It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I regard Iran as a greater threat to global security then the US because Bush will leave office in ‘08 [actually on January 20, 2009]. The Iranian nuclear program and the country’s nut job leaders are going to be around for a lot longer then Bush will be. IMO those who regard the US as the greatest threat to global security let there anti Bush sentiment get the best of logic. However it is fair to say that the free world cant afford any more blunders on magnitude of Iraq.
Mr X11 says, “Don't worry the MMP system is NZ best political friend even if it means putting up with annoying minor party's but hey it’s the trade off for true representation. Bush leadership faltered badly after the Taliban government was deposed of rather then following up the battles with the resources needed to win the war and offer more assistance and/or expand the war into the tribal regions of Pakistan. Instead of denying the enemy an haven the Iraq misadventure was embarked upon. The next president is going to have to deal with the Pakistan problem and come to grips with the fact that Saddam was once smart enough to remain on the right side of US interests. Much more would have been gained by denying the enemy an haven in Pakistan and applying political pressure to Musharraf to restore democracy.
Originally posted by donwhite
We should be voting on the internet and the winner taking office the next week. If we can transact billions of dollars worth of business on the internet then we can certainly be secure in our voting! End.
Until we - Americans - genuinely RESPECT and appreciate the significance of the Dome of the Rock and the al Aqsa Mosque to Muslims, we are doomed to more of the Hamas and Hezboolah actions.
Originally posted by pavil
How exactly would that work? [Voting on the internet] I can just see the great people that would be "elected". You bash paperless voting in person, yet you want to do the same on the internet?
So what about Muslim respect for other Religions? Building a Mosque/Religious site on another person's most sacred site is ok?
Originally posted by donwhite
1) See Wikipedia for an explanation of the MMP system. Mr X11, it is very impressive, but I do not think America could adopt it or adapt it because it takes a higher level of knowledge and understanding that we have been endowed with up here cf. down under. Chicago's Mayor Daley Jr would go for it because each voter gets 2 votes.
what do you ascribe Bush43's motives for such a disastrous path?
As Governor, Gilmore signed into law legislation establishing a 24-hour waiting period and informed consent for women seeking an abortion, as well as a ban against partial birth abortion. Gilmore increased funding for adoption services. He also signed into law a bill that banned human cloning. In 1999, Gilmore went to court to try to prevent the removal of a feeding tube of coma victim Hugh Finn. As Attorney General of Virginia, Gilmore had defended a legal challenge to Virginia's first parental notification law for minors seeking abortions
Originally posted by xpert11
It is worth noting that most NZ voters including myself don't know all the ins and outs of the MMP system but most people seem to understand enough so they know how to vote and that your two votes don't have to be for the same party. Should the US ever adapted the MMP and majority rules system (which is about as likely as me winning lotto and I don't buy an ticket. ) then someone like Ron Paul and his party would have about as close as true representation as you can get.
Since the security situation was never faceted in to the war in Iraq I can only assume that the plans in there works were and are for something akin to the Spanish plundering South America just swap gold for privatizing Iraq's oil industry. If planting an democracy in the ME was the priority then why did Bremer sell off the plunder and undermine the legitimacy of any future Iraqi government?
Don it is worth noting even under MMP an party has to get at least five percent of the party vote to win any seats. So assuming the current polls are correct Ron would have to win an electoral seat in order to gain representation in congress or parliament . No politician can expect to achieve much when they are polling at one percent. Ron Paul may represent conservatives who have been deserted by the Republican party but with the current corporate interests pulls the strings on the puppets people like him wont get very far. IMO even if Ron had an more forward looking view rather then relying on ideas from the founding of the US he still wouldn't get far.
I guess the logical question for American voters is do you change the people and there backers who run for office or do you overhaul the political system? Put another way do you try and get people like Justin and Don elected in the current political frame work or do you go hard core for an overall of the US political system ? I wonder if Justin is going to give us his take on all of this.
posted by Justin Oldham
Hello, folks. Looks like you've been busy while I've been away. Much to do. Many things going on. Lots happening to American conservatives.
Now that Harriet Miers has skipped on her subpoena, the Congress is headed for a Constitutional showdown with the President. Yet one more things with which to bludgeon the GOP with in November. There's an arrogance at work there that will keep many future historians busy when they look back on this period. So far, the Democrat controlled Congress shows no signs of stopping the Bush juggernaught. Before we go any further, let's dispel one myth right now. The Dems aren't being "weak." They've made a strategic decision. They want the authority that Mr. Bush has claimed for himself. They want to use that power for their own ends. If they challenge him in a court of law...which they should...they risk the loss of all the power.
So, what's a good conservative to do? A "real" conservative would do what any good citizen should do...regardless of political affiliation. We should all be pushing the Congress to mount legal challenges to many of Mr. Bush's subpoena-inspired assertions. Why? No elected leader can resist the opportunity to use the power of a Unitary Executive. It's like asking Frodo to carry the ring with him...just a little while longer....
Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Scary stuff, to be sure. I can imagine a scenario in which the GOP performs so badly in the '08 elections that President Bush says there must have been election tampering. Imagine the temptation he might face to stay in office...until that 'problem' is resolved.
posted by xpert11
This is just my 10 cents. Well if anything like that was ever going to happen it would have occurred in 2000. The constitution aside such an move would be politically damaging for the Republicans because Bill Clinton could rightfully claim the moral high ground because he left office and waited for the Supreme Court to decided the election. If you swap election tampering with an terrorist attack then it is an whole different and much more scary story.