could anyone explain to me exactly why the president can pardon anyone in the first place ? seems to go against the idea of separating powers

Well, I can simplify for that the Executive branch, while having to answer to checks and balances*, do have some power to do so. Some. The American president is more a figurehead of power rather than an actual wielder of power, though as another example, the president, in times of war, holds the highest power in the military.



*an example is Americas recent immigration bill. The president really wanted it to be pushed through, but congress had a higher power over it and subsequently voted agaist the bill.

Shotglass: basically because the US is a democracy in name only (especially for the last 7 years).

Quote from jayhawk :

president, in times of war, holds the highest power in the military.

which should be his job as the executive

just like congress should and does have a higher power in passing or not passing bills than the president

however i dont get which logic puts the president above the judicary branch it just does not make any sense whatsoever

Quote from jayhawk :

Or modern day Great Brittan. In my opinion, I feel America is still pretty far from the police state that I feel is starting to fester and grow in GB.

Well, yeah, it's intended to be the UK, and it's a good fit these days (but then we're not so far removed from the USA, are we?). However, the only thing distancing the USA from such a scenario is its geography - lots of sparsely-populated rural land, not so much industrialisation. The same thing that made communism such a waste of time in China.

Quote from jayhawk :

And YOU may think "Brazil" was funny, but it scared the sh*t out of me.

Oh I was too busy being scared of Threads to be scared about Brazil (especially given that Threads is based in a city about a 15 minute drive from where I grew up), but the baby masks in Brazil were pretty creepy.

Quote from jayhawk :

Well, I can simplify for that the Executive branch, while having to answer to checks and balances*, do have some power to do so. Some. The American president is more a figurehead of power rather than an actual wielder of power, though as another example, the president, in times of war, holds the highest power in the military.



*an example is Americas recent immigration bill. The president really wanted it to be pushed through, but congress had a higher power over it and subsequently voted agaist the bill.

Not quite correct, in theory the Congress has control and as it's a one party rule then they usually do what their told to but in reality an executive order will over rule anything.

And Bush has a couple of humdingers waiting for his sig ........

Quote from Hankstar :

Shotglass: basically because the US is a democracy in name only (especially for the last 7 years).

Democracy is just an excuse for politicians to use their money on ads on TV so that they can see themselves on the tube.

Even then corruption comes in.

Any other reason for democracy?

Quote from Cr!t!calDrift :

Any other reason for democracy?

To ensure that our leaders are elected by the majority. Incidentally, it's not good form to point out that "the majority" are actually pretty stupid and have no business doing anything important like electing leaders. People get upset when you mention that.

Yeah..Heh.

And even if there is a "the majority", there is this thing called "Greasing the politicians" or "Corruption", yeah. Money is power.

You know the funny thing is, the judge that sentenced Libby was also appointed by Bush. And like I said before, if y'all think Bush is all that, then you're gonna love Hillary. You think Iraq is a mis guided mess now?

You know I been thinking about Iraq. You know what we ought to do about that place? Replace us with the Chinese. Hell, they've been wanting international clout. It's a win win deal. the US of A will be out of the Middle East's hair, and China can get all the free publicity. We could put a spin on it like instead of calling them the occupier, we can call them the neutral peace keeping force. I think ol' Sadr will go for it. I don't know about aberdeeniahanistan or whatever the dude's name is would like it. Speaking of Abracadabra, is it just me or does he look like a hung over salesman to every one else too? Yeah, it would be great for China too. They could ship off all them unruly rural peasant types that keep getting upset with things over there. And if they stay long enough, they might just be able get rid of that baby ban thingee they got going on. Man, I'm a F*** genius.

@critical drit

You were asking what did Iraq do to us?
Hmmm... they invaded Kuwait. No formal peace treaty was ever signed,
but we cut them some slack. We couldn't help it that saddam and the ...ahem mainly European oil companies were abusing the oil for food program.

While we were enforcing the No-fly rule, they continuously challenged that, and we still let that slide.

Then the dumb ass tries a hit on our ex-president. I don't care how crappy you may think a US president is, you don't do that.

That Ex-President was the current president's dad. Any excuse would work.
In fact, we should be mad at Clinton for not tearing saddam a new ass when it happened.

Actually I could provide more serious and thoughtful information on that subject, but this is supposed to be a non serious post.
because let's face it all this bush bashing and iraq is just soooo yesterday
can't you people find something else to whine about?

Like I dunno... Like when you you go thru a drive thru and tell them you don't want any onions on your burger and they almost always ALWAYS screw it up. Now that's a subject I can sink my teeth into.

@ Hankstar...
no democracy... yeah, i kinda feel like an Aboriginal that likes beer and Play Boy sometimes... so you might be right.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

To ensure that our leaders are elected by the majority. Incidentally, it's not good form to point out that "the majority" are actually pretty stupid and have no business doing anything important like electing leaders. People get upset when you mention that.

Spoken like a true liberal.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

To ensure that our leaders are elected by the majority. Incidentally, it's not good form to point out that "the majority" are actually pretty stupid and have no business doing anything important like electing leaders. People get upset when you mention that.

Actually I feel very strongly about this very thing and try to get that point across to as many people as I can, but for most them it goes right over their heads.

Quote from jayhawk :

Spoken like a true liberal.

This always makes me laugh, I have to say One of the core problems for the US is the lack of non-partisan journalism, and the net result of that is that is a maturing of stances into a situation where any reporting of events or situations, or any commentary at all on anything that is contrary to an individual's perspective is easily and simply dismissed as "damn liberal" or "damn neocon". At no time now, in the US, can anyone be stifled into paying attention with a simple and unbiased "fact". This is something that the rest of the western world enjoys without hindrance.

Quote from Racer Y :

You were asking what did Iraq do to us?
Hmmm... they invaded Kuwait. No formal peace treaty was ever signed,
but we cut them some slack. We couldn't help it that saddam and the ...ahem mainly European oil companies were abusing the oil for food program.

What did they do to the US though? Unless you're referencing a risk to the US's oil supply, which just makes that more sad than I can begin to describe.

Quote from Racer Y :

While we were enforcing the No-fly rule, they continuously challenged that, and we still let that slide.

No Iraqi jet ever flew over US territory.

Quote from Racer Y :

Actually I could provide more serious and thoughtful information on that subject, but this is supposed to be a non serious post.
because let's face it all this bush bashing and iraq is just soooo yesterday
can't you people find something else to whine about?

There's nothing "yesterday" about this situation at all. It's VERY current and it's sadly very ongoing.

Quote from Racer Y :

You were asking what did Iraq do to us?
Hmmm... they invaded Kuwait.

I didn't know Kuwait had become the 51st state.

Or was that ironic?

Quote from jayhawk :

Spoken like a true liberal.

Spoken like a true American.

I am liberal, in that I believe in the importance of freedoms of the individual. But I can still lament the fact that the majority are not capable of making smart decisions about matters of global importance. Would you put a carpenter in charge of a nuclear reactor because it seems unfair to give the important jobs to educated people all the time?

Quote from SamH :

This always makes me laugh, I have to say One of the core problems for the US is the lack of non-partisan journalism, and the net result of that is that is a maturing of stances into a situation where any reporting of events or situations, or any commentary at all on anything that is contrary to an individual's perspective is easily and simply dismissed as "damn liberal" or "damn neocon". At no time now, in the US, can anyone be stifled into paying attention with a simple and unbiased "fact". This is something that the rest of the western world enjoys without hindrance.

I will agree that there is non-partisan journalism here, that it is extremely biased towards liberal ideals and agendas, but with the guise of being objective. Haha, sure. But on the hand, our government has no control over it, which I think is wonderful, no matter how biased it is.

As it stands now, the media here have almost blinding, hate filled rage towards our current administration...like they did with Regan, and Ford, and Nixon...see the trend?

I believe that individuals, not big governments, have accomplished the most good in the world. The smaller the government, the less power they can wield over the people, as was originally intended by Americas founding fathers. In fact, read this, please:

Quote :

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

To me, that is probably the most radical, free thinking idea that mankind has seen...and it still is to this day. Please read it twice to let it really sink in.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Spoken like a true American.

You are right! American politics are very much different than the rest of the worlds, so you must excuse me if it seems I am branding you as some sick freak. I myself am a Libertarian, a philosophy that many Americans believe in, but foolishly only elect either Democrat or Republican.

Quote from jayhawk :

I will agree that there is non-partisan journalism here, that it is extremely biased towards liberal ideals and agendas, but with the guise of being objective.

You'll never get a totally objective news source - the best you can manage is an agency that hires journalists from both sides of the fence, and even in that situation the more polarised public opinion becomes (as is usually the case with an unpopular leadership) the more biased the reporting will become.

But either way I think it's better not to get bogged down in arguing the toss over media bias, because then you're ignoring the actual issues in favour of bickering over how they're presented to you.

Quote from jayhawk :

But on the hand, our government has no control over it, which I think is wonderful, no matter how biased it is.

The problem is that it *is* controlled, and the wrong people have control over it. I'm afraid to say that I am absolutely stunned, daily by FOX and weekly by MSNBC. There is no *free* press in the US with equal reach, and this is the core of the problem.

I'm afraid that the founding fathers were not even remotely "the most radical, free thinking idea that mankind has seen". It must be nice to think so, like it's nice to marvel at a rainbow, but it's just not true.

The founding fathers addressed in their constitution some fundamental issues they had with the departing rulers. The difference, and you must forgive me this observation, is that the British people achieved what the founding fathers achieved, but by challenging the establishment and working within it to affect change. Fight or flight, if you will. The Brits stayed and fought.

Sadly the Founding Fathers didn't build into the constitution any future-proofing. Amendments have been introduced, and new amendments to amend amendments have followed, sure, but the core of the consitution isn't followed for many reasons.. not least because people so easily, these days, either cite its irrelevence in parts or pervert its olde wordes into new and ever more modern meanings. Terrible changes are afoot in the US which undermine the fabric of its society more than any other western *or* westernized country. Things that are newly made legal today, in the US, have been illegal for centuries in the rest of the west for centuries. Nowhere - not even in China - is it legal to torture its citizens. Whether or not it happens may be another matter, but it has NOT been LEGALIZED!!

I lived a few years in the US, and I loved my life there. I wouldn't consider visiting there, now, even for a vacation. Neither will any of my friends. It's just not safe for foreign nationals.

Quote from jayhawk :

As it stands now, the media here have almost blinding, hate filled rage towards our current administration...like they did with Regan, and Ford, and Nixon...see the trend?

I really don't see it that way, but maybe I didn't read all the newspapers you read...
Certainly I've been following with a certain consistency facts and opinions about Iraq in some newspapers during the war: The Washington Post, NYT, Usatoday, even the Army Times, and lots of others. You can even include Fox News and CNN.
If one cares to compare public opinions in newspapers where comments are available there will be no surprise. At the start of the war everybody wanted to grill Saddam, liberal and antiwar protesters. Now everybody wants to grill Bush. The liberals who were once thought to be sidelining with Saddam are now left alone; the bad mouthing goes towards the hawks, and comments with hawkish positions are generally regarded as pathetic whines.
This shift of position mirrors that of several newspapers.
But let's see an interesting case and try to put it in context as an example. The NYT suffered a scandal because of Judith Miller, widely regarded as the journalist who gave the most credibility to the WMD bullshit (sorry for the word, but if you think about it there's no better one). Now Judith Miller was jailed for contempt in Libby's case until she decided to speak, she was fired by NYT and all of her pieces of news regarding WMDs (along with stuff from other reporters) have been subjected to revision. It was yet another blow to NYT credibility.
In reality the NYT, like most American newspapers (and the American public) were favourable to the administration. The reason why the majority of them no longer sidelines with Bush & Co. can only be summed up with two words: miserable failure. Sympathy for liberal positions has no role in this process, since some so-called liberals are having a hard time trying to explain why they supported the war.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Oh I was too busy being scared of Threads to be scared about Brazil (especially given that Threads is based in a city about a 15 minute drive from where I grew up), but the baby masks in Brazil were pretty creepy.

Jeez Kev i took that as a recommendation to watch it, but now i am, thank feck i never grew up with the threat, even though worrying was utterly pointless and preparing only gives you nanoseconds more on the Earth.

Nuclear Weapons are the greatest methods of protection we've ever known, and yet at the same time the most rediculously destructive.

Quote from SamH :

.......blah blah blah...

I lived a few years in the US, and I loved my life there. I wouldn't consider visiting there, now, even for a vacation. Neither will any of my friends. It's just not safe for foreign nationals.

Sure it is! Just speak Spanish and hang out in front of a convenience store in the mornings and be sure to urinate in public here and there. Get a car but blow off getting any sort of license or insurance and you'll be fine.

Man, if we could just get a few more people to think like you (is 12 million a few?) Man........

Quote from Racer Y :

@critical drit

because let's face it all this bush bashing and iraq is just soooo yesterday
can't you people find something else to whine about?

Er. I'm not a 'drit'.

And yeah, let's come into this topic and not talk about the subject .

Quote from Racer Y :

Like I dunno... Like when you you go thru a drive thru and tell them you don't want any onions on your burger and they almost always ALWAYS screw it up. Now that's a subject I can sink my teeth into.

That is completely true And they mess up my drinks too, dunno about you

Quote from Racer Y :

Sure it is! Just speak Spanish and hang out in front of a convenience store in the mornings and be sure to urinate in public here and there. Get a car but blow off getting any sort of license or insurance and you'll be fine.

Man, if we could just get a few more people to think like you (is 12 million a few?) Man........

Is that supposed to be a relevent response?

Quote from SamH :

Is that supposed to be a relevent response?

Being from the US, I can say it is

Edit: *Reason* I was actually hit and run from an illegal alien with no license or insurance in my first new car...