| Home | Register | FAQ | Members List | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
08-01-2008, 14:18
|
#21 (permalink) | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,340
|
Powers of the President of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Quote:
Last edited by pgo : 08-01-2008 at 14:33. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-01-2008, 14:36
|
#22 (permalink) |
|
389 ppm and rising
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Järvenpää, Finland
Posts: 4,945
|
So he would be, what's the American expression? - The fall guy! My free fonts www.utfi.net
|
|
|
|
09-01-2008, 09:12
|
#26 (permalink) |
|
goober :-)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 533
 |
Now, obviously I'm not American, so I could be wrong here, but I do take a fair amount of interest in these things, so... Isn't it the case that the system was set up in trhe US so that the Legislative Office (Congress, Senate, HOR) holds ultimately the largest body of political power? The Executive Branch (read: The White House, office of the President of the United States), is where the buck stops, yes, but ultimately bills, laws etc need to be passed through the Legislative Branch. The system was created in this way to ensure that no one person held absolute power - The point of the Legislative Branch is that it is a truly democratic representation of opinion (And yes, I know that it doesn't actually work like that in practise, but that was the idea). Those senators, congressmen etc who do their job right cast their votes on these things based upon what best serves, or best reflects the desires of, the constituents they each serve. That is the way that things are *supposed* to work in the UK, too... But it doesn't, and this is the biggest single problem with partisan politics - Decisions get made, and votes get cast by the publics' representitives, for the wrong reasons. Politicians should be serving their public, not their party. Its sad that things have gotten to a point both in the US and in the UK where beating "the other guy" has become more important than doing what is right for the people. All that having been said, I think that Clinton will likely rebound through the rest of the primaries... And to be honest I would be happy, from an outside perspective, to see either her or Obama get the nomination. They are both good candidates as far as the world outside of the US is concerned - Either would garner more respect from the world community than the current administration and both would, in turn (I hope), have more respect for everyone else (IE: They would actually listen to the UN when it says something, rather than saying something along the lines of "Yeah, that's great, but it doesn't really fit with what we want to do, so we're going to go ahead and do it anyway") Obama needs to improve his public speaking, though... I just watched his victory speech from NH and it left me cold. I think back to the days of Bill Clinton and remember that when he game a speech he could make the hairs stand up on the back of your neck... I think Obama needs that (or at least some measure of it) if he is going to go all the way. Oh... Not a bad site, by the way... A bit soft and fluffy for me, though  My signature sucks.
|
|
|
|
09-01-2008, 09:19
|
#27 (permalink) | |
|
bloody peasant
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tallinn, Estonia
Posts: 2,689
|
Quote:
Couldnt agree more |
|
|
|
very nice colors and layout ---> web 2.0 all the way.
|
08-02-2008, 10:56
|
#37 (permalink) | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,340
|
Quote:
Obama has a stronger position because he has always opposed the war and Clinton voted for the authorization. That doesn't make much difference, though. It's what they'll do now that matters. The Republicans (McCain will be the nominee) plan to stay in Iraq until the "job is done" and the Iraqis can provide for their own security. Whatever that means. In other words, 2050. |
|
|
|
|
08-02-2008, 11:16
|
#38 (permalink) |
|
389 ppm and rising
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Järvenpää, Finland
Posts: 4,945
|
The US is constructing a new embassy in Baghdad said to be bigger than the Vatican (I don't know why that particularly papist comparison is used so often). But it's bigger than the usual sort of set-up. And several military and airforce bases have been sprinkled around the country. On the other side of Iran, the US is doing its best to do the same, but no foreigners have ever had much effect in that country and I don't believe the US will succeed where the British empire builders failed in the 19th century. Or the Soviets 1979-89 - although their soldiers' hearts was never in the effort. So you can see why the Iranians might be feeling a little insecure. My free fonts www.utfi.net
|
|
|
 |
