ruptured primitive wants parliamentary system

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7046001

Oh my.

The ruptured primitive:

Rupert Notmurdoch (15 posts)      Thu Nov-19-09 07:19 AM
Original message
 
We Ought to have a Parliamentary System!

In Britain, Canada, Australia, etc., a Prime Minister with a majority in the legislature can do pretty much whatever the hell s/he wants. Party discipline is enforced: A member of the ruling party can, if they wish, vote against their leader's wishes, but then they get kicked out of the party, leaving them with the options of either crossing the aisle and joining an opposition party, or running as an independent, in order to retain their seat in the next nationwide election. (Independent candidacies rarely succeed in the countries mentioned above.)

If we had that kind of system, Joe Lieberman could whine to his heart's content. Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, and Ben Nelson could all go **** themselves, as no supermajority would be required to pass important legislation like health care reform. The parliamentary model is simple and direct: Fifty percent plus one constitutes a majority, and majority RULES!

Such democracies as these get things done, as opposed to us, checking and balancing ourselves to a ******* standstill!

This is a new bonfire, and the other primitives are probably still busy trying to figure out what a "parliamentary" system is.

The problem with the ruptured primitive's proposal is, what happens when the Republicans are back in power?  Is the ruptured primitive still going to support a parliamentary system then?

One doubts it.

Stupid primitive, always wanting to change the rules to whatever suits them at the moment, without thinking of long-term consequences.  A blade cuts both ways.

[franksolich]

DrDan  (1000+ posts)      Thu Nov-19-09 07:22 AM
Response to Original message
 
1. think where we would be today had the past administration been void of checks and balances

[Celtic Rose]

It is funny to see the DUmmies pretend to be smarter than our Founding Fathers    Checks and balances are an important aspect of American government, and you only need to look at our current congress and president to see why.  When one party is completely in power, they pass bills without hardly any discussion, and then they are severely flawed.  When they have to co-operate and discuss with the other party, issues are resolved, and ideally bills will become more balanced.

I will admit that I do like the ease of getting third parties elected in the parliamentary system, but I would not change to it just get some more third parties involved. 

[franksolich]

You know, this is why Republicans and conservatives aren't too upset with the system as it now is, this "balance of power" thing, while the Democrats, liberals, and primitives are.

Republicans and conservatives are used to "balances of power" because they've never enoyed total uncontested power.  Ronald Reagan always had to contend with the corrupt decadent flaccid Tipsy O'Neill, for example, and didn't always come out on top.  And even when George Bush had a Republican Congress, he always had to deal with the depraved likes of Bela Pelosi and dead ted, and didn't always come out on top.

One wins some, one loses some.

We're used to it, and have been used to it since God was a boy.

The Democrats, liberals, and primitives, on the other hand, have had supreme uncontested power before (Lyndon Johnson, the Incompetent One 1977-1981, and currently Bo), where due to sheer numbers the other side couldn't do a damned thing.

One reasonably supposes if one ever enjoys total power, he wants to keep it.

[Lord Undies]

The Little Goons = FAIL (again). 

I wish just one of them - one Little Goon - would grasp the difference between a "democracy" (which does not truly exist anywhere on earth) and our representative republic.  Just one.

[Odin's Hand]

British Air and Quantas flight schedules are just a few mouse clicks away, DUmmy.

[Carl]

You know, this is why Republicans and conservatives aren't too upset with the system as it now is, this "balance of power" thing, while the Democrats, liberals, and primitives are.

Republicans and conservatives are used to "balances of power" because they've never enoyed total uncontested power.  Ronald Reagan always had to contend with the corrupt decadent flaccid Tipsy O'Neill, for example, and didn't always come out on top.  And even when George Bush had a Republican Congress, he always had to deal with the depraved likes of Bela Pelosi and dead ted, and didn't always come out on top.

One wins some, one loses some.


We're used to it, and have been used to it since God was a boy.

The Democrats, liberals, and primitives, on the other hand, have had supreme uncontested power before (Lyndon Johnson, the Incompetent One 1977-1981, and currently Bo), where due to sheer numbers the other side couldn't do a damned thing.

One reasonably supposes if one ever enjoys total power, he wants to keep it.

Notice too that those occasions you mentioned with Johnson and Carter and similar with Clinton all were undone in short order by the public.

[Vagabond]

British Air and Quantas flight schedules are just a few mouse clicks away, DUmmy.

The funny thing is the British openly admit on BBC that their healthcare system is broken and aon the way to bankruptcy, and they have no idea how to change it.

The DUmmies can have it, just not here.

[franksolich]

Notice too that those occasions you mentioned with Johnson and Carter and similar with Clinton all were undone in short order by the public.

It's true that during 1993-1995 the Impeached One had uncontested power, given the heavy preponderance of the overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled Congress.

But to his credit, after the mid-term elections of 1994, the Impeached One learned fast, really fast, to appreciate this "balance of power" thing--unlike the last Democrat president in the same predicament, Woodrow Wilson, who didn't seem to learn a damned thing.  (Harry Truman doesn't count; I'm comparing apples with apples here.) 

And the Impeached One was bright enough, willing enough, to use it as much as possible for his own advantage, and to minimize the disadvantages. 

1995-2001 could have gone a great deal worse, but that it didn't was due to the Impeached One learning to cooperate, to compromise, to give-and-take, rather than merely take.

[BlueStateSaint]

It's true that during 1993-1995 the Impeached One had uncontested power, given the heavy preponderance of the overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled Congress.

But to his credit, after the mid-term elections of 1994, the Impeached One learned fast, really fast, to appreciate this "balance of power" thing--unlike the last Democrat president in the same predicament, Woodrow Wilson, who didn't seem to learn a damned thing. (Harry Truman doesn't count; I'm comparing apples with apples here.) 

And the Impeached One was bright enough, willing enough, to use it as much as possible for his own advantage, and to minimize the disadvantages. 

1995-2001 could have gone a great deal worse, but that it didn't was due to the Impeached One learning to cooperate, to compromise, to give-and-take, rather than merely take.

The bolded is something that the arrogance of the Obamessiah will never allow.  I predict that he'll be miserable in his last two years of his (only) term.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

You know, this is why Republicans and conservatives aren't too upset with the system as it now is, this "balance of power" thing, while the Democrats, liberals, and primitives are.

Republicans and conservatives are used to "balances of power" because they've never enoyed total uncontested power.  Ronald Reagan always had to contend with the corrupt decadent flaccid Tipsy O'Neill, for example, and didn't always come out on top.  And even when George Bush had a Republican Congress, he always had to deal with the depraved likes of Bela Pelosi and dead ted, and didn't always come out on top.

One wins some, one loses some.

We're used to it, and have been used to it since God was a boy.

The Democrats, liberals, and primitives, on the other hand, have had supreme uncontested power before (Lyndon Johnson, the Incompetent One 1977-1981, and currently Bo), where due to sheer numbers the other side couldn't do a damned thing.

One reasonably supposes if one ever enjoys total power, he wants to keep it.

That and the fact we aren't trying to "win" anything. We don't want a sweeping social agenda we just want to be left the **** alone.

They only thing we're fighting for is to be beneath notice.

[GOBUCKS]

It's that stupid U.S. Constitution thingy! Without it, we could have a parliamentary system. You know, the kind of government that has created the Eurotrash cesspool.

[LC EFA]

Rupert Notmurdoch (15 posts)      Thu Nov-19-09 07:19 AM
Original message
 
We Ought to have a Parliamentary System!

The plus side is you get "Parliament Question Time" - Some of the most entertaining TV there is.
 

In Britain, Canada, Australia, etc., a Prime Minister with a majority in the legislature can do pretty much whatever the hell s/he wants. Party discipline is enforced: A member of the ruling party can, if they wish, vote against their leader's wishes, but then they get kicked out of the party, leaving them with the options of either crossing the aisle and joining an opposition party, or running as an independent, in order to retain their seat in the next nationwide election. (Independent candidacies rarely succeed in the countries mentioned above.)

Yeah - in theory the majority that the US democrats have should enable them to do "pretty much whatever the hell they want" , too , right ?

Don't work like that in practice.

Pollies regularly cross the floor when they think it's in their best interests - kinda like how you retards can't even get every single democrat to vote for PonyScam.

Independent candidates and the smaller parties, ARE elected here with more regularity than in the US model - they are what's known as the balance of power and occasionally help to head off more controversial legislation proposed by whatever party has the PM's Office.

If we had that kind of system, Joe Lieberman could whine to his heart's content. Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, and Ben Nelson could all go **** themselves, as no supermajority would be required to pass important legislation like health care reform. The parliamentary model is simple and direct: Fifty percent plus one constitutes a majority, and majority RULES!

Such democracies as these get things done, as opposed to us, checking and balancing ourselves to a ******* standstill!

Bwaahahahahahahaha.

You, sir , are a idiot.