user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
BTW, I believe I voted a straight democratic ticket last election.
Voted : No
No. Hitler had to be fought. There was a need for social security, FDIC, FSLIC, work relief and so forth. Internment of Japanese Americans was a mistake, and one that we should learn from now. And not many people really want a right to buy sick chickens, and the Schechter Poultry decision was the trigger for the Court packing threat, which was never carried out.
so, trying to stack the Supreme Court wasn't a big deal? And all the other stuff was justified because we were at war? The ends justified the means with the social programs?
Voted : Yes
Yes ~ '...using the logic that many use on this site, should he have been impeached?'
But, In Reality, no.
Internment of Japanese Americans was the biggest mistake. AS for court-packing, it didn't happen. The Court just stopped trying to get people to buy sick chickens, work without a minimum wage and so forth.
Well, he tried to pack the Supreme Court. Last time I checked, even George W. Bush hadn't tried that.
^But unelected activist justices kept legislating from the bench.
Yes.
By all the standards bush is held to FDR should have been impeached a dozen times over.
But he was a far leftwing socialist, so he's pretty much immune to criticism on this site.
Voted : Yes
Put that way, yes.
Skylab, the judges on the court have to be approved by the Senate. The democrats have enough votes to filibuster any of them out of contention if they had the backbone to do so.
^Did anyone but Bork ever get Borked? Former Chief Justice Rehnquist said "Plessy v. Ferguson was rightly decided and should be reaffirmed." Congress is almost a rubber stamp.
Great ballot!
Some people learn from history, others don't.
ALI PARTOVI is currently in a jail cell at an immigration center in Arizona. He is not charged with a crime. He is not suspected of a crime. He is not considered a danger to the state. According to the heroic Dept of Homeland Security (The American SS), he is the last to be held of about 1,200 Arab and Muslim men swept up by authorities in the US after 9/11.
Interesting bit of trivia: Originally, George Mason, one of the founding fathers, desired grounds for impeachment to be based on "incompetence"; but this was instead changed to "treason, bribery, or high crimes & misdemeanors."
The difference between George W. Bush and Franklin D. Roosevelt is competence. But of course you can't impeach the President for massive incompetence, though I find it fascinating that you can impeach the President for having his dick sucked and lying about it.
Nevertheless, I'm sure if I sat down with my lawyer friend we could come up with some real grounds for impeaching President Bush and removing him from office. On quick examination, I'd consider the fact that President Roosevelt announced a formal declaration of war against the nation of Japan after they attacked us, giving him special wartime powers. President Bush has never formally declared war, yet he still invokes those same wartime powers. On the surface that appears unconstitutional. But one of the great things about the Constitution is that the words and phrases are relics of the 18th century, and thus WIDE fucking open to interpretation to whatever end one desires. Bush's advisors have preened him to very carefully not make use of words or phrases that violate the *perceived* boundaries of the law, which is actually rather liberating, since he can't be held accountable for taking actions that are immoral, idiotic, or otherwise reprehensible.
Interesting comment applerod, but no declarations of war have been made since World War 2 although the US has certainly been in several. Vietnam was "authorized" by the Tonkin Gulf resolution.
There has to be some sort of check on the length of time the President, (whoever s/he is)--can be granted expanded wartime powers. Under the current circumstances, we could, for example, set a concrete boundary around Bin Laden.
He was after all the person who publicly declared (holy) war on the United States before the millenium, then honored his own words with the terrorist attacks of September, 2001. Probably the simplest way of achieving something that could be characterized as "victory" -- "victory" being sufficient to reduce the President's extra power -- would be if Osama Bin Laden was captured or killed.
- That action alone wouldn't make a very big dent in the threat of terrorism, unless we were also able to "dismantle" or severely damage Al Qaeda. But it is an objective goal to agree on.
Obviously international terrorism is going to be looming large in the (American) consciousness for the foreseeable future, but that's the problem. The public and our elected representatives have to ask ourselves how long and in what ways it would be reasonable to allow the President to retain this "expansion of power", if you will.
Most of the 'charges' are hyped. However, the interment camps and civilian bombings might be grounds for impeachment and/or war crimes charges.
The internment camps were born out of fear and, of course, were a serious mistake....Innocent civilians always suffer in war....Most of the rest of the stuff listed was American politics, as usual.
What charges are hyped cathexis? If Bush started putting a whole ethnic group in concentration camps he would be impeached on the spot.
It is rather hypocritical the way people will defend him.
And yes, wwII is not the war on terror, let's get that little diversion out of the way.
But we didn't need to intern every american of japanese dissent to win the war.
If bush were to propose rounding up every arab/muslim in the US in to internment camps I doubt we'd hear the apathy/mild support we are getting for Mr. FDR.
|
|
