Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

The republicans it would seem are intent upon rewriting the constitution. Republican is their name fascism is their game.

0 Replies

The history of our government is punctuated with the struggles between the three branches of government. There is nothing new in this. Perhaps some will recall President Andrew Jackson's statement following the Supreme Courts decision concerning the Bank of the United States - "The Justices have made their decision. now let them enforce it". His point being that he as Chief Executive would not enforce their action. (He ultimately lost ths point.)

There is little doubt that the power of our legislature has been diminished (in my view) by two chief factors;
1. The increasing amplification of Federal law in the rules published and enforced by the bureaucratic structures oif the government. In effect the Congress has abrogated much of its authority to these bureaucracies and to the courts that, in turn interpret their rules.
2. The increasing activism of Federal Courts. Judges are legislating new law for Americans, or at least tearing down long-standing legal structures without any action whatever by legislatures. Many of these actions can be viewed as beneficial to this or that group, however, the pattern of activity does raise serious questions conceerning the present balance of powers within our government.

The concern of some legislators about this matter is undeniably legitamate, though one may argue with the merits of this or that remedy.

I read yesterday that a self-appointed terrorist group had proclaimed a "Truce" with Spain as long as it complies with the recent pronouncements of the newly elected Socialist Party PM regarding Spanish troops in Iraq. So Spain has now accepted a Truce with a non-accountable, non-government twerrorist organization that claims to have murdered 200 of its citizens and injured 1500 more in a series of metro-rail bombings.

I retract my earlier reference to Spain as a second-rate nation. Clearly I was being too generous. If they let this stand, they will truly deserve the contempt of the world - a decidedly third rate nation.

0 Replies

Can we concede that members from both major parties occasionally put forth some very bad ideas, or do I need to trot out some of the left's more creative legislative attempts? This is not "the Republicans" doing anything. This is "some legislators" doing something.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Perhaps some will recall President Andrew Jackson's statement following the Supreme Courts decision concerning the Bank of the United States - "The Justices have made their decision. now let them enforce it".

Sure! It's been a while since the 1830s, but how could I forget that line? I recall it like yesterday! Very Happy

[Good points about judical activism snipped. Suffice it to say I agree with them.]

georgeob1 wrote:

I read yesterday that a self-appointed terrorist group had proclaimed a "Truce" with Spain as long as it complies with the recent pronouncements of the newly elected Socialist Party PM regarding Spanish troops in Iraq. So Spain has now accepted a Truce with a non-accountable, non-government twerrorist organization that claims to have murdered 200 of its citizens and injured 1500 more in a series of metro-rail bombings.

I can't see how you get from "terrorist group had proclaimed a 'Truce'" to "So Spain has now accepted a Truce". Certainly the latter doesn't follow from the former unless Spain said it accepted the "Truce" which you don't claim it has.

0 Replies

Thomas,

I agree, I have seen no explicit acceptance of the rather outrageous proclamation by the terrorist group. However the PM elect has reaffirmed his intent to withdraw, and done so explicitly in reaction to the bombings. The self-serving and boastful announcement from the terrorist group was no surprise. Silence is assent.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

However the PM elect has reaffirmed his intent to withdraw, and done so explicitly in reaction to the bombings.

I do believe that's nonsense. From what I understand the PSOE has campaigned throughout the elections on the issue of withdrawing from Iraq - it may have been the party's single most important selling point. So it has simply stuck to its promises and prior determination. In fact, as I pointed out here before, if the PM had now suddenly decided to stay in Iraq, then it would have cut and tailored its policies on the basis of the terrorists' actions.

0 Replies

Nimh,

Slow down. I said in the bit you quoted that the PM elect "reaffirmed" his previously expresesed intent after the bombing.

Now the group that presumably did the ugly deed has proclaimed a Truce that will last as long as Spain continues its good behavior. The unpleasant new facts of the bombing and the (hardly surprising) statement are powerful new facts. Spain and its new government must now deal with them.

Undoubtedly they will deny that either the bombings or the statements have anything to do with their policy. However, the giant fact that overshadows the whole sorry affair is that the election of the Socialist government was a direct result of the bombing which occurred just a day or so before the election. This changes the situation profoundly. Spain and the Socialist government will be unable to hide behind the notion that there is no connection. They must make some serious adult choices. We shall see what they are made of. So far I am not impressed.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

However the PM elect has reaffirmed his intent to withdraw, and done so explicitly in reaction to the bombings. The self-serving and boastful announcement from the terrorist group was no surprise. Silence is assent.

Okay, hypothetical question: You state somewhere on A2K that 2+2=4. The next day, Osama bin Laden announces he won't shoot you if you stand by that statement. You have two options: a) you respond "I don't give a damn what this guy says, 2+2 is still 4", or b) you say "Whoa, I've got to be a good patriot and take a stand against terrorism. I renounce my old position, and my new position is that 2+2=5."

We'll talk soon about how close this example is to the choice faced by the new Spanish Prime minister, but in this hypothetical example, which option would you choose?

0 Replies

George - <trying to slow down ;-)> - quick question on word choice:

Can you conceive of any way the Spanish government could do something you would consider a "serious, adult choice" that does not involve them complying with your view on the matter?

I.e., is the only "serious, adult choice" here the choice to do what you think is right (stay in Iraq and support a US/UK-led rather than UN-led force there, etc)?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Spain and the Socialist government will be unable to hide behind the notion that there is no connection. They must make some serious adult choices. We shall see what they are made of. So far I am not impressed.

"But wouldn't it be simpler if the US-government simply dissolved the Spanish people and elected another?" ... missquoting Berthold Brecht.

0 Replies

Bush spokesman: We are in Iraq to bring democracy.

Bush spokesman: What the bloody hell are those Spanish politicians doing, following the wishes of their constituents?!

0 Replies

I'd like to slow down and take a moment, while reflecting on george's inimitable characterization of Spain as a third-world country, and remind him of why we're all in this thread.

President Bush spoke at the National Association of Evangelicals convention in Colorado last week and addressed the issues of most vital concern to this organization. According to the Associated Press, those most vital issues are:

1. Outlawing abortion. The "partial birth" abortion ban Bush and his gang of rich old white men signed into law in November was just a first step to making sure the women of America have no access to medically safe abortions.

2. Restricting stem cell research, thereby prolonging the suffering of countless people with illnesses like Alzheimer's and putting scientific researchers in America at an extreme disadvantage.

3. Preventing homosexual persons from getting married.

Yessirree folks, this is compassionate conservatism at its finest.

Of course, at a time when Wall Street is sliding, we're more than 3 million jobs in an unemployment hole, our trade deficit threatens to swamp the economy of the entire planet, not to mention the fact that the Middle East is increasingly unstable and our military is stretched too thin, and not to mention Haiti and North Korea ... you'd think that laundry list of progressive government intervention designed to improve the lives of millions of Americans would not be priorities, even if you agreed with them.

Well, you'd think. Obviously some people don't.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Silence is assent.

Precisely. The Spanish PM should have made an immediate, public announcement that whatever actions he or his country took would in no way be based on the wishes, desires or demands of any terrorist organization. That would clarify the currently muddied waters nicely.

Yet, to my knowledge, no such statement has been forthcoming. What do you make of that fact, and what do you think terrorists are likely to make of it?

0 Replies

I think the terrorists are hoping for Bush to be re-elected.

0 Replies

Quote:

1. Outlawing abortion. The "partial birth" abortion ban Bush and his gang of rich old white men signed into law in November was just a first step to making sure the women of America have no access to medically safe abortions.

By your logic, government regulations relating to how and when life support can be terminated are just the first step towards allowing doctors to kill healthy people at will.

Quote:

2. Restricting stem cell research, thereby prolonging the suffering of countless people with illnesses like Alzheimer's and putting scientific researchers in America at an extreme disadvantage.

If you are aware of a proven treatment for Alzheimers, please share it with the world. You might also want to educate yourself on recent successes with cord-blood stem cells, which have actually been successfully used to treat heart anomalies in trials and have proven just as able to morph into other cell types as embryonic stem cells. Of course, I don't expect to read you cheering this news, since there's really no way to put an anti-Bush spin on it.

Quote:

3. Preventing homosexual persons from getting married.

Perhaps you meant to write: "Preventing the US government and all state governments from using the term "marriage" to mean a civil union between two people of the same gender." There is no law in the US that prevents homosexuals from marrying, so long as they are willing to marry someone of the opposite gender. (This is of course the only right available to any of us under the law.) :wink:

0 Replies

Not just hoping, dys:

Bush Receives al-Qaeda Endorsement

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

I think the terrorists are hoping for Bush to be re-elected.

I think that opinion is far less well-considered than many of yours. :wink:

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

I think the terrorists are hoping for Bush to be re-elected.

Yeah, about like Saddam does.

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
I think the terrorists are hoping for Bush to be re-elected.

Yeah, about like Saddam does.

of course it depends on who is defined as "terrorists"

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Okay, hypothetical question: You state somewhere on A2K that 2+2=4. The next day, Osama bin Laden announces he won't shoot you if you stand by that statement. You have two options: a) you respond "I don't give a damn what this guy says, 2+2 is still 4", or b) you say "Whoa, I've got to be a good patriot and take a stand against terrorism. I renounce my old position, and my new position is that 2+2=5."

We'll talk soon about how close this example is to the choice faced by the new Spanish Prime minister, but in this hypothetical example, which option would you choose?

A very clever, but not analogous hypothetical.

First, I would state that 2+2 remains 4 no matter what I or any others may say. No statement of mine or, for that mater, decision of mine with regard to any future action can change that. I would also recognize that I have a problem with Osama, even if the issue at hand is resolved. He is willing to harm or murder me to advance issues of his own. He is my enemy and, as long as he appears willing to act on his expressed intent, he is a danger to me and mine. I must either accept the consequences, persuade him to change, or kill him. Given the outrageous nature of the threat, persuasion must be considered carefully for both its potential for success and the likely effect of the attempt on his evaluation of the situation and resulting actions. I would not recommend it.

In the real situation at hand the Spanish PM elect does have the real option to make 2+2=5, that is to change, or not change, the policy he expressed before both the election and the bombing. The question here is - has the subsequent bombing and the threat implied in the cynical "Truce" changed the situation enough for the PM elect to reevaluate his previously announced policy? Certainly the situation has changed. The terrorist act was clearly intended to influence the policy of the Spanish government. It has already influenced the outcome of their election. How does the PM elect asses this new graver situation?

We already have his answer. He has reaffirmed his previously announced policy, after the bombing and after the truce announcement. He has in effect stated that the bombing and the cynical announcement have not changed his assessment of the situation. This is assent.

My assessment holds.

0 Replies

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know