English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

13 answers

I agree with your assesment.

You don't want one party in power. You want both parties to share power. It gets more done.

2006-10-16 12:12:00 · answer #1 · answered by Villain 6 · 4 1

a lot of people don't understand that there must be stress between all three branches of government. The Judicial cannot be biased to a party in control of Congress or to the president...it must operate at it's own speed, disconnected from politics. The Congress should be balanced, because it should not be in a position to hinder or support blindly the president.

Since special interests can so easily taint anyone, it's best if no one has complete power. We will all suffer if one side can control the lives of the other. This goes for both major parties. The governor of Montana is described as a Libertarian Democrat and people has posited that that position would make a good political party as well, because his values are less government and conservative leaning Democrat; it may attract some moderate Republicans as well. But for now we have a two party system, like it or not. Each side should do what it can to add tension to the process, hold each others feet to the coals. During Clinton's terms, the Republicans held the majority in Congress and they actually had to compromise to get anything done...I think it was good because the middle ground held. No single group should hold absolute power as has happened the last 6 years

2006-10-16 19:45:37 · answer #2 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 0 0

We are at war ,do you understand that!!! This congress by a huge majority voted us into war and then split down party lines in support of that war. I would rather congress stood behind their votes to put our military in harms way then oppose the president.

2006-10-16 19:17:42 · answer #3 · answered by razeumright 3 · 0 2

Ahhh, I think you aren't giving us you entire opinion. I am sure you meant to say....

I wonder if enough people understand we need a congress that opposes a president we do not agree with.

2006-10-16 19:10:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 4

AMEN!! Hallelujah!!! Give that man a Cigar!!! ------If the Dems win in Nov. then your answer is YES!!! If the publickends win and the riots ensue, all us libs are jailed as "enemy combatants", then you're answer will be a NO.

2006-10-16 19:15:56 · answer #5 · answered by scottyurb 5 · 2 0

They don't, they want the whole damn government to support each other without dissent. Kindaof like a totalitarian regime.

2006-10-16 19:21:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

YES!! A VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS WILL MAKE ME SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, AND LOOK WHAT I SUPPORT:::


http://www.zombietime.com/stop_the_us_israeli_war_8_12_2006/

2006-10-16 19:19:40 · answer #7 · answered by FeelgoodII 1 · 0 2

Perhaps enough people understand it, but that doesn't necessarily make elections honest.

2006-10-16 19:13:59 · answer #8 · answered by oceansoflight777 5 · 2 1

John is that dog a staffordshire ?

2006-10-16 19:38:47 · answer #9 · answered by kman1830 5 · 0 0

If they voted for Bush they would do it again, if they could. Nothing can been done about Stupid.

2006-10-16 19:28:25 · answer #10 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers