posted
I knew, or felt our president, wouldn't be persuaded by the anti-war movement. However, to have him say publicly that the movement has no influence in his thinking, scares me. To the best of my knowledge, President Bush is the first president to do this publicly. On top of this, he says the people are allowed to speak freely. It's as if his administration is saying there is an alternative where this doesn't happen. I don't feel safe in my country anymore and it has nothing to do with terrorists. It has to do with our government and their actions. They are so determined in their movements and beliefs that they are willing to destroy the foundation that other men and women have built over the past half-century and to bring misery and suffering to countless more in the future. For the first time in my life, I feel I don't have a leader. I feel I have a dictator who permits people to have rights and to die at his behest. As he sits in his 'palace', tolerating barely the words of dissedents, he is planning to kill the dreams and lives of many. How did we go from a country which build dreams to one which destroys dreams?
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
At least we have it easy: we know that in the end our leader's own party will oust him - that is, a party-internal method rather than an external, constitutional method. You have impeachment, I'm not even sure if there is a process by which a Prime Minister can be removed. I suppose the Queen could say you're not in charge of my government anymore, they are instead" but I'm not even sure about that. . .
quote:At least we have it easy: we know that in the end our leader's own party will oust him - that is, a party-internal method rather than an external, constitutional method. You have impeachment, I'm not even sure if there is a process by which a Prime Minister can be removed. I suppose the Queen could say you're not in charge of my government anymore, they are instead" but I'm not even sure about that. . .
If Blair keeps this up you may just find out how the proceedure works.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Oh, Blair can be extremely persuasive... if you know what I mean.
"How did we go from a country which build dreams to one which destroys dreams?"
WARNING : OVERSIMPLIFICATION AHEAD!
The towelheads had no small part in it.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It's a lot easier over here. We don't even have an official government yet. Except that the resigned cabinet has conveniently forgotten that. Grreat.
quote: I suppose the Queen could say you're not in charge of my government anymore, they are instead" but I'm not even sure about that. . .
Yep, she could. Actually she could appoint anyone she wants from the Commons to be PM. It's just tradition that it's the leader of the largest party. Of course, bearing in mind that the most obvious alternatives are Iain Duncan Smith (No personality, no policies) and Charles Kennedy(Wacky policies, habit of appearing on topical news quizes and chat shows) there isn't really much of a choice. It is my own position that 99% of politicians are power hungry megalomaniacs who are only interested in personal power and wealth. That may be unduly harsh but it would explain a lot. I say give the Crown more powers to balence the PM and cabinet.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
quote: I knew, or felt our president, wouldn't be persuaded by the anti-war movement. However, to have him say publicly that the movement has no influence in his thinking, scares me.
It's political Table Tennis. SH says something about all of the peace movments slowing things down, and he now thinks he has more time. Bush is letting him know that he doesn't have more time.
quote: I don't feel safe in my country anymore and it has nothing to do with terrorists. It has to do with our government and their actions. They are so determined in their movements and beliefs that they are willing to destroy the foundation that other men and women have built over the past half-century and to bring misery and suffering to countless more in the future.
I'm not to happy with the "Homeland" office, or the way it was created. I have a copy of the bill that was passed, but I haven't read it yet. It's long and time is short.
quote: For the first time in my life, I feel I don't have a leader. I feel I have a dictator who permits people to have rights and to die at his behest. As he sits in his 'palace', tolerating barely the words of dissedents, he is planning to kill the dreams and lives of many. How did we go from a country which build dreams to one which destroys dreams?
I don't know how old you are, but it sounds like you didn't live through the Nixion administration.
I don't know the whole story, but I understand a case could be made against FDR as well. We studied the era in school, but not so much what was happeing in the USA,and more about our entering the war.
I suppose a case could be made against Abe Lincoln also.
-------------------- Sparky:: Think! Question Authority, Authoritatively. “Believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see.” EMSparks
Shalamar: To save face, keep lower half shut.
Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I am saying that we don't have a leader. FDR and Lincoln were leaders. They took steps which preserved our union and ensured a future for America. This president is different. His actions are destructive.
This administration is planning a war which they expect will turn into a 21st century liberation of Paris. I call this a very dangerous fantasy. Others before us have tried to control the Middle East and have failed. And, going by the example we set in Afghanistan, our government will be spreading unstability in the region. There is no Marshall Plan nor is there a MacArthur in the plans of our leaders.
As for Nixon, I asked my mother about his presidency. She said that his presidency was not the worst she had seen in her life. She felt Nixon was a corrupted leader whose presidency was destroyed by his flaws as a man.
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Nixon: grand at foreign policy, not so great at domestic.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
In contrast to Bush, Lincoln and Roosevelt both entered the country into wars only after the country was attacked. And Nixon pulled us out of a war that was none of our business.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Lincoln I might could understand. He could have just capitulated. But Roosevelt? What could he have done, short of a pre-emptive surrender?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Uh, what are you talking about? Tim said that Roosevelt entered into the war only after Pearl Harbor, and I took issue with that statement, since for all practical purposes the U.S. was at war when the Navy began escorting convoys to Great Britain. And, of course, the U.S. had clearly taken sides long before that.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
