I don't recall mentioning any things.

Are you suggesting that because one party is in power in 2 of three branches that these things happen? Unless I am mistaken (and alas that is all too possible) if there exist 3 branches of government (the Executive, the Legeslature, and the Judiciary), and there exists two political parties (the Democtrats and the Republicans), then at any time one or the other of the parties must control/be in power in two or more of the branches of government.

I do like that idea.

That was my point. I have this archaic idea that they were suppose to be answering to THE PEOPLE! Our government isn't a football game where anything you can get away with is OK as long as the coach approves.

PantyFanatic,

What are elections?

I'll assume PF talking about a govermant of the people for the people by the people.

Elected by those who care enough to vote?

So are you saying if some one chose not to vote they are less the some one who dose?

Booger,

It is very difficult, if not impossible, for a democratic government to represent the views of people who do not express their opinions by voting.

A government which is elected by people is of that people. What do you call rulers who are NOT elected?

With this line of reasoning the people who vote for anyone who dosen't win are in the same boat as those who don't vote. So dose that also make them less important then the ones who voted for the winner?

Boog, stop putting quotes in your posts. I can't put them on ignore.

Boog,

In a perfect world an elected official acts for the electorate for which he was chosen as the preferred representative. The concept of political parties skews this altruism, and "voting at the Party call" removes the illusion of democracy totally.

Sadly, If you voted agin them, they're usually agin you.

All I can say is I'm glad he's "out" now!

Booger,

I think you are mistaken. Those who ignore reality do not work towards a resolution of important issues. Those who vote try.

Partisan politics is a natural outgrowth of a healthy democracy. An informed and active electorate – those who vote – is essential for democracies. What do you offer as an alternative?

LixyChick,

Yes'm. In more ways than one. :D

Now what state was Foley from?? The trouble is it is not a political problem, but one of sociaty. If we had news organizations that reported an unbiased news and people listened to the truth and voted accordingly then the problem would not be so wide spread. But when the "people" do not care, the politications will do as they please and it does not matter what party they belong to, Greed is Greed.

speaking of news orgs, i was surprised by the number of people who responded to the blotter article just to smack ross for "making up news and making news out of nothing." hind sight's twenty twenty but still, jeesh. they bitch when ya do and they bitch when ya don't...




yup yup. and furthermore, that sort of communally responsible mentality is becoming prevalent in more and more of today's criminal laws-- besides the usual aid and abet stuff--bar tenders held accountable for serving a visibly inebriated patron, failing to report known illegals, parents found criminally liable for the crimes, even just truancy, that their children commit.

it’s a twisted irony alright. these are the women and men who write and pass the bills that urge, if not force, the genpop to take a more proactive role in their communities against crime when usually they can’t be bothered to give a flying fluck about what the other people in their community have been up to until it’s election time.