congress has no spine - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dksuddeth · 02-17-2006, 05:27 AM

It is this reason alone that partisan politics will be the destruction of america. Throughout our history there have only been two specific reasons why a congress has held a president accountable for his actions. When they have been occupied by opposition parties and when the same party president stands to hurt that party by his actions. This should be intolerable by the american people in any case, but even on this very board we see the futility of ever trying to hold a president accountable as representative of the entire country.

A republican led congress has scuttled any inquiry/investigation in to the NSA eavesdropping program at the arm twisting of a republican executive branch. No matter the spin/reason given, this was nothing more than a political party protecting its own. We've seen this time and again throughout history as far back as andrew jackson. We get what we vote for and eventually it will destroy us. yea america.

ObieX · 02-17-2006, 06:16 AM

I agree 100%. They're even pulling this shit again where they don't swear in witnesses. Not one question gets answered and it turns into one giant waste of time. Same BS with the oil execs who were brought in.. they didnt have to be sworn in so they lied left and right or just flat out didn't answer questions. If they're doing it to put on a show to make it seem like they're actually doing something i think it shows the complete opposite. Hell.. makin the rep from Alaska swear in oil execs? That shit will never happen.. people in Alaska recieve like a $2000 check every single year (each person over a certain age) which comes directly from oil profits fromt aht state.. OF COURSE the Alaskan rep isnt gonna swear any oil exec in.

Is there some kind of no confidence voting? If not there needs to be, becuase I'm getting tired of this.

Ustwo · 02-17-2006, 06:23 AM

Woot, it was a non-issue to start with as far as I am concerned.

Congress does have no spine, but these is not the droids you are looking for.

dksuddeth · 02-17-2006, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Woot, it was a non-issue to start with as far as I am concerned.

Congress does have no spine, but these is not the droids you are looking for.

this was just the latest example for me to use, but in actuality you can refer to anything. Don't focus on this particular droid.

Ustwo · 02-17-2006, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

this was just the latest example for me to use, but in actuality you can refer to anything. Don't focus on this particular droid.

If you want a good example of the spineless nature of congress, ask them why we have a giant open border to the south.

alansmithee · 02-17-2006, 07:07 AM

True, Congress is spineless. But they've always been spineless, and we've made it this far. America will be fine, regardless of the invertebrate nature of Congress.

dksuddeth · 02-17-2006, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

If you want a good example of the spineless nature of congress, ask them why we have a giant open border to the south.

excellent example. we could also ask why we have a medicaid/medicare package more expensive than the one we had, or why the afghan/iraq rebuild is at 400 billion now.

politicophile · 02-17-2006, 10:28 PM

I don't think "spineless" is the correct word. Congress is intentionally designed to oppose radical change. You will very rarely see them "shake things up", especially in ways that contradict the message of the executive.

In Federalist 10, James Madison wrote the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius

Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction... By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

Naturally, a system that controls factions in this fashion will also have a tendency to resist the development of any sort of group calling for radical change, even if that change is for the greater good. So, how does the American system control factions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is... to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.

...The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, ...if the proportion of fit characters be not
less in the large than in the small republic, [the large republic] will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried...

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and
extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of
republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance
principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in
the former than in the latter... Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater
variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a
majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of
other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more
difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act
in unison with each other...

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their
particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration
through the other States... A rage for paper money, for an
abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other
improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body
of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as
such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district,
than an entire State.

Congress, and the national government more generally, was designed to resist passionate impulses and hasty urges. In the case of the wiretapping investigations, it makes perfect sense that Congress is not swept up in the same fervor as the people at large because they are, by design, insulated from the opinion of the moment. Having an ineffectual government should be the least of our worries: a radical, impulsive legislature is a sure recipe for the end of rule of law.

Hardknock · 02-17-2006, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

I agree 100%. They're even pulling this shit again where they don't swear in witnesses. Not one question gets answered and it turns into one giant waste of time. Same BS with the oil execs who were brought in.. they didnt have to be sworn in so they lied left and right or just flat out didn't answer questions. If they're doing it to put on a show to make it seem like they're actually doing something i think it shows the complete opposite. Hell.. makin the rep from Alaska swear in oil execs? That shit will never happen.. people in Alaska recieve like a $2000 check every single year (each person over a certain age) which comes directly from oil profits fromt aht state.. OF COURSE the Alaskan rep isnt gonna swear any oil exec in.

Is there some kind of no confidence voting? If not there needs to be, becuase I'm getting tired of this.

For the record, we don't get $2000 checks every year. The dividend has never reached $2000. We receive dividends from money that was invested when Purdhoe bay was first discovered and the first profits were being made.

Educate yourself

I'm starting to think that is should go to help pay for state services and social programs but the welfare recipents want their checks every year.

ObieX · 02-17-2006, 10:59 PM

Still money in the pocket.

Hardknock · 02-21-2006, 02:17 PM

True, and Stevens and Murkowski (the daughter of the current govenor who was placed in DC when her daddy got elected govenor but that's a different thread) are both corrupt ass kissing rubber stamps for Bush.

Hopefully my fellow Alaskans wil wake up and realize that money isn't everything.

stevo · 02-21-2006, 02:27 PM

So if I move to alaska I can get $845.76? hmmmm.... I wonder....

maybe....nah that woun't work.

Hardknock · 02-21-2006, 03:45 PM

Good. The less welfare wannabes who move up just to get their hands on the cash the better.

stevo · 02-22-2006, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

Good. The less welfare wannabes who move up just to get their hands on the cash the better.

It just doesn't seem worth it. Alaska is beautiful and all. Its a great place to visit. $850 just doesn't seem worth it. Do people actually decide to move to Alaska for an extra $850/yr? Just doesn't make much sense.

dksuddeth · 02-22-2006, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

It just doesn't seem worth it. Alaska is beautiful and all. Its a great place to visit. $850 just doesn't seem worth it. Do people actually decide to move to Alaska for an extra $850/yr? Just doesn't make much sense.

Stevo, surely you know that lots of people have done worse for less, like a $400 check from the IRS?

Ustwo · 02-22-2006, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

It just doesn't seem worth it. Alaska is beautiful and all. Its a great place to visit. $850 just doesn't seem worth it. Do people actually decide to move to Alaska for an extra $850/yr? Just doesn't make much sense.

I'd move for the fishing

Ustwo · 02-22-2006, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Stevo, surely you know that lots of people have done worse for less, like a $400 check from the IRS?

Are we speaking tax cuts here? If so it was a $600 dollar check of my money returned to me, not 400.

stevo · 02-22-2006, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Stevo, surely you know that lots of people have done worse for less, like a $400 check from the IRS?

I'm sure they have. but if someone came up to me and said, "I'll pay you $850 to move to alaska" I wouldn't really have to think too hard about it. I figure I would move to alaska if I had a job with comparable work/pay plus $8,500 extra per year. I think about $8500 is the value I place on living in sunny FLA, or anywhere less than an hours drive away from the gulf really. except NO...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ustwo

I'd move for the fishing

Thats why I live in florida

Marvelous Marv · 03-12-2006, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

Good. The less welfare wannabes who move up just to get their hands on the cash the better.

Are you saying that in regard to US citizens? It begs the question of what you think of illegal aliens "moving up."

02-17-2006, 05:27 AM	#1 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	congress has no spine It is this reason alone that partisan politics will be the destruction of america. Throughout our history there have only been two specific reasons why a congress has held a president accountable for his actions. When they have been occupied by opposition parties and when the same party president stands to hurt that party by his actions. This should be intolerable by the american people in any case, but even on this very board we see the futility of ever trying to hold a president accountable as representative of the entire country. A republican led congress has scuttled any inquiry/investigation in to the NSA eavesdropping program at the arm twisting of a republican executive branch. No matter the spin/reason given, this was nothing more than a political party protecting its own. We've seen this time and again throughout history as far back as andrew jackson. We get what we vote for and eventually it will destroy us. yea america. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

02-17-2006, 06:16 AM	#2 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	I agree 100%. They're even pulling this shit again where they don't swear in witnesses. Not one question gets answered and it turns into one giant waste of time. Same BS with the oil execs who were brought in.. they didnt have to be sworn in so they lied left and right or just flat out didn't answer questions. If they're doing it to put on a show to make it seem like they're actually doing something i think it shows the complete opposite. Hell.. makin the rep from Alaska swear in oil execs? That shit will never happen.. people in Alaska recieve like a $2000 check every single year (each person over a certain age) which comes directly from oil profits fromt aht state.. OF COURSE the Alaskan rep isnt gonna swear any oil exec in. Is there some kind of no confidence voting? If not there needs to be, becuase I'm getting tired of this. __________________ We Must Dissent.

02-17-2006, 06:23 AM	#3 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Woot, it was a non-issue to start with as far as I am concerned. Congress does have no spine, but these is not the droids you are looking for. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

02-17-2006, 10:59 PM	#10 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Still money in the pocket. __________________ We Must Dissent.

02-21-2006, 02:27 PM	#12 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	So if I move to alaska I can get $845.76? hmmmm.... I wonder.... maybe....nah that woun't work. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

02-17-2006, 07:07 AM	#6 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	True, Congress is spineless. But they've always been spineless, and we've made it this far. America will be fine, regardless of the invertebrate nature of Congress.

02-21-2006, 02:17 PM	#11 (permalink)
Hardknock Republican slayer Location: WA	True, and Stevens and Murkowski (the daughter of the current govenor who was placed in DC when her daddy got elected govenor but that's a different thread) are both corrupt ass kissing rubber stamps for Bush. Hopefully my fellow Alaskans wil wake up and realize that money isn't everything.

02-21-2006, 03:45 PM	#13 (permalink)
Hardknock Republican slayer Location: WA	Good. The less welfare wannabes who move up just to get their hands on the cash the better.