in fact, the founders were planning to rewrite the constitution in the next ten or so years. they had the executive branch only because washington was going to be president; they had to keep the father of the nation happy or something. :rolleyes:

then they never had the rewrite. they never held a meeting for it, and thus we have had presidents. personally, giving any one man power (besides washington apparently) is dumb. now it's more like executive branch supported by media + bureaucracy. even when you read the articles, the legislative branch is clearly the most thought out, then the executive is sort of an after thought, and then the judicial they just didn't spend enough time on...

There is so much ignorance of how the fundamentals of the American governmental system work, I don't even know where to start...

So I suppose I won't. Just rest assured that you're completely daft.

i'm not going to actually say anything, except that you are wrong.

ok. :rolleyes:

ok. :rolleyes:

Well, you are. And evidently an idiot as well. Good work, your mother must be very proud.

What do you expect? We congratulate you for postulating things which are blatantly false? When there is demonstrable evidence to the contrary in even the most basic of American civics courses? And to top it off, you can't even find the right forum?

I know you're new here, but there's no need to be a helpless jackass.

Here, I'll give ya a hand...

The Three Branches of Government in nice big pictures without big words. (http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/other/pamphlets/2001/legal_system.gif)

Checks and Balances in similar fashion. (http://historyclassroom.com/db3/00256/historyclassroom.com/_uimages/ChecksBalances3.gif)

There's the very basic theory. If you'd care to provide some sort of well founded argument as to why these are not currently functioning and that all power is currently vested in the President, be my gueset.




















Somehow, I doubt you will, or that you're even remotely qualified to.

Well, you are. And evidently an idiot as well. Good work, your mother must be very proud.

What do you expect? We congratulate you for postulating things which are blatantly false? When there is demonstrable evidence to the contrary in even the most basic of American civics courses? And to top it off, you can't even find the right forum?

I know you're new here, but there's no need to be a helpless jackass.

Here, I'll give ya a hand...

The Three Branches of Government in nice big pictures without big words. (http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/other/pamphlets/2001/legal_system.gif)

Checks and Balances in similar fashion. (http://historyclassroom.com/db3/00256/historyclassroom.com/_uimages/ChecksBalances3.gif)

There's the very basic theory. If you'd care to provide some sort of well founded argument as to why these are not currently functioning and that all power is currently vested in the President, be my gueset.




















Somehow, I doubt you will, or that you're even remotely qualified to.
yes, you can use google. good job. i'm still waiting for you to actually say something worthwhile though...

yes, you can use google. good job. i'm still waiting for you to actually say something worthwhile though...

You first.

We have a political forum but...

I don't know of any civilized nation without a "commander in chief". Sum of all civilized nations > you.

The president provides 'direction and vision' for the country.

Any good leadership requires vision.

in fact, the founders were planning to rewrite the constitution in the next ten or so years. they had the executive branch only because washington was going to be president; they had to keep the father of the nation happy or something. :rolleyes:

then they never had the rewrite. they never held a meeting for it, and thus we have had presidents. personally, giving any one man power (besides washington apparently) is dumb. now it's more like executive branch supported by media + bureaucracy. even when you read the articles, the legislative branch is clearly the most thought out, then the executive is sort of an after thought, and then the judicial they just didn't spend enough time on...

Presidency is a normal thing and nobody is against it, the only thing that was done in a wrong way i sthta the rpesident can be relelected for another turn. Which is universally wrong.

Any presidnet is given the chnace tio rule the country for five years, in five years he can do anything in orde rot improve the country status. He might success or fail.

Anyway after five years of presidency the reelection is phyiscally useless.

Simply put, a nomrla person is anle to achive evrything he wants in five years. But anm asshole is unable to achive absolutely nothing even in his lifetime.

SO the preisdential term must be calculated according to mathematics, not perosnal believes.

Emc3 is still around?

Now there's a troll you could learn from, alooha.

Emc3 is still around?

Now there's a troll you could learn from, alooha.
I just wanted to teach you sing instead of eating shit. Asshole.