July 5, 200620 yr FDR's proposals as far as the New Deal were a response to the troubled times. A radical step was necessary to get America back on its' feet. Hoover attemped to fix the Depression with a few minor changes, but they didn't work. I don't buy the argument that FDR's motives in the New Deal were anymore than 5-10% political. I believe that he wanted to rescue the country from the depths of the Great Depression. Packing the courts was obviously a blantantly political move, and should have been unconstitutional. Just b/c you like FDR doesnt mean what he did was all righteous in terms of new deal programs. Not to mention most of the New Deal was a mere expansion of Hoover's programs. I think Bush feels these amendments are whats best for the country in this troubled time. Just b/c you dont lke Bush doesnt mean he doesnt feel this is right. Furthermore, why would court pakcing be unconstitutional? Unethical perhaps, but wher ein the constitution does it limit the number of justices?
July 5, 200620 yr Congress needs to spend more time making meaningful laws than proposing Constitutional bans on things like flag-burning (only 10 cases a year at most), and gay marriage. There are more important things, particularly national security matters, which are being ignored in favor of this garbage.
July 5, 200620 yr FDR's proposals as far as the New Deal were a response to the troubled times. A radical step was necessary to get America back on its' feet. Hoover attemped to fix the Depression with a few minor changes, but they didn't work. I don't buy the argument that FDR's motives in the New Deal were anymore than 5-10% political. I believe that he wanted to rescue the country from the depths of the Great Depression. Packing the courts was obviously a blantantly political move, and should have been unconstitutional. Just b/c you like FDR doesnt mean what he did was all righteous in terms of new deal programs. Not to mention most of the New Deal was a mere expansion of Hoover's programs. I think Bush feels these amendments are whats best for the country in this troubled time. Just b/c you dont lke Bush doesnt mean he doesnt feel this is right. Furthermore, why would court pakcing be unconstitutional? Unethical perhaps, but wher ein the constitution does it limit the number of justices? Whoa...what is that based on? And maybe you already explained it, but how is it the same thing when Bush is acting on a policy issue that a clear majority of Americans DO NOT consider to be a pressing matter while FDR was acting to address the Great Depression? You might have a point if it was immigration compared to the New Deal. But not gay marriage or flag burning. I mean how do you justify these actions in light of this poll? FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. June 13-14, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ? 3. "Which one of the following issues do you think should be the top priority for Congress to work on this summer: [see below]?" Items rotated % Iraq 35 Gas prices 28 Immigration 26 Same-sex marriage 5 Flag burning - Other (vol.) 5 Unsure 1
July 5, 200620 yr Author FDR's proposals as far as the New Deal were a response to the troubled times. A radical step was necessary to get America back on its' feet. Hoover attemped to fix the Depression with a few minor changes, but they didn't work. I don't buy the argument that FDR's motives in the New Deal were anymore than 5-10% political. I believe that he wanted to rescue the country from the depths of the Great Depression. Packing the courts was obviously a blantantly political move, and should have been unconstitutional. Just b/c you like FDR doesnt mean what he did was all righteous in terms of new deal programs. Not to mention most of the New Deal was a mere expansion of Hoover's programs. I think Bush feels these amendments are whats best for the country in this troubled time. Just b/c you dont lke Bush doesnt mean he doesnt feel this is right. Furthermore, why would court pakcing be unconstitutional? Unethical perhaps, but wher ein the constitution does it limit the number of justices? Whoa...what is that based on? And maybe you already explained it, but how is it the same thing when Bush is acting on a policy issue that a clear majority of Americans DO NOT consider to be a pressing matter while FDR was acting to address the Great Depression? You might have a point if it was immigration compared to the New Deal. But not gay marriage or flag burning. I mean how do you justify these actions in light of this poll? FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. June 13-14, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ? 3. "Which one of the following issues do you think should be the top priority for Congress to work on this summer: [see below]?" Items rotated % Iraq 35 Gas prices 28 Immigration 26 Same-sex marriage 5 Flag burning - Other (vol.) 5 Unsure 1 Even the fox newspoll shows no one caring about this.. my favorite quote is that one guy, ill get his name later.. "is this the most important thing congress could be doing right now? Yer darned right it is!" Colbert said something like: We could be rebuilding New Orleans... but if we were to build it out of flags someoen could just come and burn it down. He went on too say, We could be producing a flag based alternative feul.. lol..
July 7, 200620 yr FDR's proposals as far as the New Deal were a response to the troubled times. A radical step was necessary to get America back on its' feet. Hoover attemped to fix the Depression with a few minor changes, but they didn't work. I don't buy the argument that FDR's motives in the New Deal were anymore than 5-10% political. I believe that he wanted to rescue the country from the depths of the Great Depression. Packing the courts was obviously a blantantly political move, and should have been unconstitutional. Just b/c you like FDR doesnt mean what he did was all righteous in terms of new deal programs. Not to mention most of the New Deal was a mere expansion of Hoover's programs. I think Bush feels these amendments are whats best for the country in this troubled time. Just b/c you dont lke Bush doesnt mean he doesnt feel this is right. Furthermore, why would court pakcing be unconstitutional? Unethical perhaps, but wher ein the constitution does it limit the number of justices? Whoa...what is that based on? And maybe you already explained it, but how is it the same thing when Bush is acting on a policy issue that a clear majority of Americans DO NOT consider to be a pressing matter while FDR was acting to address the Great Depression? You might have a point if it was immigration compared to the New Deal. But not gay marriage or flag burning. I mean how do you justify these actions in light of this poll? FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. June 13-14, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ? 3. "Which one of the following issues do you think should be the top priority for Congress to work on this summer: [see below]?" Items rotated % Iraq 35 Gas prices 28 Immigration 26 Same-sex marriage 5 Flag burning - Other (vol.) 5 Unsure 1 The problem is that not everyone goes by the dick Morris political strategy of relying on polls to make policy changes. Bush won an election in which most of the voters wanted something done about gay marriages and as such it is an important issue which he needs to address. Not for political 'gain' only, but to fulfill a campaign promise. By voting for bush people were essentially giving him the ok to ban gay marriage since there was no question he was opposed to it. And as for the hoover thing, I always post from work and dont have the time to research, but thats common knowledge that FDR expanded on Hoover's depression remedies, and thats what eventually became the new deal.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.