World Government (1 Viewer)

[David Eagar]

If we got the wrong people in power it could be our worst nightmare.

Any idea who the 'right' people would be??? Not too many immediately spring to mind

 

[Banana]

David, try 'none'.

Why do you think we have quaint concepts such as "separation of powers" and "balance of checks"? ''

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

 

[ColinEssex]

Respect!

Yes, it's a German one!! I couldn't afford the American ones.

Col

 

[statsman]

In 2006 when the "right" people - the Democrats - regained control of both Houses of Congress, they had the option to stop the Iraq and Afganistan wars in their tracks by cutting off the funding...never happened. Why, no guts on their part to enforce the Constiution. They allowed the President to make war on his own against whomever he saw fit to do it.
Now, we are expecting a Democratic president to stop the wars. Not likely.
American troops will be fighting and dying in both countries for another 10 years because no one is will to accept a defeat.
Sounds just like Vietnam for those old enough to remember it. The powers that be in the US knew in 1968 they couldn't win but didn't have the guts to admit it to themselves or the American people. American youth was squandered for another 4 years for "Peace with Honour".

 

[ColinEssex]

In 2006 when the "right" people - the Democrats - regained control of both Houses of Congress, they had the option to stop the Iraq and Afganistan wars in their tracks by cutting off the funding...never happened. Why, no guts on their part to enforce the Constiution. They allowed the President to make war on his own against whomever he saw fit to do it.
Now, we are expecting a Democratic president to stop the wars. Not likely.
American troops will be fighting and dying in both countries for another 10 years because no one is will to accept a defeat.
Sounds just like Vietnam for those old enough to remember it. The powers that be in the US knew in 1968 they couldn't win but didn't have the guts to admit it to themselves or the American people. American youth was squandered for another 4 years for "Peace with Honour".

God bless America. Think how worse things would be without it.

Col

 

[Banana]

Statsman,

Well, I don't think it's a lack of gut, but rather because they've been bought and paid for. It's easy to do a lot of chest thumping about how you will fix the world problems, but when you've made it to office with help of Big Oil, Tobacco corps, Big Automakers, etc, your priorities suddenly change overnight.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

In 2006 when the "right" people - the Democrats - regained control of both Houses of Congress, they had the option to stop the Iraq and Afganistan wars in their tracks by cutting off the funding...never happened. Why, no guts on their part to enforce the Constiution. They allowed the President to make war on his own against whomever he saw fit to do it.
Now, we are expecting a Democratic president to stop the wars. Not likely.
American troops will be fighting and dying in both countries for another 10 years because no one is will to accept a defeat.
Sounds just like Vietnam for those old enough to remember it. The powers that be in the US knew in 1968 they couldn't win but didn't have the guts to admit it to themselves or the American people. American youth was squandered for another 4 years for "Peace with Honour".

And I'd like to point out that it was a Republican who had the guts to get us out of Vietnam. Not sure where you got that the Dems were the right ones if you're against war. Look at the record of aggression/peace keeping since 1960. Clinton attacked Iraq, too.

 

[pbaldy]

In 2006 when the "right" people - the Democrats - regained control of both Houses of Congress, they had the option to stop the Iraq and Afganistan wars in their tracks by cutting off the funding...never happened. Why, no guts on their part to enforce the Constiution.

It would have been hypocritical for them to start enforcing the Constitution in that instance when they so thoroughly disregard it otherwise.

 

[Banana]

And I'd like to point out that it was a Republican who had the guts to get us out of Vietnam. Not sure where you got that the Dems were the right ones if you're against war. Look at the record of aggression/peace keeping since 1960. Clinton attacked Iraq, too.

This is very true.

The only sad thing about Repubs, however, is that they've since joined Dems' bandwagon in terms of spending. Clinton was actually fiscally conservative compared to Reagan & Bushes. (Not that I would credit him with boom economy, as many would.)

 

[Rich]

And I'd like to point out that it was a Republican who had the guts to get us out of Vietnam. Not sure where you got that the Dems were the right ones if you're against war. Look at the record of aggression/peace keeping since 1960. Clinton attacked Iraq, too.

Clinton attacked Iraq because it wouldnt let inspectors in, Bush attacked because the inspectors were proving that he was wrong in the wmd's