OT: Test to see where you stand Morally.

[Thermodyne]

The people that have known of her since the seventies have found the woman to be a vindictive ***** who has never felt that she was held to the same rules of conduct as the rest of us. The highlights of this would be her participation of the impeachment of Nixon as an intern then congressional staffer. During this time it is reported that she made many lifelong enemies on the hill by refusing to give MC’s their due respect. I would think that this played no small part in the treatment that her husband later received. Then later she was involved in qusi-criminal activities involving investments and land deals. Between the convenient suicide of an important witness and the power of the presidency, she was never taken to task. Later, some of her business partners went to jail. When she arrived in Washington, she cleaned house, firing many people who had served in the Whitehouse for many administrations. Some of these people later had their dismissals reversed, but none the less never regained their actual positions. Recently, there was a book published about her that was less than flattering. She has insisted that it was a “pack of lies and distortions”, but has yet to file suit against the author or his publisher for same. Instead, she used her political power to freeze said author off of the normal talk show circuit used by authors when promoting new books. Said author did file and subsequently settle a suit against several corporations for said activities.

Personally, I dislike her because of her distorted view of the constitution, and her ceaseless campaign to take rights away from law abiding citizens. IMHO, I would suggest that you read the book. Then read her biography. After that, form your own opinion.

On a side note. She was often a victim of circumstanses. One incident that I will always remember is the day she exited from testifying before the grand jury about something or other and she was wearing a long black coat. On TV it looked as if a pigion had crapped all over the back of it. For those of you not living in DC, this has been known to happen to public officials at less than opportune times. She and her press people immediately sprang into action explaining that the coat actually had an embroidered silk dragon on the back side. The next morning, the Post headline read “Dragon Lady Testifies Before Grand Jury”

In writing this, I have just realized that she testified before several grand juries and a special prosecutor. Off hand, I can not recall any other first ladies having to do this. I think it was perhaps a first. But so was having a trusted advisor commit suicide in the executive office spaces. I’d sure like to see read ALL of the reports on that one.

[AMF]

I appreciate the answer. It's educational to get an understanding of others' opinions. I do think that most, if not all of the things you mention have been undertaken by many other politicians on both sides of the aisle. I mean, if the Right held the Bush administration to the same standards as it did the Clinton one, they'd all be impeaching them as well.

But, nevermind.

I do, however, find it absolutely hilarious when the Right puts on its victimhood hat and blames the Clintons or the Dems for every problem under the sun. I mean, the Right has controlled the legislature for over a decade, the Supremes for arguably much longer, and the Executive for almost six years. Yet, they still seem to think they're the victims. And you just know that if we lose in Iraq they'll blame it on the Left - despite the fact that the President has gotten everything he asked for in Iraq planning, execution, etc...

But I digress.

[Atrocities]

Right left, they are both to blame. Nuff said.

“Dragon Lady Testifies Before Grand Jury”

Now that was truly funny.

[Wolfman77]

Indeed, right or left, it's all pretty much the same for most things. They just phrase the wording a little different. There are a few issues that they are actually divided on, and I don't agree with all policies on either side, heck some of them can't even agree amongst themselves. For the most part, I don't really look at what party they are, but some times, the "lesser of the two evils" theory must be used, then It usually puts me on one side more than the other.

Something I've always wanted to ask people in a disscussion like this:
If you could change one major aspect of the way your government was set up, wha twould it be? How would it be better, and what would the side effects be?

I've always disliked our 2 branch congress. I think things would flow through better with 1 branch. I do see why we have them both, large states would complain about our Senate not being equal, small states would complian about the House. But when they both write a bill that is just slightly different, mostly due to pork being added, it seems like alot of duplication. (For those who don't know, pork it the term used to describe extra things added to bills to encourage support from those that might not otherwise support it. usually locally benificial for the Reps. state or district.) Maybe if they worked on the bills together from the start then voted separately it would cut down on this.

[Atrocities]

It makes me sick to watch the news any more. Its filled with so much bull****, pandering sensationalism, and out right manufactured news that it shouldn't even be called news any more. You have the Pervert of the day segement, they said he said segment, spindoctor segment, point the finger segment, and so on.... ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

It never [censored] ends!

They hyped the weather last night saying it was going to snow heavily today... they toyed with us keeping us on long enought to lie to us. It did not snow, not so much as one flake today.. and do you know what those SOB's said? They said that they were correct, that their forecasts was spot on.... WTF???? All you have to do is pull up the video from last night to know they are lying through their god damned teeth!

If they will lie about what they said when they are wrong, imagine what else our news organizations will lie about.

I say line them all up against a wall and execute them. Tell us the truth or die.

[Suicide Junkie]

I don't watch the news... No point to it.

If it is important, it will come up on the forums or in the IRC channel.

[AMF]

Wolfman77 said:
I've always disliked our 2 branch congress. I think things would flow through better with 1 branch. I do see why we have them both, large states would complain about our Senate not being equal, small states would complian about the House. But when they both write a bill that is just slightly different, mostly due to pork being added, it seems like alot of duplication. ...

You're making an argument for a form of government in which efficiency is a guiding principle. But divided government is specifically designed with an opposite intention: that of providing an overlapping set of checks and balances and thereby institutionalizing moderating influences on the governing of the nation, and in so doing avoid the hazards of radical change.

The Senate is a fundamentally different body, with a very different dynamic than the House.

The danger that arises when a single group or party controls all branches of government is not simply hypothetical, and having a government that is divided horizontally (legislature, judiciary, and executive) as well as vertically (federal, state, local) has provided the US with a system that can self-correct pretty well. While we historically lurch between flirtations with radicalism we typically come back to the center in the end.

I would be very concerned if all three branches of government were controlled by a single party in the US, no matter whether that party was from the left, the right, mars, venus, whatever. Divided government is a very good thing.

But it is definitely not efficient. Redundancy is one of the prices we pay for a system that is relatively durable and still largely protects local & individual rights in a very diverse country yet still with a functioning government that can get things done (but rarely as fast as people would like...and that's good)...

I'll stop babbling...

Alarik

[Fyron]

The less efficient a government is, the better it is.

[El_Phil]

Well up to a point. If a goverment is totally inefficient then nothing happens. I suppose that is 'better' provided you're happy with the way things are.

[Wolfman77]

Good points. I can see the usefulness of having both a Senate and a House for keeping things cenetered, especially when opposing parties control each. My ideas are probably more attributed to my personality than anything that might work in real life, I just hate to seee waste. I guess the less a government does the less it can mess up isn't to far from the truth, but unfortunately there are enough people out there that need some guidance in order for them to benefit society, though it does tend to benefit a small portion more than the whole. A government that did absolutely nothing would be extremely inefficient, but then what would be the point of having one. Government power is always going to increase. We elect people who want power, it is in their nature to get more. Very few would run for office if they had no desire for power, or wasn't a step in the direction for them to get more.