Will the new government have any effect on GA?

On Nov 14, 5:18 pm, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

And let's not forget, the promises of 9/12 by the Democrats
to support the President and the troops took a back seat to
regaining power. Five years of Democrat politics lost the
war and won the Democrats back, marginally, the power in
Congress.

I don't know how you can blame the Democrats since all three branches
of govt were dominated by Republicans. The Republicans had their turn,
made a mess of it, and now the Democrats are at the plate. They won't
do any better, but in any case this kind of partisan political debate
isn't useful. People seem more interested in defeating the other party
(whichever that may be) than defeating the forces that are against the
US.

Will the people realize this when the attacks begin here in
a few weeks or will they blame Bush because he is the
President?

Sounds pretty paranoid. There aren't going to be any attacks in a few
weeks.

BTW, the President has been pretty much a powerless office
since the Budget Acts in 1970-72. The President can fight a
war for only a few days and then must seek Congressional
support.

Nothing wrong with that.

Marc

On 14 Nov 2006 16:18:53 -0800, "Marc Adler"
wrote:


I don't know how you can blame the Democrats since all three branches
of govt were dominated by Republicans.

To be fair, the GOP only really controlled the executive branch. That
being President Bush.

In the Congress, the GOP did control the House, but has never had a
working majority in the Senate. They did get to chair committees, but
there were always enough RINOS (Republicans In Name Only) like Snow,
Chafee, Hagel and others on any issue to prevent a successful
legislative agenda in Congress.

Likewise, thought a majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court were
appointed by Republicans, most were confirmed by Democrat controlled
Senates and previous Presidents didn't even try, after Bork, to
appoint a Justice who stuck to original intent in interpreting the
Constitution as that does not pass the Democrat litmus test on Roe V
Wade. (You could argue whether the principles of Roe are correct, but
there is no rational argument that the decision was not legislation
from the bench) So, in effect, only Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts
are Justices as the GOP would choose them. The rest are either far
left liberals like Ginsburg or White or RINO justices like Souter and
Kennedy. There has never been an original intent Supreme Court in our
lifetimes.

So, the GOP has its sins to pay for, but to claim they ever had a free
hand to implement their policies is ludicrous.

Don



Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

Recently, Don Tabor posted:

On 14 Nov 2006 16:18:53 -0800, "Marc Adler"
wrote:

I don't know how you can blame the Democrats since all three branches
of govt were dominated by Republicans.

To be fair, the GOP only really controlled the executive branch. That
being President Bush.

[...]

So, the GOP has its sins to pay for, but to claim they ever had a free
hand to implement their policies is ludicrous.

Just whose policies _were_ implemented, given that the Democrats couldn't
even get their policies presented for a vote? Get real.

Neil

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:58:52 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

So, the GOP has its sins to pay for, but to claim they ever had a free
hand to implement their policies is ludicrous.

Just whose policies _were_ implemented, given that the Democrats couldn't
even get their policies presented for a vote? Get real.

No one's policies got implemented. Hardly anything at all has gotten
done other than bipartisan pork barrel spending.

Go ahead, name one major domestic program change since the original
tax cuts.

Social Security Reform died. Renewed offshore and inshore oil
exploration blocked. Medicare reform replaced by a prescription drug
program that was more than the GOP wanted but less than they feared
Dems might get if they didn't pass it. Fundamental tax reform studied
to death and nothing done.

The last 4 years have been little more than housekeeping with no major
programs advanced beyond committee.

Don

DonSideB

Build a man a fire and you keep him warm for a day,
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

"DonSideB" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:58:52 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

So, the GOP has its sins to pay for, but to claim they ever had a free
hand to implement their policies is ludicrous.

Just whose policies _were_ implemented, given that the Democrats couldn't
even get their policies presented for a vote? Get real.

No one's policies got implemented. Hardly anything at all has gotten
done other than bipartisan pork barrel spending.

Go ahead, name one major domestic program change since the original
tax cuts.

Social Security Reform died. Renewed offshore and inshore oil
exploration blocked. Medicare reform replaced by a prescription drug
program that was more than the GOP wanted but less than they feared
Dems might get if they didn't pass it. Fundamental tax reform studied
to death and nothing done.

The last 4 years have been little more than housekeeping with no major
programs advanced beyond committee.

Don


And this is a good thing. For an even better example look at the majority of
the Clinton administration. Dem in the White House and a mixed Congress.
Nothing major got passed and no one was really worried about anything
getting passed. The country had a great time and rode the dot com bubble for
about as long as any bubble could ever hold together.

Let's face it, the country is 276 years old do we really need any more laws?

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:40:37 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:

Let's face it, the country is 276 years old do we really need any more laws?

Yes, HR 25

Don

"Don Tabor" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:40:37 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:

Let's face it, the country is 276 years old do we really need any more
laws?

Yes, HR 25

Don



Don't hold your breath.

Isn't that the Fair Tax bill?



"Don Tabor" wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:40:37 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
| wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:
|
| Let's face it, the country is 276 years old do we really
need any more laws?
|
| Yes, HR 25
|
| Don
|
|

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:40:37 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Let's face it, the country is 276 years old do we really need any more
laws?

It's what I've been saying for a long time -- laws should automatically
expire after a year and the politicians should have to debate and pass
them again if they want them to be renewed... At the very least, it should
keep them busy enough that only the important ones are kept around and
they have less time to come up with new bull**** ones... Sometimes, the
best thing that the legislature can do is do nothing...

--
"Is it possible for the voices in my head to use email from now on?"

laws should automatically
expire after a year and the politicians should have to debate and pass
them again if they want them to be renewed...

They'll happily do that on our dime.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.