if con is opposite of progress does that mean congress is opposite of progress?
457616
hahaha... like it! =)
810163
Yes, that is exactly what it means. Voting another party means you want to get rid of the rubber stamp Congress. I hope people do so, if anyone ever needed to be neutered, it is Bush and his cronies. We will see how it goes and exactly how brainwashed some Republican lackies are today. Keep your fingers crossed.
662133
Congress. Using this logic though, the opposite of Constitution is prostitution. The opposite of protest is contest? The English language is tricky.
6687
There is no difference between an act and a law. Acts of Congress are laws.
923813
none of the above....the president takes the power away from congress...unless its his own party in control
1039177
yeah, go to dictionary.com and look up 'contradiction'
246860
The opposite of progress is regress.
588774
The president is always in the "lime-light." Therefore, he is the one to get blamed. Whereas congress is two seperate bodies of many people.  Plus people like a fall-guy.
281803
Congress is bicameral. There is the House of Representatives and the Senate.
164285
Uh, by definition, no. \n\nThis is like asking "Can I make an illegal right turn if I stay on the couch in my basement." The conditions make the result impossible.
260378
pro= from latin pro (i.e., for)\ncon= from latin contra (i.e., against)\n\npro et contra= pros and cons = for and against
302078
i guess it would be the same.  but what is the opposite of the same?
607066
Congress of USA consists of Senate and the House of Representatives.
93023
No.  In a nation founded on the principles of democratic participation, it is blind allegience is, in fact, actively unpatriotic.  In arguing for the unconditional, unciritical support of government policies one undermines the philosophy of individuality and civic participation on which a democracy is founded.  Last I checked, undermining the founding principles of your country was not an act of patriotism.\n\nAlso, I think that thompj64us has a point that supporting policies that will lead to the destruction of your country is distincly unpatriotic, even when those policies are written by government officials.\n\n_______________\nTo answer Andy's question (which by the way are actually irrelevant):\nNote that the "more or less" does not make sense as there is no point of compairison, and I will ignore it.  Also note that his compulsive use of "Democrats" is idiotic and irrational, as it implies that these acts are acceptable unless the person performing the action is a Democrat.\n\n>>>Is it more or less patriotic for Democrats to oppose the war?\n\nIt is patriotic to oppose a war that is hurting our country.  What is unpatriotic is supporting a war that will devastate international relations, cost the nation billions of dollars, and cost countless American and Iraqi lives.\n\n>>>Is it more or less patriotic for Democrats to bash their country \n>>>on foreign soil?\n\nIn a country that values free speech, it is unpatriotic to sensor the speech of others.  It is not, however, unpatriotic to speak in opposition to policies or practices with which one does not agree.  In a democracy, dissent is never unpatriotic.\n\n>>>Is it more or less patriotic for Democrats to have the same \n>>>talking points as the number 2 Al Queada operative?\n\nWTF?  I have no idea what you're talking about.  However, it is not inherent unpatriotic to have something in common with Al Queada or any other organization or nation.\n\n>>>Is it more or less patriotic for Democrats to hope that \n>>>America loses the war on terror so they can score political points?\n\nI don't think anyone is hoping we will lose the war.  However, I do believe that the harm done by the current administration can and will vastly exceed the cost of the war, and in that regard it may be in our best intrest as a nation to lose the war and elect someone competent.\n\n>>>Want to lose a war? Let a Democrat run it (aka Black HAwk Down)\n\nWant to invade a soveign nation on false pretexts, start a war that costs billions of dollars and countless lives, and find yourself stuck in that war with no exit plan in sight?  Let Bush run the country.  Leaders on both sides have made bad wartime decisions.  The current war in Iraq is certainly among the worst military fiascos our nation has seen, and the travesty is expounded by the fact that the evidence on which the war was started has since been demonstrated to have been deliberately and meticulously forged.\n\n__________\n>>>If the questions are so irrelevant then why take the time to \n>>>answer them? \n\nThey're irrelevant to the question of the patriotism blind allegience, but they're still insulting, and (as per my answers), the implications are incorrect.\n\n>>>The truth hurts doesn't it?\n\nIt might if you believe what you do and actually looked around, but apparently ignoring the turth helps or you'd be writhing in pain.\n\n______________\nAndy, perhaps you should brush up on your political philosophy.  You clearly have no concept of what patriotism even is.  Nor democracy for that matter.\n\nThe exchange of political ideas is a fundimental principle of democracy.  This includes the idea that our government might be making a mess of things.  To oppose this exchange is to oppose democracy. America is a democracy, and thus an enemy of democracy is an enemy of America.  To speak out against tho
369431
Nope. Congress creates holidays, and the Republicans control Congress.
585513
Assuming you mean the US current executive power?\n\nIf so, then simply the executive branch having that power is NOT contrary to the principles of democracy since in theory it is to be checked by the other two branches. (which doesn't seem to be happening as much as it should, but then that's the legistlative branch giving up it's power.)\n\nIF you mean in general - true democracy like Athens, then any executive power is contrary, yes.  (but again, the US is a Democratic Republic, NOT a Democracy.)\n\nNot sure if any of this is what you were asking.
627971
Not with this Congress.