"?
I always thought Liberal people loved America because of its immense freedoms.
Why does Liberal mean "Dislike of America"?
I always thought Liberal people loved America because of its immense freedoms.
I don't believe so.
I do however believe Bush has fucked with the Checks and Balance during his reign.
Who can honestly say that the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) and the Legislative Branch (House and Senate) are as powerful as the Executive branch ( President) these days?
Not at all. We've seen Bush get checked by the judicial branch at least twice. We've seen laws passed to address concerns by the judicial branch. The system is working just fine.
Think about how the definitions of liberal and conservative have changed. When Archie Bunker was on TV he was considered a liberal right? back then saying the things he said were anything but conservative. Today however people would call him a conservative because people tend to look at conservatives as back woods white folks that don't like equal rights for everyone. I think liberals today (by liberals I mean far left) they tend to be sympathetic because of American guilt. They feel bad that they have it so good and that America is such a power, so in their hearts of hearts it makes them feel more guilty the better we do. In turn far left liberal = America "hater"LOL... Well I watched all the All in the Family episodes, most of them when they aired and no... I can't imagine where you got Archie was considered a liberal. He was your stereotypical bigot... His son in law, yes, not Archie... Did archie often to the right thing as defined by what a liberal might call right, yes... Was he presented as a liberal, no he was not... And we do not feel bad that we have it good in America, that is a gross mischaracterization of the American Liberal. It is not that we have issues with our doing well, we have issues with preventing others from doing well both here and around the world, which I could write a book on.... Your label of "liberal=American Hater"=Clueless Rightwing Pundit Sheeple.
I wasn't aware of that, or at least can't recall it. Thanks for setting facts straight.
I still believe the balance is skewed though, but it's nowhere near a dictatorship. Of course not.
-Hedge
LOL... Well I watched all the All in the Family episodes, most of them when they aired and no... I can't imagine where you got Archie was considered a liberal. He was your stereotypical bigot... His son in law, yes, not Archie... Did archie often to the right thing as defined by what a liberal might call right, yes... Was he presented as a liberal, no he was not... And we do not feel bad that we have it good in America, that is a gross mischaracterization of the American Liberal. It is not that we have issues with our doing well, we have issues with preventing others from doing well both here and around the world, which I could write a book on.... Your label of "liberal=American Hater"=Clueless Rightwing Pundit Sheeple.
Idiots like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have perverted the term liberal.
A liberal person believes in personal freedom and integrity, little government, little regulation, believes in free trade, et al.
Does that look like the description of someone that Limbaugh and O'Reilly claims are "Libs"?
Those two are apparently politically illiterates. Otherwise they wouldn't be repeatedly misusing, and abusing the word.
-Hedge
How would you label the people who parrot the words of these two political illiterates?
No problem. I think one of the most recent examples might be warrantless wiretaps. Executive branch authorized them, judicial branch determined they were unconstitutional, executive branch stopped, legislative branch passed new law. That's how the system is supposed to work.
And I agree we're nowhere near a dictatorship. Ridiculous.
So you are FAR left? because I do agree that both liberals and conservatives are mis labled. I specifically said my characterization was on far left libs. But in his day bunker would have been liberal. Me and my much older civilian co-workers have had a lot of talks on this. In todayy's eyes he wouldn't be but if you think about what the difference was then it was different.well I've been around this for a while and I'm just telling you, The face of Archie was not meant to be liberal, nor would he have been taken as a liberal at the time by the audience. but as I said in my post, did he often end up doing the right thing as what might be defined as being right by a liberal, yes, but was he presented to the audience as a liberal, hell no he wasn't...
How would you label the people who parrot the words of these two political illiterates?
Yea, so ridiculous... ::)
President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
Are we a dictatorship? Obviously no... Are we closer to one than before Bush, obviously yes... Is he consolidating power? Obviously... Name it whatever you want... I'll name it what it looks like... Bush=Wannabe dictator.
"A dictatorship would be a lot easier... So long as I'm the dictator."--GW Bush
But these days, he just goes with, "I’m the decider, and I decide what is best."--GW Bush
Yes, absolutely ridiculous. ::)
And how is that the president "quietly" signed hundreds of presidential signing statements? You mean these weren't public documents and the print and internet media didn't know about these signing statements and write a plethora of articles about them? ::)
And are you saying presidents haven't signed presidential signing statements for decades?
And if the president actually "ignores" a law, someone will file a legal action and the judicial branch will determine whether or not the president acted properly.
This is alarmist nonsense IMO.
And how is that the president "quietly" signed hundreds of presidential signing statements? You mean these weren't public documents and the print and internet media didn't know about these signing statements and write a plethora of articles about them? ::)
And are you saying presidents haven't signed presidential signing statements for decades?
And if the president actually "ignores" a law, someone will file a legal action and the judicial branch will determine whether or not the president acted properly.
This is alarmist nonsense IMO.
Any reason you would want to leave out that Bush has, in his signing statements, challenged more individual statutes than all other previous presidents combined, and Bush has far more frequently used signing statements "to waive his obligation to follow" even clear provisions in the law he just signed?
uh hum... 8)
(http://www.imagedonkey.com/out.php?i=19531_chart.bmp)
So what. How many times has he actually ignored a provision of a law based on a presidential signing statement? And like I said, if he oversteps his bounds, the courts step in. It is the judicial branch that will decide, at the end of the day, whether a particular law or a presidential signing statement is unconstitutional.::)
::)
You remind me of somone Beach...
"I SEE NOTHING!!! NOTHING!!!"
(http://www.imagedonkey.com/out.php?i=19532_schultz.jpg)
::) You remind me of a cartoon, which is why I don't take you seriously.::) You remind me of a fool, which is why I don't take you seriously.
::)::)