Why do you guys think the country is so divided?

[Dynasty]

2003-2004 was the first time the Republican party had control of all branches of the federal government in 70 years. And, Bush hasn't had any qualms about using that power to further a conservative agenda. It's natural that the Democratic party and liberals in general would be fighting back in a manner which makes it look like there's a massive divide in the country.

[Dr Wogga]

....teach, preachers should preach, reporters should report - but most of them have 1 thing in common - they insert their OPINIONS into their job description. I remember going back to college in my late 30s and had to take a math course. One night, the college prof starts going off on Bush Sr - not that it had a lick to do with statistics. No sir! He had a bully pulpit and was using it. I laugh when people argue there is no liberal bent in the colleges and universities or the main stream media, and not to forget, the God-effing jusges. What a country!! [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Regulator]

Not really, I think we're just seeing the end result of 30-35 years of escalating "one-upsmanship." Ever since the Vietnam era, progressives and traditionalists have been clashing. Ideologists on both sides became more and more entrenched through the 80s and 90s, and now with the media and information overload, people can find websites or radio programs that agree with everything that person thinks. Once you start seeing more and more people who agree with you, the easier it is to start thinking you're right on all this. The eaiser it is to think you're right, the more vehemently you argue with someone who opposes your view. You have all that tension boiling over and then you have the catalyst of the 2000 election fiasco and things just kind of exploded.

[Regulator]

That assessment isn't even really based in reality. Nothing that Democrats are complaining about has required party control of the legislature.

[lastchance]

There were 2 parts to my statement. Judges are the biggest impediment to some of Bush policy, and there is a reason for that.

Whether you think Roe vs. Wade or the upcoming Gay Marriage bill is about judicial oversight, judges trying to legislate from the bench, it is still true that these do stop Bush policy, and with the Republican majority right now, these are some of the biggest areas in dispute right now, and the only thing stopping them are judges.

Do you think that judges aren't a big problem, or do you think that judges are a big problem and that is BS?

If you mean things like interpreting the Patriot Act and striking it down, then I would like to hear how that is judicial oversight.

Saying that the Muslim terrorists/detainees were deprived of Constitutional Rights has to be interpreting the law, correct?

There are many issues where Bush policy contradicts the Constitution as interpreted (law expands, Miranda, Brown vs BOE, etc.) by the Supreme Court over the years. The Supreme Court still has a lot of teeth, and this is the biggest political enemy of the Bush Administration right now, especially considering the Democrats are so toothless.

[Regulator]

If you're going to write something like this, you might want use the term "judicial oversight" correctly. Ironically, the only parts of the Patriot Act that would be struck down (not the whole thing as you cleverly imply) are due to the lack of judicial oversight, meaning that you must have a judge issue a warrant. This whole post is filled with little half-truths and specious examples.

[lastchance]

Oh well, I'm just a lazy bum trying to learn. Let me rephrase the post.

There were 2 parts to my statement. Judges are the biggest impediment to some of Bush policy, and there is a reason for that.

Whether you think Roe vs. Wade or the upcoming Gay Marriage bill (in that Bush is resorting to the only possible way for anyone to override a Supreme Court decision) is about judges trying to legislate from the bench, it is still true that these do stop Bush policy from being implemented, and with the Republican majority right now, these are some of the biggest areas in dispute right now, and the only thing stopping them are judges.

Do you think that judges aren't a big problem, or do you think that judges are a big problem and that is BS?

If you mean things like interpreting the Patriot Act and striking it down, then I would like to hear how that is legislating from the bench. And yes, it's only some very few parts of the Patriot Act.

Saying that the Muslim terrorists/detainees at Guantanamo (sp) Bay were deprived of Constitutional Rights (such as the right to a lawyer, right to due process) has to be interpreting the law, correct?

Point 1: The Bush Administration is in conflict with the judiciary over certain issues listed above.

Point 2: One of the reasons the judiciary was created was to have things like Point 1 happen.

[Taxman]

So now, the judiciary is liberal as well? A common thread amongst the conservative posters here seems to be that if anything opposes the conservative agenda, it must necessarily be anti constitutional and liberally biased. Any God fearin American must be a Republican gosh darn it! It's the American way...

[tolbiny]

Its easier to convince people based upon emotion than intellectual discussion, and much harder to change their minds once its made up. So the most succesfull tactics of both sides is simply to appeal to that emotion, and that is what divides the country.
Most people are sheep, and the shepards are jelously garding their flocks.

[goofball]

people have always disagreed. currently the issues are thinigs people feel very strongly about.

abortion
gay marriage
war
stem cell research
taxes