America... Spying on Americans

Cyclo, Good question; but we already know that many in the congress are crooks that have taken bribes for their votes. Our democracy under Bush is no democracy. To think many Americans still think we can bring democracy to Iraq are not only ignorant of how democracy works, but do not understand one iota about the history of Iraq and their internal conflicts that goes back hundreds of years.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

That's true. But they might be setting the precedent for consolidated presidential power for a future president with even fewer scruples.

Like Lincoln, Wilson and FDR did?

It's reasonable, I think, to debate this issue as one based on the separation and limits of the powers of the three branches of government.

I would like to think this can be done without the associated hysteria of comparisons with Hitler, warnings of pending dictatorships and screams for impeachment, but apparently it can't.

I've stated on more than one occasion that the ventures of some posters into hysterical realms sorely undercut what might otherwise be valid points, but by responding ad nauseum, and in some instance ad hominem, to these ridiculous claims I have been contributing to and perpetuating pointless exchanges. Time for me to resist the urge and simply provide reasoned responses (peppered with the occasional smart-ass quip) to reasonable posts.

It will be tough. No matter how many times I see some nut running down the street bare-assed naked, I'm going to feel compelled to yell: "Hey you nut! Don't you know you're naked?!"...but I guess me yelling at them isn't going to make them put some clothes on. Of course I'm also not about to sit them down on their bare asses and try to talk sense into them, God knows what else might be wrong with them.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Like Lincoln, Wilson and FDR did?

Yes.

Quote:

I've stated on more than one occasion that the ventures of some posters into hysterical realms sorely undercut what might otherwise be valid points, but by responding ad nauseum, and in some instance ad hominem, to these ridiculous claims I have been contributing to and perpetuating pointless exchanges. Time for me to resist the urge and simply provide reasoned responses (peppered with the occasional smart-ass quip) to reasonable posts.

It will be tough. No matter how many times I see some nut running down the street bare-assed naked, I'm going to feel compelled to yell: "Hey you nut! Don't you know you're naked?!"...but I guess me yelling at them isn't going to make them put some clothes on. Of course I'm also not about to sit them down on their bare asses and try to talk sense into them, God knows what else might be wrong with them.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
31 Similarities Between Hitler and President Bush

Based upon this hog-wash, your postings have now become irrelevant.

Your statement presupposes that you even considered by posts relevant in the first place.

The past is the key to the future; those who fail to learn the lessons are doomed to repeat them.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Like Lincoln, Wilson and FDR did?

Yes.

I don't profess to be a presidential scholar, but I would suggest that after Lincoln that there wasn't another strong Chief Executive in the White House for 9 successive presidencies, until Theodore Roosevelt took office.
Taft followed and him and hardly followed in TR's footsteps.

After Wilson, there were three presidencies until another strong Executive came into office: FDR (the most imperial of them all)

FDR seems to be considered the first of the so-called Modern Presidents and it has been argued that all the ensuing presidents pretty much followed his model, however it seems to me that there was a dramatic fall off in executive power after the Nixon debacle and Ford and Carter can't be considered as strong Executive Presidents.

Predating Lincoln we had Andrew Jackson as a strong executive and there were eight presidencies between him and Lincoln.

Someone better versed in presidential history will undoubtedly point out strong executive presidents I've missed, but with the exception of FDR's presidency, the general trend seems to have been periods of diminished executive power following strong Executive Presidencies.

The periods of diminished executive power seem to be compressed as time has moved on but virtually every political and social cycle has been compressed over the years.

This doesn't prove anything about what will happen after Bush's presidency, but it does suggest that there is a greater likelihood that there will be a shift in power following his presidency rather than further strengthening - particular if Bush increases executive authority further still.

In any case, whoever is elected in 2008 is not going be able to (or want to for that matter) simply assume the authority Bush held, as if executive authority was a crown that could be passed to the next occupant of the White House.

And whittling W down to size isn't going to assure that a W on steroids doesn't follow him. Look who followed James Buchanan, William Taft and Herbert Hoover.

If there is valid reason to allow President Bush the level of executive authority he has assumed, then he should retain it, irrespective of who might follow him in office. If there is not, than he should not.

0 Replies

Finn wrote:
In any case, whoever is elected in 2008 is not going be able to (or want to for that matter) simply assume the authority Bush held, as if executive authority was a crown that could be passed to the next occupant of the White House.

Do you understand anything about precedence? Most of the people arguing for Bush are quoting what happened in the past - some during Clinton's tenure, some from earlier presidents. The laws established by congress is written in the FISA that the Supreme Court has not challenged - yet.

Presidents swear to protect the Constitution; he does not have the power to ignore it.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
31 Similarities Between Hitler and President Bush

Why oh why are so many Americans unable to talk politics without comparing their respective adversaries to Hitler? Can't a politician be evil without rising to the level of someone who murdered millions of people? Whether the adversary in question is Franklin D. Roosevelt or George W. Bush, the only thing these comparisons prove is an appalling failure of the comparer to understand Hitler, or the adversary, or both. I would mention that they also prove a severe lack of taste, but we all know how little of a deterrent that is in a political thread. <sigh>

I see. Germany's claim to fame is having the superlative. When Hitler was alive, the German claim to superiority was being a member of the master race. Now that Hitler is dead, the claim to superiority is having had the most evil leader with the biggest body count. Rolling Eyes

It is appalling that you believe that no one can possibly understand the means that Hitler used to rise to power. It is appalling that you believe that any comparison is futile and proves a "severe lack of taste." It is appalling that you would chastise people for having the audacity to recognize the warning signs that history has taught us to be on our guard against.

Although Bush's present body count isn't as great as Hitler's body count, it escapes your comprehension that there is far more to be learned from the historical rise of a tyrant than the final body tally.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

This doesn't prove anything about what will happen after Bush's presidency, but it does suggest that there is a greater likelihood that there will be a shift in power following his presidency rather than further strengthening - particular if Bush increases executive authority further still.

Well, I hope there will be a shift in power after his presidency, albeit a small one. I like balance (with its necessary wiggle room, of course).

Quote:

In any case, whoever is elected in 2008 is not going be able to (or want to for that matter) simply assume the authority Bush held, as if executive authority was a crown that could be passed to the next occupant of the White House.

It's the precedent that I'm concerned about. Witness the immediate references to past presidential orders in defense of this one. The inference is that it must be ok because nobody checked those presidents at the door. There's no crown, but there are systems set in place that don't reset themselves with each new president.

Quote:

And whittling W down to size isn't going to assure that a W on steroids doesn't follow him. Look who followed James Buchanan, William Taft and Herbert Hoover.

No, there are no guarantees, that's true.

Quote:

If there is valid reason to allow President Bush the level of executive authority he has assumed, then he should retain it, irrespective of who might follow him in office. If there is not, than he should not.

Maybe a valid and permanent reason. If it's not done through legal channels then it cannot be expired when such reasons disappear. But in general I agree. What I think is that people who like Bush are ok with him having expanded authority, but might not be so happy about it if it were someone they didn't quite like as much.

0 Replies

Since Bush uses the justification for his power because of the "war," that power will transfer to the next president - if not for many presidents in the future. The "war on terrorism" sees no end.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

It is appalling that you believe that no one can possibly understand the means that Hitler used to rise to power. It is appalling that you believe that any comparison is futile and proves a "severe lack of taste." It is appalling that you would chastise people for having the audacity to recognize the warning signs that history has taught us to be on our guard against.

I believe none of these things, and the reason I chastised you had nothing to do with warning signs. Don't let that keep you from being appalled if it pleases you. As for myself, it pleases me to take a hard line on Moore's law, and therefore I'm out of this thread. Have fun.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
That's true. But they might be setting the precedent for consolidated presidential power for a future president with even fewer scruples.

Like Lincoln, Wilson and FDR did?

It's reasonable, I think, to debate this issue as one based on the separation and limits of the powers of the three branches of government.

I would like to think this can be done without the associated hysteria of comparisons with Hitler, warnings of pending dictatorships and screams for impeachment, but apparently it can't.

I've stated on more than one occasion that the ventures of some posters into hysterical realms sorely undercut what might otherwise be valid points, but by responding ad nauseum, and in some instance ad hominem, to these ridiculous claims I have been contributing to and perpetuating pointless exchanges. Time for me to resist the urge and simply provide reasoned responses (peppered with the occasional smart-ass quip) to reasonable posts.

It will be tough. No matter how many times I see some nut running down the street bare-assed naked, I'm going to feel compelled to yell: "Hey you nut! Don't you know you're naked?!"...but I guess me yelling at them isn't going to make them put some clothes on. Of course I'm also not about to sit them down on their bare asses and try to talk sense into them, God knows what else might be wrong with them.

How very delusional of you, Finn. In your cocoonish world, you are the sole voice of reason. According to you, anyone who dares to compare the the fear propaganda, the suspension of civil liberties, and the establishment of a dictatorship in Germany after the terrorist attack on the Reichstag to what is currently happening in our country after 9/11 is a nut who running down the street naked. The historical warning signs of unchecked executive power are vivid for those who can see and screaming out to those who can hear. Yet, you bury your head in the sand where your vision and hearing is obscured and declare yourself to be the sane one and everyone else to be insane.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

0 Replies

Bush and his gang had better get busy then if they want to accomplish all the thing Deb says he will. He only has a couple years left.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
That's true. But they might be setting the precedent for consolidated presidential power for a future president with even fewer scruples.

Like Lincoln, Wilson and FDR did?

It's reasonable, I think, to debate this issue as one based on the separation and limits of the powers of the three branches of government.

I would like to think this can be done without the associated hysteria of comparisons with Hitler, warnings of pending dictatorships and screams for impeachment, but apparently it can't.

I've stated on more than one occasion that the ventures of some posters into hysterical realms sorely undercut what might otherwise be valid points, but by responding ad nauseum, and in some instance ad hominem, to these ridiculous claims I have been contributing to and perpetuating pointless exchanges. Time for me to resist the urge and simply provide reasoned responses (peppered with the occasional smart-ass quip) to reasonable posts.

It will be tough. No matter how many times I see some nut running down the street bare-assed naked, I'm going to feel compelled to yell: "Hey you nut! Don't you know you're naked?!"...but I guess me yelling at them isn't going to make them put some clothes on. Of course I'm also not about to sit them down on their bare asses and try to talk sense into them, God knows what else might be wrong with them.

.... According to you, anyone who dares to compare the the fear propaganda, the suspension of civil liberties, and the establishment of a dictatorship in Germany after the terrorist attack on the Reichstag to what is currently happening in our country after 9/11 is a nut who running down the street naked. ...

No ... you're like a nut running down the street naked.

0 Replies

Says the man with no pants.

0 Replies

OMG! OMG! Someone is running down the streets bare assed naked! LOOK:

The events in 1933 can be summarized as follows:

While it is not clear whether the Nazis intentionally set the Reichstag fire in order to create a national crisis, or whether the Nazis simply were opportunistic, the event was used as justification for a sharp curtailment in constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties.

See Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State, February 28, 1933, (decree abrogates constitutional protections).

The Nazis took advantage of the additional Federal police powers to suppress opponents.

It is clear that in other situations, the Nazis did use the tactic of creating a "law and order" crisis so that they could provide a solution which further eroded civil liberties and entrenched their power.

The right-wing Nazis and the left-wing communists were cut from the same cloth -- the point is not that the far right destroyed civil rights. Rather, the point is that a democracy can be destroyed by creating a law-and-order crisis and offering as a 'solution' the abdication of civil liberties and state's rights to a powerful but unaccountable central authority.

See Law for Terminating the Suffering of People and Nation, March 24, 1933, (the enabling law that granted "the leader" unchecked, dictatorial power to protect the people and the country from threats to their security).

0 Replies

FreeDuck, That's a good un. LOL
Debra, You're making more sense than those that would insult you and your posts. Keep up the good work; you're doing fine.

0 Replies

Quote:

The historical warning signs of unchecked executive power are vivid for those who can see and screaming out to those who can hear. Yet, you bury your head in the sand where your vision and hearing is obscured and declare yourself to be the sane one and everyone else to be insane.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

This is what I've thought for a long, long time.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
It is appalling that you believe that no one can possibly understand the means that Hitler used to rise to power. It is appalling that you believe that any comparison is futile and proves a "severe lack of taste." It is appalling that you would chastise people for having the audacity to recognize the warning signs that history has taught us to be on our guard against.

I believe none of these things, and the reason I chastised you had nothing to do with warning signs. Don't let that keep you from being appalled if it pleases you. As for myself, it pleases me to take a hard line on Moore's law, and therefore I'm out of this thread. Have fun.

If the mere mention of the lessons to be learned from history in which Hitler played a major role is enough to cause you indignation and to send you fleeing from the thread, so be it.

0 Replies

Next, Debra_Law will be directing us to examine whatreallyhappened.com with greater thought.

It's the recent increase in the idiocy level that has prompted Thomas' exit. (Well, that or he's just following Godwin's Law.)

0 Replies

Well, many of us on a2k do not want you guys to hog/monopolize the idiocy level of debate like your "running down the street naked" retort to Debra.

0 Replies

America... Spying on Americans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know