MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The History Page[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Message Boards  
  For New Members  
  On This Day....  
  General  
  American History  
  Ancient History  
  British History  
  Current Events  
  European History  
  The Civil War  
  War  
  World History  
  Pictures  
    
    
  Links  
  Militaria Board  
  Cars/Motorcycles  
  
  
  Tools  
 
American History : Please give your opinions
Choose another message board
 
     
Reply
The number of members that recommended this message. 0 recommendations  Message 1 of 16 in Discussion 
  (Original Message)Sent: 4/1/2007 7:50 PM
This message has been deleted by the author.


First  Previous  2-16 of 16  Next  Last 
Reply
 Message 2 of 16 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameMarkGB5Sent: 4/1/2007 8:07 PM
You've already asked this question on another page.

Reply
 Message 3 of 16 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman8Sent: 4/2/2007 12:21 AM
And been bloody rude on another page. I think she's trying to squeeze some statistics.

Reply
 Message 4 of 16 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknamepto8770Sent: 4/4/2007 9:37 AM


You are right Sunday. Absolutlely correct!. What I have always wanted to know is wether the Founding Fathers intended for the impeachment process to be a part of our unique parlimentarian system. Was it supposed to be easy and routine to impeach? To remove a president, as it might be every ten or twenty years? (once every four years?) No political partys back when when it was writtin. A Prime Minister can be brought down with a no confidence vote. Maybe our founders wanted to make it harder but how much? High crimes and misdameanors? I remember after NIXONS almost impeachment about four years later the FBI nailed a few democratic congressmen in Abscam. It would be interesting to know what the founders thought about impeachment (not conviction).  



Can’t afford to quit your job? �?Earn your AS, BS, or MS degree online in 1 year.

Reply
 Message 5 of 16 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman8Sent: 4/4/2007 12:14 PM
PTO,
"A Prime Minister can be brought down with a no confidence vote." he is also supposed to be brought down by failure of a Financial Bill.
 
I think you'll find this is Convention, not Statute. Another Convention is  you can't pass retrospective legislation.
 
In fact, in the Burmah Oil case this was flouted in the 1940's. We passed a law to compensate the Burmah Oil Co for blowing up their oil wells ahead of the Japs, then passed another refusing it after the war. There was a convention if 1 MP was unable to attend the House for certain good reason, one from the other side would not vote. "Pairing". This was flouted in the 1970's and Labour stayed in power for another year.
 
In practice, though the PM might constantly lose other votes and the country be ungovernable, which is why your statement is correct but can be flouted.

Reply
 Message 6 of 16 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameMarkGB5Sent: 4/4/2007 7:27 PM
It was the Labour government's defeat by one vote on a vote of no confidence in April 1979 that led to the calling of the General Election that brought Maggie Thatcher to power. Not as dramatic as it sounds though as the Election was due that year anyway.

Reply
 Message 7 of 16 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman8Sent: 4/4/2007 10:07 PM
Mark
I'm talking about the pairing dispute which I think involved the Liberals too.

Reply
 Message 8 of 16 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameMOREREPETESSent: 4/4/2007 10:29 PM
I HAVE A HARD TIME WITH AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT HAVING THE POWER OF VETO.
I MAY BE WRONG BUT IT KIND OF TAKES THE POWER AWAY FROM THE PEOPLE.

Reply
 Message 9 of 16 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameBIGSNOWBIRD1Sent: 5/7/2007 2:39 AM
Pete: The President has the power of the Veto but it can be overirden with a 2/3 vote of the house and the senate.
The US is a Representative Democracy and our elected officials are supposed to vote the will of the people or they supposedly will not get elected again, supposedly.

Reply
 Message 10 of 16 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman8Sent: 5/7/2007 3:34 AM
As far as I'm concerned, George Bush quite rightly has the power of veto, because many democrats were grandtanding knowing their bluff wouldn't be called because you've got a President with courage.

Reply
 Message 11 of 16 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameBIGSNOWBIRD1Sent: 5/7/2007 5:14 AM
Flash tell me which of the demcratic candidates would want to be president with a war going on in Iraq and the situation in Iran?  Thats why they are so interested in putting a date on ending the war.  Risky business though and it could backfire on them.  The public might construe it as a sign of weakness and go the other way looking for a candidate that is tougher on protecting us from islamic terrorists.
If any one of the candidates had a platform that promised to take back the borders by putting the National Guard in numbers their building fenses or whatever it takes he or she would win hands down. Not going to happen though.

Reply
 Message 12 of 16 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nickname-TinCanSent: 5/7/2007 11:21 AM
Your right Snow, building fences kind of goes against the,"give us your tired, humble......yearning to be free ,"thing.

Reply
 Message 13 of 16 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman8Sent: 5/7/2007 1:07 PM
BigSnow;
Are we talking about the Canadian Border here? PBA has been getting Sassy lately.
 
Of course in the UK, our Border is intangible, Lunar House, the Immigration HQ where illegal immigrants are given work permits and social security numbers by other recent immigrants.
 
The rape of applicants and asylum seekerswas heavily reported. 
 
One person who spoke aout against biased (i.e. accurate) reporting was Samie Chakrabati, head of "Liberty", the immigrants' organisation. Amazingly, she is sister of Rita Chakrabati, BBC's spokesman (sorry, I must say spokesperson. Bugger it! I speak English.) on Immigration affairs.
Peter

Reply
 Message 14 of 16 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameNormalParanoiaSent: 5/7/2007 2:52 PM
Tin Can, we have to build fences to keep these modern day sooners from makin' a mad dash and grabbin' all they can for the gun sounds   Sides we want them to give us those folk so we can test their suitabilty for we permit enterence  To be serious though I think it is not just the illegal immigrants that are behind the fence.  We have to get some kind of control over our borders with the threat of terror sneekin' in as easy as 12 million illegals did.

Reply
 Message 15 of 16 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameBIGSNOWBIRD1Sent: 5/8/2007 2:31 AM
Exactly Normal. 

Reply
 Message 16 of 16 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknamestevenhawke127851Sent: 11/18/2007 6:04 PM
flashman - I noted that you feel President Bush is a man of courage.  I wondered on what you based your belief?
 
Please assume I'm intellectually curious, not seeking some strung out battle.  I am interested in actual acts of courage, not reflections or statements that may seem courageous.   I only ask that you reflect on your answers so this string can be kept down to forty or fifty responses.  I promise to keep my praise of your awareness or opinions to the contrary just as reflective.

First  Previous  2-16 of 16  Next  Last 
Return to American History