Three branches of government. The Department of Justice should be taken out from under the influence of the Executive Branch. It should be under the influence of the Judicial Branch.
Three branches of government. The Department of Justice should be taken out from under the influence of the Executive Branch. It should be under the influence of the Judicial Branch.
I can see keeping the DoJ separate from the Judicial Branch (although removing it from the Executive Branch isn't a bad idea). The Judicial Branch is the court system for adjudicating cases. The DoJ is tasked with enforcement and bringing defendants to trial. I think it's a good idea to keep those two roles separated.
Due to ineptitude in numerous federal agencies, and the lack of accountability, I propose that the heads of the agencies be made accountable to Congress. It is fine that they serve at the pleasure of the President and he can zhit can anyone at will. However, Congress approves them and should be able to disapprove of them with good cause.
Voter fraud. We know it happens. We know it is mostly done by Democrats. We also know that it helps to swing the elections, but after the election there is no recourse even if it is proven. That in itself is a crime. If someone is elected by fraud there ought to be a way to rectify the fraud or elections mean nothing.
Anyone who is caught participating in election fraud should be sent to jail for a long time. They should also be legally prevented from voting in the future. They should also be legally prevented from even being near or participating in any way in voting.
The very nature of this crime is an attack on our country and our constitution.
They certainly do. We need a government that has some kind of checks and balances built in to help prevent any one person or group from having too much power.
Im with you. Those WERE built in when the country was founded and worked pretty well for a few hundred years. It dont work so well...like now...when the one in power ignores and disregards anything he dont like.
It's the Republican's fault. If there's enough support for a GOP or bipartisan bill that the administration doesn't want, that leaves him no choice but to refuse to allow it to come up for a vote. Otherwise, Obama could be put in the position of having to sign or veto a bill he doesn't like. The GOP minority in the Senate is forcing Reed to do this.
Im confused Formula 88.....
"The One Hundred Fourteenth United States Congress is the current meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, composed of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. It is scheduled to meet in Washington, D.C. from January 3, 2015 to January 3, 2017, during the final two years of Barack Obama's presidency. The 2014 elections gave the Republicans control of the Senate (and control of both houses of Congress) for the first time since the 109th Congress. With 247 seats in the House of Representatives and 54 seats in the Senate, this Congress began with the largest Republican majority since the 71st Congress of 1929–1931. "
I have something to say. You won't have to question what I have to say, I will make it clear.
What do you have to say? My thread topic is geared towards the electoral process.
not to lose the thought that media should be held accountable. no more "in the tank" media. election equal representation laws need to be applied to media.
I agree that the news media are a big part of the problem, but laws that say they must or must not do one thing or another set a dangerous precedent. In my opinion, that would be censorship.
Instead, it is up to us to hold the media accountable. When we read a story, whether or not we agree with it, we have a responsibility to check the source. See who the major contributors are and what their background is. See who owns them. See if others are reporting the same thing, independently.
You may deride me as a “conspiracy theorist”, but it seems like a small, increasingly corrupt group group is pulling the strings. We are not free.
We are in this predicament because despite the whining of some, life has become very easy for most. We would rather be spoon fed, because whatever happens, we still get Pokemon and the Olympics, bread and circuses.
Instead, it is up to us to hold the media accountable. When we read a story, whether or not we agree with it, we have a responsibility to check the source. See who the major contributors are and what their background is. See who owns them. See if others are reporting the same thing, independently.
Here--in OT? That's talk right there. Often, I think people just see a clickbait headline, obediently copy the following article without even reading beyond the opening sentence and post it in the blind. morons abound
Here--in OT? That's talk right there. Often, I think people just see a clickbait headline, obediently copy the following article without even reading beyond the opening sentence and post it in the blind. morons abound
How many election cycles have boomers been voting, and have had the majority of the population. in raw numbers. yet we still have the government we do.. in d.c. you are right MORONS ABOUND..
The oldest BBs (1946-1946) have been voting since approx 1964. The youngest since 1982.
The oldest X gen (1965-1984) have been voting since 1983. The youngest of this group have been voting since 2002.
The oldest Y gen (1975-2005) have been voting since 1993. The youngest of this demographic will not be able to vote until 2023. (some states allow voting at age 17 1/2 I believe) (this group is generally regarded as a 'made up' group and widely overlaps the Millennials. It is said to run from being born 1975-2005)
The oldest of the millennials (1982-2004) have been voting since 2000. The youngest of the millennials will not be able to vote until 2022.
Any given generation tends to vote according to the issues and circumstances that exist in their own time frame, not according to how an unknown generation's issues may or may not unfold. Thus it has been, since the beginning of time. How were we to know that a generation would someday be born that wanted more city park space upon which to play PokemonGo with their new iPhones, free college, free houses, free electricity, and a free stipend upon which to live?
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-10-2016).]
How about boomers, set the government controls to "autopilot" and didn't give a rats ass what was going on,, until they got real close to retirement age,, then started ***** 'n about the government we have.. Maybe if they didn't set it on autopilot for decades. we would not be in this mess.. but carry on about the youth, they might be championing the wrong causes, but at least they are involved.. now they just might not be championing those causes, and thinking if we didn't have the media that we do.. that no one put their foot down about for decades.. or the turning the school system into a liberal think tank.. I can't blame people younger than I for what they believe/think as they been taught it.. in school and told it by the media.. My generation is just as at fault for the auto pilot issue,, as very few have bothered to be involved, now, and even less were with in their late teens to late 30's.. But we didn't get this government and the countries problems overnight.. Way to many only think they need to walk into a booth and vote, as their "investment" of time into the countries issues... We the people , governed by the people, only works when we the people pay attention to the we the people government.. Sadly..many don't and never will.. but right here right now. boomers are ***** 'n about every generation younger than them.. guess what... you built that.. the schools, the government, the way they are. the younger generations, as they had parents, and were not hatched.. so, how did they get this way if they had parents that showed them the importance of being involved in the countries issues, and government .. local and national.. oh, that's right they didn't as they set it on auto pilot.. and all I've ever heard out of a boomers mouth is "you can't fight city hall" translation {I'm not going to care because it's not worth my time} They watched the news media slowly become state run and owned media.. and sat on their duff's.. same with the school system.. Then wonders how the younger generations can think the way they do.. I wonder how boomers can't see the reasons..
The photo is funny tho.. Sorry.. people were wearing plaid shirts, before/way before grunge made the look their own..
If I have to rent to a minority, if I have to serve a minority, if I have to bake a wedding cake for a queer, how come can anyone, any company, limit my freedom of speech ?
If I have to rent to a minority, if I have to serve a minority, if I have to bake a wedding cake for a queer, how come can anyone, any company, limit my freedom of speech ?
You evidently don't understand what "freedom of speech" (or any other freedom) actually means. There are many things that are 'legal' to do, but many of those come with a heavy price in society, and the freedom to voice our personal opinions is certainly one of them
Despite the common misconception that the First Amendment prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, the text of the amendment prohibits only the federal government, the states and local governments from doing so.
Originally posted by maryjane: You evidently don't understand what "freedom of speech" (or any other freedom) actually means.
Despite the common misconception that the First Amendment prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, the text of the amendment prohibits only the federal government, the states and local governments from doing so.
I do understand what freedom of speech actually means. It is an inalienable right. If we, any public entity, can be forced to comply with the American Disabilities Act, Freedom Of Speech should be inalienable.
I do understand what freedom of speech actually means. It is an inalienable right. If we, any public entity, can be forced to comply with the American Disabilities Act, Freedom Of Speech should be inalienable.
You can't even make up your own mind,..much less postulate what Scotus might rule on your supposition. Do you intend to argue both sides of the coin in front of that bench??
Which is it? Inalienable .........or........"should be inalienable"? Hint....Wrong, on both accounts.
You evidently don't understand what "freedom of speech" (or any other freedom) actually means. There are many things that are 'legal' to do, but many of those come with a heavy price in society, and the freedom to voice our personal opinions is certainly one of them
Despite the common misconception that the First Amendment prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, the text of the amendment prohibits only the federal government, the states and local governments from doing so.
I was about to flip my **** there for a minute because I misread this. But I see that you're saying that companies do not have to abide by first amendment rights... yes, correct... I concur. Unfortunately, Facebook, Twitter, etc... are allowed to completely limit free speech and only allow what they want to allow.
Incidentally, had the FCC been allowed to pass Net Neutrality, it would have permitted the Government to regulate everything on the internet within the US space. I'm obviously totally against Net Neutrality because it's horrible. It's essentially as if the Democrats created a bill called the "Save Babies Act" and all it was was a funding bill for Planned Parenthood. Net Neutrality did very little from what the crazy left thought it would. What it did do was give the FCC the right to regulate the Internet... and under those circumstances, the Federal Government would be able to regulate Twitter and Facebook.
Still wouldn't support it though... Freedom of Speech has to sides... other people have the same freedoms.
Originally posted by cliffw: Not just you Boondawg, everybody, ... call your legislators, mail them also, email them, do it regularly. Be the squeaky wheel, make them listen. Demand a reply.
From what I've witnessed here*, destruction is more important than construction.
I thought all that stuff I RED (I spelled it that way because Is-land...) about Humans were just kinda' "worst-or-best-case-scenarios". I didn't know we are susceptible to actually pretending to not see stuff!
Some people have to pull a lever to be heard. Some have to burn-down a Taco-stand...
Everything is relative.
* I don't mean to imply that this place is some kind of extra-evil, just commenting on the shocking realization of the accumulation of reality of a "babe" out of the Alaskan woods...sue me, I didn't realize humans were so complicated.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 07-31-2020).]
Originally posted by Boondawg: Just like most of the other personnel stuff about me you seem to have a problem with. Unfortunately (I imagine) for you, I remain unconcerned.
Originally posted by cliffw: What did you see when you visited the riots?
I didn't "visit the riots". I did see the protesters, though, intermingled with nare-do-wells sowing their own personal/professional seeds of destruction.
But I'm sure that doesn't quite fit the narrative.
TO BE CLEAR: I'm against the destruction people or property in any form. So much so, that against my better judgment (to frigging burn it to the ground) I understand why Auschwitz–Birkenau still stands.
The degenerates that were sent to war in the past are gone.
Not all of us.....my oath had no conditions attached, I don't get to pick and choose whether to continue serving my nation or not or where at, and it dang sure didn't come with an expiration date.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-01-2020).]
Not all of us.....my oath had no conditions attached, I don't get to pick and choose whether to continue serving my nation or not or where at, and it dang sure didn't come with an expiration date.
You know damn well what I am talking about, how bad does it have to get to send us old ****ing guys into war?
Topic Closed
talk right there. Often, I think people just see a clickbait headline, obediently copy the following article without even reading beyond the opening sentence and post it in the blind.
.
