posted
Bush also has the power to launch a nuclear attack on Russia. That doesn't mean that there is a significant chance that he will.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah. This is old news. Given that presidents have always technically had the power to declare martial law, what's your worry?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. Not scary in the least, Snowspot. If you were informed on anything other than hysteria, you'd know that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a tough time imagining Bush as Palpatine.
I also have a tough time imagining Cheney as Vader, even though that analogy has been made by Bush himself.
Bush wouldn't be able to kill liberty with thunderous applause because the Delegation of 2000 makes up a majority of Congress.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not to the "thunderous applause" stage. However, I COULD imagine Bush -- or someone like him -- killing liberty to the sound of snarking from various pundits, occasional whining from the opposite side of the aisle, and a few whimpers.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
A truly strong and virtuous president would work to firmly codify the limits of the Executive Branch's powers. Clearly we need it.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I'm looking for a specific exchange of ours before replying on the issue of executive constitutional interpretation. I'm not ignoring you.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: A truly strong and virtuous president would work to firmly codify the limits of the Executive Branch's powers. Clearly we need it.
That would be possible if we also somehow had a magically virtuous congress who would not take advantage of such a precident and attempt to push the envelope even further in their favor.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's been argued that all of the recent Supreme Court nominees have been most strongly alike in their belief in a more powerful Executive branch, the "Unitary Executive" doctrine. Of course the current administration puts the idea in sharper relief, but I rather feel there's a greater danger right now in an unchecked POTUS than an unchecked Congress. Especially given Congress' unwillingness to agree on virtually anything. In most cases, I suspect more power to Congress would simply make the stagnation more ridiculous, whereas a president who feels he can repeatedly and unilaterally dismiss the represenation of his citizenry can do some real harm.
I don't think self-limiting of power is particularly conservative by most current definitions of conservative. Regulation tends to be more of a liberal thing. But whichever flag it falls under, I think right now it is necessary.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A truly strong and virtuous president would work to firmly codify the limits of the Executive Branch's powers. Clearly we need it.
I disagree with you. Our system does not need that, so long as the powers of the other two branches remain so flexible. Our system is hardwired for some chaos in this area.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a President posits the right to use his powers in any way he sees fit as long as a) the nation is in a state of war or insecurity(which it remains in as long as he deems it so) or b) restrictions to that power are in violation of the Constitution (which he reserves the right to determine), the flexibility of the other branches becomes largely irrelevant.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Nope. Not scary in the least, Snowspot. If you were informed on anything other than hysteria, you'd know that.
IF you aren't scared, you haven't been paying enough attention.. and that's all I can say. America is no longer itself, open your eyes... we are deciding what kind of torture to use on people from a country we want to turn into a democracy. WE ARE USING TORTURE TO SPREAD DEMOCRACY..
ok just wanted to clear that up.
The reason we supposedly spread democracy is so dictators can't come into power that go against the will of the people. George Bush is doing exactly the opposite of what the majority of Americans are saying. 70% want out of Iraq.. and yet we stay .. and even expand. So are we even living in a democracy? IRaq didn't even attack us, Al Qaeda wasn't there, how is this any different than any other dictator seizing a country, gathering, torturing, killing enemies and civilians. You're stupid if you don't see this... but then again most of america chooses to ignore it, it's fine if you do to, whatever makes your life feel safe.
posted
Why do you ignore what I say and ask my age? Respond to what I said.
There are people of all ages that are seeing the same things, it's not really relevant... and an obvious attempt to discredit what I say. Is that all you have? "What is your age?" Quite the debate aresenal you've got going there Would you like to know my favorite color too?
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure "How old are you" isn't an inappropriate question for rhetoric that basically states "agree with me, or you're a stupid sheep." Though it may be unfair to other posters who are young but not lacking in maturity.
A limited portion of our intelligence community has used waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and other contraversial methods in order to extract information from known and/or suspected members of terrorist groups. I'm not thrilled about that, and I don't condone it. But my sentiments are shared by many in Congress, and I have reason to hope that- if only with a new President- we may comprehensively ban such tactics once and for all. Democracy, slow as the wheels may grind, appears to be moving to stop the practice.
That's a little different than, say, a secret police force that systematically tortures political prisoners by methods that take no consideration of the prisoner's well being and then kill them and dump their bodies.
Less humane practices were used at Abu Gharib, but we punished those immediately responsible. I wish the inquiries had gone further up the chain of command, but the most important factor is that we made it clear that we did not condone such mistreatment of prisoners.
Civilians have died in Iraq, but the only Americans who intentionally target civilians are arrested and tried.
I have grave questions about the way the Iraqi government is handling its own affairs; there are suggestions that they are indeed making use of torture and political intimidation, and I wish we were doing more to investigate and halt it. Unfortunately, one of the grotesque paradoxes of Iraq is that a government fairly elected by democratic means in Iraq may be one that uses methods we detest... So we're caught again in the position of saying "We want you to do democracy, but specifically, we want democracy done this way."
In short, I'm a long walk from pleased with the way any number of things are going in Iraq, but on my worst day I wouldn't suggest there's no difference between us and "any other dictator seizing a country, gathering, torturing, killing enemies and civilians", because it's simply not true, and such overblown hyperbole has the direct effect of making people dismiss whatever points I'd like to make on the subject as, well, overblown hyperbole.
...And, back to you, Tom. Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not overblown hyperbole.. cause nothing I said was untrue. We are doing all those things. We even have detainment camps in Guantanamo, and since people are tried there and we never hear about it, they are basically concentration camps.. but instead of jews, we have muslim people inside... and there are dozens of stories coming out about people wrongly convicted, then tortured.
I can't make you believe what's happening, go do some research.
I am completely confident in the things I say, I'm sorry that disturbs some of you. I think you are wrong about the US ... and I think your justifications for it's human rights abuses are kind of sad.
This will probably be my last post as instead of people providing evidence... I get... what people THINK is going on, even though all the evidence contradicts that. I think perhaps there are a lot of conservative people on this board.. and that's probably why there are so many opinions like this. They put Bush in office so I can't really see them admitting what they did. They also live in a constant state of fear cause of... *gasp * TERROR!!
This would be an example of overblown hyperbole. Can you think of a few ways in which our camps in Cuba are not basically "concentration camps?" Because I can.
quote:I am completely confident in the things I say...I think perhaps there are a lot of conservative people on this board.. and that's probably why there are so many opinions like this.
You don't need to be a conservative, you realize, to understand that the ability to legally declare martial law is not a power new to the presidency - or to recognize that there are in fact whole orders of magnitude of difference between both our intentions and our actions in Iraq and those of, say, the Nazis.
My guess is that you're relatively new to political conversation, particularly on the Internet. I suggest you Google Godwin's Law, and then give some thought as to why such a law might have evolved.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My suggestion is not as nice as Tom's. Hop in a time machine, fast forward five years to when you're twenty or so, ask yourself, "Self, am I embarrassed to look back on my posts from five years ago?" and see what answer you get.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Snowspot, I could point out exaggerations in your statements, I could point out errors, I could point out again that where mistakes had been made that they are arguably in the process of correction. Or compare the efficacy of snidely, dismissively and inaccurately lecturing the more liberal members of the board with any sort of real action in lobbying. I could even less gently point out the repugnance of comparing wrongful imprisonments with a deliberate attempt to wipe a people off the face of the Earth.
But if you're actually leaving, at this point, I'd hardly want to encourage you to stay.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: But if you're actually leaving, at this point, I'd hardly want to encourage you to stay.
He won't really leave....he still has to spread his OBVIOUS truths among our IGNORANT populace.
Obviously we need it....
Here is a clue.....try using the search function. You will not only lean how to find topics under discussion, you might learn something about what we are discussing as well, as it has been (and will continue to be) discussed vigorously for years now on this very site.
The fact that despite this, and despite our founders own political leanings, the site is still open for business with very little censoring of content...and none of the little bit of censoring has anything to do with politics.
This is almost as funny as when Jay accused Dag of being a liberal.
posted
OK, here is a question for all you Bush haters. What has Presidient Bush done that has affected your personal life negatively, i.e. how has your day to day life been negativly impacted by anything he has done?
Posts: 157 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
6.6 million dead since we invaded Afghanistan. Bush has been responsible for more people killed than jews in WW2.
So is he really not that bad? Or do you just not have a clear picture. There is no real debate if Bush is a bad president.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JLM: OK, here is a question for all you Bush haters. What has Presidient Bush done that has affected your personal life negatively, i.e. how has your day to day life been negativly impacted by anything he has done?
I can think of a few ways that I'd attribute to things Bush has done, but I won't argue the specfics with you. But I can also think of a dozen incidents off the top of my head in history where leaders have led their nations to some type of ruin, all in the promise that nothing would change in their daily lives, or totally without protest because nothing changed for them. Even the stimulus package smacks of what my ancient history prof called "bread and circuses." It's all just mean to keep us content, self involved, and silent.
Freedoms are taken in inches, not miles.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JLM: OK, here is a question for all you Bush haters. What has Presidient Bush done that has affected your personal life negatively, i.e. how has your day to day life been negativly impacted by anything he has done?
It is impossible to know with certainty if another individual, with less emnity towards the previous administration, might have taken the existing intelligence on Al-Qaeda more seriously and perhaps prevented the events of September 11, 2001. If that could be established, the consequences for every American are manifold and obvious.
I can say with much greater certainty that without our current president, my brother-in-law would be in a local college working towards a degree rather than a being a recent divorcee with night terrors and an empty bank account.
There are other effects, but those are the most obvious.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
So, there are six million Muslims imprisoned and heading towards execution because of Bush? No.
There are six million Muslims who have been executed because of Bush? No.
There are six million people who have been targetted for harrassment and/or execution on direct orders from Bush? No.
If you take every person who has been killed, imprisoned or displaced in the various military actions that have occurred since 2001, might you come up with a number in the millions? Yes.
Does that equate those numbers with the Holocaust?...
I believe the term "overblown hyperbole" is coming into vogue, and is likely to remain so for some time at this rate.
But then, you were leaving...
That Tom continues to bother to reply at all in the face of emoticon-based rhetoric is a tribute to his patience.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JLM: OK, here is a question for all you Bush haters. What has Presidient Bush done that has affected your personal life negatively, i.e. how has your day to day life been negativly impacted by anything he has done?
I don't understand why you think that's a relevant question.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
So, there are six million Muslims imprisoned and heading towards execution because of Bush? No.
There are six million Muslims who have been executed because of Bush? No.
There are six million people who have been targetted for harrassment and/or execution on direct orders from Bush? No.
If you take every person who has been killed, imprisoned or displaced in the various military actions that have occurred since 2001, might you come up with a number in the millions? Yes.
Does that equate those numbers with the Holocaust?...
I believe the term "overblown hyperbole" is coming into vogue, and is likely to remain so for some time at this rate.
But then, you were leaving...
That Tom continues to bother to reply at all in the face of emoticon-based rhetoric is a tribute to his patience.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sterling we bear responsibility for all deaths caused either directly or indirectly by our invasion of Afghanistan. If the power vacuum caused by our invasion has led to millions of deaths then we are at least partially responsible even if we have no connection to the deaths beyond that. IIRC, Afghanistan was not a stable country before we invaded so I doubt that our invasion has actually led to six million deaths.
Of course, as you pointed out, there is no relation to the systematic slaughter witnessed in Nazi Germany.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"... my brother-in-law would be in a local college working towards a degree rather than a being a recent divorcee with night terrors and an empty bank account."
I've seen extended deployments destroy more than one marriage.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my many frustrations with the Iraq operation is that it has diverted U.S. attention from Afghanistan and allowed power to fall [back] into the hands of warlords, opium dealers, and the remnant of the Taliban. "We bear a responsibility for the consequences, foreseen and unforeseen, of the invasion of Afghanistan" is a defensible statement and one from which one could conceivably devise a course of action. "Bush has caused more deaths than Hitler" is inaccurate, incendiary, and worse than useless.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was an nice piece of writing about Afghanistan. Only problem I found with it is when I went to click the link that would take me to the sources and data used to write this report I found that no such link exists. Which means I'm going to have to spend a couple of hours looking through site UNESCO and other places to even verify it's true.
Sadly this is something both sides are guilty of. They report news and leave us on our own to verify what they are saying, hoping I'm sure we won't and just take their word for it.
I am frighten that anyone can read something, believe it without question, and use it as "Proof".
Propaganda is heavily used by the the enemies of this country as well as our country itself. It is our duty to demand that reporters and spokes people back up what they tell us and provide the data used to reach their conclusions.
I'm not dismissing the article as false, I'm sure it exists but I've spent the last half hour on the UNESCO website looking for the Data since it was their data used to reach their 6.6 million dead number. It's late I'm tired so I'll leave fact checking and doucumentation up to people linking the information.
And don't do like my History Professors and just hand me more reports reporting on reports. I'm tired of second hand reports and people telling me I'm to "dumb" to understand the raw data. Get me the raw data and I'll decide if I can understand it or not.
Posts: 147 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can say with much greater certainty that without our current president, my brother-in-law would be in a local college working towards a degree rather than a being a recent divorcee with night terrors and an empty bank account.
Obviously, I don't know the situation, but I don't think that placing the blame for the destruction of his marriage on Bush is exactly, completely fair.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's about as fair, perhaps more, as asking how Bush has affected my day-to-day life is relevant.
Without deployment to Iraq, I am quite certain the divorce would not have occurred, at least not as quickly and as early in the marriage as it did. When one party is in Germany and the other is in Iraq for extended periods of time, counselling is impossible.
Bush didn't directly cause the divorce. But it's one in a ludicrously long list of unintended consequences of the invasion, many of which were never contemplated at all.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see Sterling's point. I also can see the difficulties in a soldier getting used to civilian life again. As commander in chief, Bush is semi-responsible for those things. I would like to see the military provide PRIVATE counseling. Their current policy of making that counseling part of your military record is highly detrimental.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Their current policy of making that counseling part of your military record is highly detrimental.
It could prove an interesting tangent, but to some extent isn't making sure counseling is a part of your record necessary?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone who is half way intelligent will not admit to anything bad if they know that it will be part of the decision to promote them or not. While I think psych evaluations should be included in promotional decision, there should also be an option of counseling that has the typical doctor/patient privacy rules applied.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your suggestion doesn't seem to make much sense. Given the option of totally private counseling, do you think anyone would choose anything else?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder how conservatives who are very pro-military can hate Clinton for cutting back on the military, in the wake of the kind of waste along the lines of $600 toilet seats and $900 hammers. Seriously, how would you justify being simultaneously pro-military and anti-government-waste?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For many jobs, there are required psychological tests (such as fireman, cops, anyone with security clearance). I would not drop those required sessions for the military. However, if a soldier wanted additional sessions beyond that requirement, I think those should be easily accessible and private.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JLM: OK, here is a question for all you Bush haters. What has Presidient Bush done that has affected your personal life negatively, i.e. how has your day to day life been negativly impacted by anything he has done?
It is impossible to know with certainty if another individual, with less emnity towards the previous administration, might have taken the existing intelligence on Al-Qaeda more seriously and perhaps prevented the events of September 11, 2001. If that could be established, the consequences for every American are manifold and obvious.
I can say with much greater certainty that without our current president, my brother-in-law would be in a local college working towards a degree rather than a being a recent divorcee with night terrors and an empty bank account.
There are other effects, but those are the most obvious.
I think Causality is more complicated than this... This reminds me of the "Video Games cause the Columbine shootings" argument. If one would take the situation back that far, then why not a step farther and say it's your brother's own fault for enlisting in the military? Or for getting married? It's entirely possible that only his ex-wife knows the REAL reason, and maybe it has nothing to do with any of this.
I would wager that you could take very nearly ANY negative thing that's happened to you and somehow trace a line to Bush.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If one chose to, with a sufficiently loose chain, one could connect virtually any event to any other event. You can argue that losing a ball when you were three caused you to lose your job when you were thirty. That doesn't mean that all associations of cause are equal, or invalid.
Video games did not put guns in Harris and Klebolds' hands. They did not cause the feelings of alienation that caused them to plan the crime. They weren't responsible for their parents' failing to notice their childrens' activities, or any other persons in their lives from noticing the turn their lives were taking. The links between Columbine and video games are vague and highly hypothetical.
My brother-in-law enlisted in the army because he was feeling, as were many, a surge of patriotism after the events of September 11. Had Bush not been in office, those events might have been prevented. Or they might not.
America proceeded to launch an invasion of Afghanistan, which might have also occurred under another President. He might have been called up for duty in that invasion. However, it is also likely that if there had only been that invasion, the American military would not have overextended itself to the point of needing repeated and extended deployments, as our allies have been far more willing to lend their assistance in Afghanistan than Iraq.
Then Iraq happened. Called up for duty, my brother-in-law proposed to his girlfriend. When he returned, they married, armed with the understanding that he was to be stationed in Germany, where they could be together, not Iraq, where they would not. Unfortunately, that proved to be an untruth he was told by those in charge, so his new wife ended up in Germany and he ended up in Iraq.
In the interest of diplomacy, I will simply say that if you think that without Bush in office things would have turned out this way, you are wrong. There isn't a single abstract thread of causality here, there are multiple concrete links.
I mean, yeah, maybe over a year apart, her isolation in a country that didn't speak her language, and his PTSD didn't contribute to divorce. But at a certain point, you're giving yourself permission to believe that the clouds overhead aren't causing the droplets that are falling on you.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that sylvrdragon has consistently demonstrated that the pro-military stance he assumes here goes beyond reason.
"Had Bush not been in office, those events might have been prevented. Or they might not."
According to the wiki, the hijackers all entered the US before Bush took office. They were planning this for a while. I don't think Bush/Cheney have handled it well, but I don't think it would necessarily have been stopped under a different administration. However, that's a little hard to say either way, I agree.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We received intel months before telling us Al Qaeda was going to try to hit the US, Condi ignored it. In fact, here's a video of her testimony, notice how she tries to talk through the man's entire alotted questioning time... so he can't ask more questions.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
Would you like to know my favorite color too?
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
