On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:10:49 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 23/01/2010 6:14 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:00:24 -0500, wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:26:38 -0600,
wrote:


so, other than your assertion that it's dumb, do you have any
evidence? history is on my side, it seems

I had this conversation with an American friend once. He too said what
a waste of money with the stalling and expense and nothing gets done.

But I then pointed out the wisdom the forfathers made in having a
senate, as Canada is without one in essenace. Oh, we have a senate, but
it isn't elected, it isn't effective and is a patronage pork
appointment. Not worth more mention as the Canadian senate makes a wart
look useful.

so far you've said nothing...let's see what else you got...


But in the US, you have three effective branches, Senate, Congress and
Administration.

hey genius...i know you're not american but our constitution separates
the govt into the executive (president), the congress (senate and
house) and the judicial branches

so you're still saying nothing


It prevents any one person from being a term dictator
like the Prime Minister of Canada or the UK. There must be some
agreements between the 3 branches or the process stalls and is part of
the governemnt structure. In Canada, if the PM has a majority
governemtn or the opposition can't afford and election, he/she is in
essence a term dictator. And the results are more statism and less
value for the people. And stalling is OK to DO!!! It is a functional
part of US politics.

hey genius...even in a parliamentary democracy, elections have to be
held wthin a certain time limit. they can be called earlier, but not
later.

here in america we have fixed terms. and you still havent said why we
need a senate, given the existence of an independent judiciary. and we
already just had 6 years of GOP control of BOTH houses of congress as
well as the presidency.


If 49/51 or 50/50 or 51/49 percent of the people agree on something, the
race is tight. If 40 states want it, but 10 do not, the balance exists
to get it heard but not shoved through against the more populated
states. If it stalls, perhaps it didn't have the needed support thus is
a good thing it stalled. Stalling is the righ answer until the support
discipates or rises.

there's no reason why wyoming should have as much power as the people
of california. unless, of course, you have a problem with democracy


Might I suggest that politicial contributions by ANY organization be
outlawed as a federal crime against democracy. Put it right beside
conspiracy, extortion and fraud.

except that our courts have ruled that giving money is a form of
speech and is protected under our constitution.

that ruling happened yesterday


Sort of like forced political contributions replacing the corruption
peddling. So if a sorry assed billionaire calls up a senator or
congress person for a GM or bank style bailout, they have to think the
big picture, American people and not who is going to buy me into the seat.

Then the power will be returned to the people. Make the corruption a crime.

except you're against democracy, remember? you just said it above. you
said people in wyoming an north dakota should have the power to veto
the will of the people of CA, TX, PA, etc