The Founders Never Imagined a Bush Administration - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The Founders Never Imagined a Bush Administration (Page 2 of 5)

Posted: 4/1/2006 11:51:17 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:

He simply ignored it.
WTC bombing #1? Forget it, it was nothing...just a few criminals....
The USS Cole? Boy that one got center stage....

He only struck out impotently at Bin Laden when he was trying to divert attention from the Lewisnky scandal. And it worked. The media went for it hook, line and sinker. Big fucking surprise.

I'm in Agreement
The Clinton's are scumbags
And let's not forget the War against Bosnia
How about Able Danger ?

My criticism is that we have some serious problems right here in this Country

We have to secure the Border
We have to deal with the Approx 11-30 Million people within our country who are here Illegally
Does Bush really think Vincente Fox is our Friend ?

We have to deal with the substantial Illegal population and the substantial Islamic population in this country

Here's what James Pinkerton said
From an article entitled Let's Be Honest: Multicultaralism Can Kill A Nation
" A Nation allowing such hostile populations to flourish in it's midst is not defending liberty. It is enabling it's own national suicide.
Short of Worldwide War followed by Occupation there's not much the west can do about Muslim Culture in Muslim Lands. That's International Muticulturalism. But on the issue of Intra-National Multiculturalism, there's plenty we can do. We can monitor, we can insist upon political and cultural assimilation and we can impost strict controls on immigration and travel visas-down to zero if need be.
We might not be able to change them, but we can keep them from changing us. [/]

Amen

"The Enemy Within"

We have far greater threats to our freedom and national security right here within our borders than a bunch of goat herders from Afganistan. Let's get real.

The Socialist 5th Column here in the US is by far our greatest threat, the Mexican invasion second. Actually, I consider Islamic terrorists to be rather far down the list but it allows our elected officials and media to divert attention from the true threats.

Posted: 4/1/2006 11:52:17 AM EDT

[#2]

I didnt like Clinton either whats your Point?
And not Like GWB should be considered a good thing

Posted: 4/1/2006 11:53:40 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I bet there could actually be some really intelligent debate if the words liberal or conservative democrat and republican were not allowed on this board. Almost every discusion i have noticed gets stupid right after the labels come out.

Spoken like a true socialist who does not like to gaze into the mirror.

Change the channel, go elsewhere, find a different site to hang out on.

We get it, you don't like GW.
You voice this every chance you get like a broken record.
Thanks for playing "I'm helping the liberal scum"

You're the one helping them bud, your just not smart enought to realize it.

Posted: 4/1/2006 11:55:11 AM EDT

[#4]

President Bush IS a socialist. Witness the massive commitment to federal spending on Katrina aid. Witness the increased foreign aid to Africa. Witness the massive aid to thailand after their tsunami.

Face it, our President is an international socialist. He calls it being a "compassionate conservative."

Its easy to be generous with other people's money.

eta: and this board has really gone off the deep end with Bush apologism when DjJarhead is accused of helping out the left.

Posted: 4/1/2006 11:57:03 AM EDT

[#5]

I bet there could actually be some really intelligent debate if the words liberal or conservative democrat and republican were not allowed on this board. Almost every discusion i have noticed gets stupid right after the labels come out.

Back to what I originally said. ^^^^^

Now answer this
Who did I vote for last election?
Dont know?
Then maybe you should STFU

Posted: 4/1/2006 11:58:08 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
I bet there could actually be some really intelligent debate if the words liberal or conservative democrat and republican were not allowed on this board. Almost every discusion i have noticed gets stupid right after the labels come out.

Back to what I originally said. ^^^^^

Now answer this
Who did I vote for last election?
Dont know?
Then maybe you should STFU

~~Nice manners~~

Never mind he deserved it.

Posted: 4/1/2006 11:58:50 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
I didnt like Clinton either whats your Point?
And not Like GWB should be considered a good thing

I would say my points have been well elucidated and expounded upon enough to be without question.

What is your point?

Posted: 4/1/2006 11:59:58 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
President Bush IS a socialist. Witness the massive commitment to federal spending on Katrina aid. Witness the increased foreign aid to Africa. Witness the massive aid to thailand after their tsunami.

Face it, our President is an international socialist. He calls it being a "compassionate conservative."

Its easy to be generous with other people's money.

eta: and this board has really gone off the deep end with Bush apologism when DjJarhead is accused of helping out the left.

Thank you.
Ridiculous of course.

Posted: 4/1/2006 12:01:25 PM EDT

[#9]

Let's not get this thread locked, okay.

Posted: 4/1/2006 12:06:22 PM EDT

[#10]

Jarhead your the one that started calling me names.

Posted: 4/1/2006 12:07:48 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's not get this thread locked, okay.

Quoted:
I bet there could actually be some really intelligent debate if the words liberal or conservative democrat and republican were not allowed on this board. Almost every discusion i have noticed gets stupid right after the labels come out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr jar haed says
Spoken like a true socialist who does not like to gaze into the mirror.

Change the channel, go elsewhere, find a different site to hang out on.

Jeez, you don't have to be a communist about it.

Posted: 4/1/2006 12:10:27 PM EDT

[#12]

If I'm not mistaken the war in Iraq and the war powers that come with it are not metaphores. Are we shooting metaphorical bullets at metaphorical insurgents placing metaphorical bombs? Or perhaps the premis of the story is concrete bullshit?

I too oppose the notion of granting war powers when fighting an idea (ie War on Terror) but we'll have that conversation and debate when the shooting stops. Right now I support the president having powers to detain subversives and combatants in the area's involved and to conduct intelegence gathering in relation to Al Quida and other terrorist organizations.

Posted: 4/1/2006 12:18:43 PM EDT

[#13]

Does that also apply to domestic peace groups and others not affiliated with terrorist?

FBI counterterrorism investigators are monitoring domestic U.S. advocacy groups engaged in antiwar, environmental, civil rights and other causes, the American Civil Liberties Union charged yesterday as it released new FBI records that it said detail the extent of the activity.

Good point what happens when they come to disarming gun owners?
Will it be OK to to spying on AR15 members?

Oh shit
I just realised i posted an article that has the ACLU in it. I must be a socialist. Me and Rush Limbaugh socialists

Posted: 4/1/2006 12:24:29 PM EDT

[#14]

Rush Limbaugh is just a party hack.

And the ELF and ALF are domestic terrorist groups.

Posted: 4/1/2006 12:26:05 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Does that also apply to domestic peace groups and others not affiliated with terrorist?

FBI counterterrorism investigators are monitoring domestic U.S. advocacy groups engaged in antiwar, environmental, civil rights and other causes, the American Civil Liberties Union charged yesterday as it released new FBI records that it said detail the extent of the activity.

Good point what happens when they come to disarming gun owners?
Will it be OK to to spying on AR15 members?

Oh shit
I just realised i posted an article that has the ACLU in it. I must be a socialist. Me and Rush Limbaugh socialists

Without naming the groups it's alarmist crap. Think ELF doesn't fit the bill of a domestic terror group? If it ever gets to the point that I'm having to bomb buildings and burn down businesses and talk about assinating government agents I'll ASSUME I am being watched.

Posted: 4/1/2006 12:37:59 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Profligate spending isn't the definition of "socialist."

It is certainly a significant portion of what makes someone a socialist however. Especially when that money is used for wealth redistribution and vote buying.

No, it isn't. Words have meanings. The definition of "socialist" isn't "one who uses government money to buy votes."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socialism is a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are controlled by the people. This control may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or it may be indirect, exercised through a State. A primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole.[1][2]

Historically, the ideology of socialism grew up hand in hand with the rise of organized labor, and the socialist political movement has found most of its support among the urban working class and, to a lesser extent, the peasantry. This has led to socialism being strongly associated with the working class and often identifying itself with the interests of workers and the "common people". In many parts of the world, the two are still strongly associated with one another; in other parts, they have become two distinct movements.

Socialists hold that capitalism is an illegitimate economic system that serves the interests of the wealthy and exploits the majority of the population. As such, they wish to replace it completely or at least make substantial modifications to it, in order to create a more just society that would reward hard work, guarantee a certain basic standard of living, and extend economic and cultural opportunities to all.[3]

Socialist theory is diverse, and there is no single body of thought that is universally shared by all socialists. Rather, different socialist ideologies have arrived at similar conclusions by different paths. There are some common themes, however. One such theme is the idea that humans are inherently social beings that require social interaction and the companionship of others in order to survive and develop both physically and mentally[4]. Individuals cannot maintain their humanity if they are separated from the rest of society for too long. Thus, socialists believe that the individual and society are inseparable, and they reject individualistic schools of thought which assert that society is the voluntary creation of individuals who chose to interact with each other.[5]

Marxism is an ideology which has had a powerful influence on socialist thought. For almost a hundred years, from the mid-19th century to the 1940s or 50s, the majority of socialists were Marxists of one kind or another. This has no longer been the case for several decades, but Marxist ideas - particularly notions of class struggle - are common themes across a broad range of modern socialist groups. Marxism itself continues to be a strong current in the broader socialist movement.

Many Marxists, past and present, use the term socialism to refer to the form of society that is supposed to replace capitalism and later develop into communism.

Within the socialist movement, there are several different ideas on how to create a socialist society and economic system, and what form this society would take. As a result, the movement has split into several different and sometimes opposing branches, which are discussed further below.

There is much more of course.
bottom line is that increased strength of the state over our affairs, gradual assertion against rights of property and redistribution of wealth are basic to the goals of the socialist state.

The end result of socialist policy is the adoption of communism according to Marxist theory.

Yes, and President Bush doesn't meet that definition, despite your cut-n-paste skills.

Posted: 4/1/2006 12:48:40 PM EDT

[#17]

a nice piece of sophistry by a socialist with an agenda

Posted: 4/1/2006 12:53:23 PM EDT

[#18]

This isn't new, congress has been granting itself powers outside the Constitution for a long time.
The pres is only trying to catch up

Posted: 4/1/2006 1:01:11 PM EDT

[#19]

The Founders never imagined the rot of Marxism either.

Posted: 4/1/2006 1:07:51 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Jarhead your the one that started calling me names.

No, no, he started it mommy!

Posted: 4/1/2006 1:12:27 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Profligate spending isn't the definition of "socialist."

It is certainly a significant portion of what makes someone a socialist however. Especially when that money is used for wealth redistribution and vote buying.

No, it isn't. Words have meanings. The definition of "socialist" isn't "one who uses government money to buy votes."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socialism is a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are controlled by the people. This control may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or it may be indirect, exercised through a State. A primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole.[1][2]

Historically, the ideology of socialism grew up hand in hand with the rise of organized labor, and the socialist political movement has found most of its support among the urban working class and, to a lesser extent, the peasantry. This has led to socialism being strongly associated with the working class and often identifying itself with the interests of workers and the "common people". In many parts of the world, the two are still strongly associated with one another; in other parts, they have become two distinct movements.

Socialists hold that capitalism is an illegitimate economic system that serves the interests of the wealthy and exploits the majority of the population. As such, they wish to replace it completely or at least make substantial modifications to it, in order to create a more just society that would reward hard work, guarantee a certain basic standard of living, and extend economic and cultural opportunities to all.[3]

Socialist theory is diverse, and there is no single body of thought that is universally shared by all socialists. Rather, different socialist ideologies have arrived at similar conclusions by different paths. There are some common themes, however. One such theme is the idea that humans are inherently social beings that require social interaction and the companionship of others in order to survive and develop both physically and mentally[4]. Individuals cannot maintain their humanity if they are separated from the rest of society for too long. Thus, socialists believe that the individual and society are inseparable, and they reject individualistic schools of thought which assert that society is the voluntary creation of individuals who chose to interact with each other.[5]

Marxism is an ideology which has had a powerful influence on socialist thought. For almost a hundred years, from the mid-19th century to the 1940s or 50s, the majority of socialists were Marxists of one kind or another. This has no longer been the case for several decades, but Marxist ideas - particularly notions of class struggle - are common themes across a broad range of modern socialist groups. Marxism itself continues to be a strong current in the broader socialist movement.

Many Marxists, past and present, use the term socialism to refer to the form of society that is supposed to replace capitalism and later develop into communism.

Within the socialist movement, there are several different ideas on how to create a socialist society and economic system, and what form this society would take. As a result, the movement has split into several different and sometimes opposing branches, which are discussed further below.

There is much more of course.
bottom line is that increased strength of the state over our affairs, gradual assertion against rights of property and redistribution of wealth are basic to the goals of the socialist state.

The end result of socialist policy is the adoption of communism according to Marxist theory.

Yes, and President Bush doesn't meet that definition, despite your cut-n-paste skills.

It is a trend, ongoing long term and for which GWB is the first to jump on the bandwagon. Just because our current gov't is not fully socialist does not make it any less true. For that matter, true socilaism and communism have never existed because the ruling class always seeks to amintain power and wealth for themselves. The true socialist state only exists for us serfs.

Posted: 4/1/2006 1:15:44 PM EDT

[#22]

Without naming the groups it's alarmist crap. Think ELF doesn't fit the bill of a domestic terror group? If it ever gets to the point that I'm having to bomb buildings and burn down businesses and talk about assinating government agents I'll ASSUME I am being watched.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901777.html
here is another were a group in baltimore was distributing pamphlets against the war in Iraq
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spyfiles/index.html

Posted: 4/1/2006 1:16:20 PM EDT

[#23]

"President Bush has given Commander-in-Chief Bush unlimited wartime authority. But the "war on terror" is more a metaphor than a fact. Terrorism is a method, not an ideology; terrorists are criminals, not warriors. "

I'm in disagreement with this...he doesn't have unlimited authority and has been constantly hindered and derailed by the Congress, Senate and protestors.. The terrorist exist and a war with them is fact. Terrorists are warriors = organized and trained and regimented.

The later half of this article could have applied to the last administration, to the courts then and now and to the filibustering liberals; but, they seem exempted from checks and balances and of course, we didn't and don't hear the outcries in those situations.

How quick the liberals are to claim the perfect Constitutional authority when chastising Conservatives and yet, when it comes to controlling their own camp, the Constitution is outdated, needs to be rewritten, provides license in the name of liberty and doesn't really mean what it says, anyway.

Posted: 4/1/2006 1:22:56 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I bet there could actually be some really intelligent debate if the words liberal or conservative democrat and republican were not allowed on this board. Almost every discusion i have noticed gets stupid right after the labels come out.

Back to what I originally said. ^^^^^

Now answer this
Who did I vote for last election?
Dont know?
Then maybe you should STFU

~~Nice manners~~

Never mind he deserved it.

Nice edit. LMAO.

Posted: 4/1/2006 1:23:08 PM EDT

[#25]

ETA

Posted: 4/1/2006 1:28:28 PM EDT

[#26]

The founders never imagined a Lincoln administration.

Posted: 4/1/2006 1:28:44 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Without naming the groups it's alarmist crap. Think ELF doesn't fit the bill of a domestic terror group? If it ever gets to the point that I'm having to bomb buildings and burn down businesses and talk about assinating government agents I'll ASSUME I am being watched.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901777.html
here is another were a group in baltimore was distributing pamphlets against the war in Iraq
www.aclu.org/safefree/spyfiles/index.html

So what's your point?

And learn to use the board code so others don't have to hotlink your posts.

Posted: 4/1/2006 1:30:16 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
It is a trend, ongoing long term and for which GWB is the first to jump on the bandwagon. Just because our current gov't is not fully socialist does not make it any less true. For that matter, true socilaism and communism have never existed because the ruling class always seeks to amintain power and wealth for themselves. The true socialist state only exists for us serfs.

If you want to say that there is a socialist trend in all western governments in the last 20-30 years, I will agree with you wholeheartedly. That's not the same thing as saying "President Bush is a socialist."

Posted: 4/1/2006 1:33:54 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
I'm not so worried about Bush.
I'm worried about the "man on horseback" so to speak.
The man/woman who will abuse this power.
This is a dangerous precendent.

Sit back and ask yourself - how would I feel if ~~Bill~~ Hilary Clinton was doing all this?
Wouldn't you be a little worried?

Posted: 4/1/2006 1:35:54 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It is a trend, ongoing long term and for which GWB is the first to jump on the bandwagon. Just because our current gov't is not fully socialist does not make it any less true. For that matter, true socilaism and communism have never existed because the ruling class always seeks to amintain power and wealth for themselves. The true socialist state only exists for us serfs.

If you want to say that there is a socialist trend in all western governments in the last 20-30 years, I will agree with you wholeheartedly. That's not the same thing as saying "President Bush is a socialist."

And that is where we disagree. Bush is the first Republican President to abandon the ideal of smaller govt and less handout programs while running up a huge debt.

You would draw a distinction between Socialism and Socialism Lite. To me they are one in the same, just a matter of velocity. I will not vote for a slower death.

ETA: For that matter the Clinton Socialists could have only dreamed of doing what Bush has.

Posted: 4/1/2006 1:39:41 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is a trend, ongoing long term and for which GWB is the first to jump on the bandwagon. Just because our current gov't is not fully socialist does not make it any less true. For that matter, true socilaism and communism have never existed because the ruling class always seeks to amintain power and wealth for themselves. The true socialist state only exists for us serfs.

If you want to say that there is a socialist trend in all western governments in the last 20-30 years, I will agree with you wholeheartedly. That's not the same thing as saying "President Bush is a socialist."

And that is where we disagree. Bush is the first Republican President to abandon the ideal of smaller govt and less handout programs while running up a huge debt.

Nonsense. Reagan did that. So did the first President Bush. They talked a good game about reducing the debt, but they also realized the reality of DC politics: you want your defense spending passed, you can't veto the welfare funding. The current President Bush talked about cutting spending and government at first too, but once he needed a shitload of military spending, it all went the way of Budget Politics as Usual.

Posted: 4/1/2006 1:40:49 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:

What prevents any one of us from being sent off to Gitmo as a~~n evil militia member~~ domestic terrorist by President Hillary?

ANSWER: NOTHING.

Nothing?
Really?
Speak for yourself pal.
This is what prevents me from being taken from my home illegally.

i33.photobucket.com/albums/d90/rusticarts/net%20pics/win1.jpg

i33.photobucket.com/albums/d90/rusticarts/net%20pics/CIMG0001.jpg

True; I meant in terms of the legal system.

Posted: 4/1/2006 1:49:56 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is a trend, ongoing long term and for which GWB is the first to jump on the bandwagon. Just because our current gov't is not fully socialist does not make it any less true. For that matter, true socilaism and communism have never existed because the ruling class always seeks to amintain power and wealth for themselves. The true socialist state only exists for us serfs.

If you want to say that there is a socialist trend in all western governments in the last 20-30 years, I will agree with you wholeheartedly. That's not the same thing as saying "President Bush is a socialist."

And that is where we disagree. Bush is the first Republican President to abandon the ideal of smaller govt and less handout programs while running up a huge debt.

Nonsense. Reagan did that. So did the first President Bush. They talked a good game about reducing the debt, but they also realized the reality of DC politics: you want your defense spending passed, you can't veto the welfare funding. The current President Bush talked about cutting spending and government at first too, but once he needed a shitload of military spending, it all went the way of Budget Politics as Usual.

While your overall response is accurate there is a big difference between the Reagan Administration and that of GWB. For starters, Reagan had to deal with a very liberal House. And the excessive spending was due to tax cuts and defense spending, not a new Trillion dollar Entitlement, billions to flush down the Black hole of Africa. Reagan did blow it on immigration though his intentions were good. That is not the case with GWB either.

That said, the trend here is clear and that is bigger govt, more entitlement programs while watching millions invade from the south. It is all a net loss for those who pay the bills--Us.
And while you may hold that all administrations have been socialist to some degree this one reaches new heights while the supposed conservative control the entire federal gov't for the first time in many decades.

Posted: 4/1/2006 1:50:43 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
The founders never imagined a Lincoln administration.

Oh yes they did.

Posted: 4/1/2006 1:51:47 PM EDT

[#35]

And that is where we disagree. Bush is the first Republican President to abandon the ideal of smaller govt and less handout programs while running up a huge debt.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense. Reagan did that. So did the first President Bush. They talked a good game about reducing the debt, but they also realized the reality of DC politics: you want your defense spending passed, you can't veto the welfare funding. The current President Bush talked about cutting spending and government at first too, but once he needed a shitload of military spending, it all went the way of Budget Politics as Usual.

I belive Reagon wanted to get a smaller goverment by starving it. Feed defense spending and cut all social programs until they didt exist any longer. Bushes tax cuts and spending increases will bankrupt the country. Social Programs will be Cut during the reorganisation

Posted: 4/1/2006 2:10:33 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Yes, and President Bush doesn't meet that definition, despite your cut-n-paste skills.

Spending the taxpayers money to pay for housing insurance for the po folks who couldn't afford hurricane insurance in Louisiana during katrina isn't socialism?

Expanding medicare to include prescription drugs isn't socialism?

Increasing foreign aid to africa isn't socialism?

Foreign aid to Mexico isn't socialism?

WAKE UP, MAN!

Posted: 4/1/2006 2:14:45 PM EDT

[#37]

I just can stand his "Ah put it on the tab" spending habits. Always throws money at the problem, thats always the solution. We dont need anymore spoiled little brats in office, we need someone who made it through the ranks on whit, and intelligence. Someone who knows what its like to work for a living and is not used to getting his ass wiped his whole life. If the guy worked a day in his life im almost certain he would not be the spender he is today. That shit to me trumps it all, No work ethic about this guy. If only we had Jeb instead of George.

Posted: 4/1/2006 2:32:05 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
I just can stand his "Ah put it on the tab" spending habits. Always throws money at the problem, thats always the solution. We dont need anymore spoiled little brats in office, we need someone who made it through the ranks on whit, and intelligence. Someone who knows what its like to work for a living and is not used to getting his ass wiped his whole life. If the guy worked a day in his life im almost certain he would not be the spender he is today. That shit to me trumps it all, No work ethic about this guy. If only we had Jeb instead of George.

Well, Clinton made it from a humble beginning for sure. Still a socialist.
He looked good due to the economy of the 90's, driven by the tech boom thanks to Y2K fears and an economy still growing from the Reagan years. In retrospect it is all so obvious.

You are correct about "throwing money at the problem" though. It is what politicans do.

Some crisis occurs, they are knocking each other down trying to see who can be first to show the soccer mommies they have their interest in mind by dumping money into some bureaucratic, bloated program we don't need and which never truly addresses the problem.

Some catastrophe or heinous crime, they try to pass a law to convince us they are on top of the problem when there are already several on the books which apply but simply were not obeyed, not enforced. But hey, this new one which only infringes slightly further into our freedoms will be the answer.

Posted: 4/1/2006 2:40:18 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Yes, and President Bush doesn't meet that definition, despite your cut-n-paste skills.

Spending the taxpayers money to pay for housing insurance for the po folks who couldn't afford hurricane insurance in Louisiana during katrina isn't socialism?
Thats called buying democrat votes

Expanding medicare to include prescription drugs isn't socialism?
Thats called buying senior votes and Paying off your debt to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries

Increasing foreign aid to africa isn't socialism?
Have to be hip with the U2 crowd. Empty promises that will be broke ina year of two dont worry about it

Foreign aid to Mexico isn't socialism?
I think in texas they say "Thats just plain stupid"

WAKE UP, MAN!

Oh yeah Ill bet any one here 1000 bucks I can predict what will happen when Bush gets his guest worker plan apporved. Mexicos nationalised Oil industry will suddenly be up for biddng and management by US oil companys.

his guest worker program was part of his original platform in 2000 anyone remember that?

Posted: 4/1/2006 3:19:06 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Yes, and President Bush doesn't meet that definition, despite your cut-n-paste skills.

Spending the taxpayers money to pay for housing insurance for the po folks who couldn't afford hurricane insurance in Louisiana during katrina isn't socialism?

Expanding medicare to include prescription drugs isn't socialism?

Increasing foreign aid to africa isn't socialism?

Foreign aid to Mexico isn't socialism?

WAKE UP, MAN!

No, none of those are socialism. They aren't good government, but neither are they socialism.

Posted: 4/1/2006 4:06:43 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Yes, and President Bush doesn't meet that definition, despite your cut-n-paste skills.

Spending the taxpayers money to pay for housing insurance for the po folks who couldn't afford hurricane insurance in Louisiana during katrina isn't socialism?

Expanding medicare to include prescription drugs isn't socialism?

Increasing foreign aid to africa isn't socialism?

Foreign aid to Mexico isn't socialism?

WAKE UP, MAN!

No, none of those are socialism. They aren't good government, but neither are they socialism.

They are all examples of the government taking money from one group of people and giving it to another, poorer group of people. They are all redistribution of wealth.

How are they NOT socialism?

Posted: 4/1/2006 4:10:36 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Yes, and President Bush doesn't meet that definition, despite your cut-n-paste skills.

Spending the taxpayers money to pay for housing insurance for the po folks who couldn't afford hurricane insurance in Louisiana during katrina isn't socialism?

Expanding medicare to include prescription drugs isn't socialism?

Increasing foreign aid to africa isn't socialism?

Foreign aid to Mexico isn't socialism?

WAKE UP, MAN!

No, none of those are socialism. They aren't good government, but neither are they socialism.

They are all examples of the government taking money from one group of people and giving it to another, poorer group of people. They are all redistribution of wealth.

How are they NOT socialism?

Rikwriter would argue a Marx/Lenin ticket wasn't socialist if they were the Republican nominees.

Posted: 4/1/2006 4:50:52 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Yes, and President Bush doesn't meet that definition, despite your cut-n-paste skills.

Spending the taxpayers money to pay for housing insurance for the po folks who couldn't afford hurricane insurance in Louisiana during katrina isn't socialism?

Expanding medicare to include prescription drugs isn't socialism?

Increasing foreign aid to africa isn't socialism?

Foreign aid to Mexico isn't socialism?

WAKE UP, MAN!

No, none of those are socialism. They aren't good government, but neither are they socialism.

They are all examples of the government taking money from one group of people and giving it to another, poorer group of people. They are all redistribution of wealth.

How are they NOT socialism?

Because while redistribution of wealth is PART of socialism, it's not the ONLY part. Socialism is an economic system in which the government produces and distributes wealth, one in which there is no competition between producers or distributors of goods. Calling someone who supports welfare programs a socialist is cheapening the term.

Posted: 4/1/2006 4:51:26 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Rikwriter would argue a Marx/Lenin ticket wasn't socialist if they were the Republican nominees.

No, I know what the term means, which you and he, apparently, do not.

Posted: 4/1/2006 4:56:02 PM EDT

[#45]

.

Posted: 4/1/2006 5:01:07 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Yes, and President Bush doesn't meet that definition, despite your cut-n-paste skills.

Spending the taxpayers money to pay for housing insurance for the po folks who couldn't afford hurricane insurance in Louisiana during katrina isn't socialism?

Expanding medicare to include prescription drugs isn't socialism?

Increasing foreign aid to africa isn't socialism?

Foreign aid to Mexico isn't socialism?

WAKE UP, MAN!

No, none of those are socialism. They aren't good government, but neither are they socialism.

They are all examples of the government taking money from one group of people and giving it to another, poorer group of people. They are all redistribution of wealth.

How are they NOT socialism?

Because while redistribution of wealth is PART of socialism, it's not the ONLY part. Socialism is an economic system in which the government produces and distributes wealth, one in which there is no competition between producers or distributors of goods. Calling someone who supports welfare programs a socialist is cheapening the term.

Actually, governments never produce wealth. In any system. In socialism, the government simply confiscates that wealth and redistributes it.

Defending someone who DOES THAT is sticking your head in the sand.

Posted: 4/1/2006 5:06:26 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

The Current Two Party System which constantly has Americans fighting against one another on every issue
Lobbyists and Corporate Giants who influence Policy, and Legislation with Millions if not perhaps Billions in Contributions and God knows how much is Bribes and under the table
Duke Cunningham anyone ? The Clintons ?

The Politicians do not represent us anymore
They tell us what's good for us

yep

Posted: 4/1/2006 6:03:41 PM EDT

[#48]

http://judiciary.senate.gov/print_testimony.cfm?id=1841&wit_id=5201

Statement of Bruce Fein, Deputy Attorney General to Ronald Reagan

03/31/2006 @ 10:47 am
Statement of Bruce Fein Before the Senate Judiciary Committee

Re: S.Res. 398 Relating to the Censure of George W. Bush

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am grateful for the opportunity to express my support for Senate Resolution 398. It would censure President George W. Bush for seeking to cripple the Constitution’s checks and balances and political accountability by secretly authorizing the National Security Agency to spy on American citizens in the United States in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and misleading the public about the secret surveillance program.

Censure of the President for official misconduct is a species of congressional oversight of the Executive Branch including the exposure of mismanagement, corruption or other wrongdoing. Broad congressional oversight jurisdiction was endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957).

Congress regularly writes reports harshly critical of official actions at the conclusion of oversight hearings, for example, the Majority Report of the Iran-contra Joint Committee on Covert Arms Sales to Iran. Censure seems to me at least a first cousin—a collective judgment of Congress about the performance of the President regarding the discharge of official duties, including an obligation to faithfully execute the laws. With regard to S. Res. 398, it is also a statement to the Supreme Court that Congress disputes President Bush's interpretation of FISA and inherent Article II powers. If President Harry Truman could run against a “do nothing “ Congress, I see no reason why Congress cannot reciprocally run against a "doing wrong" president.

In conjunction with President William Jefferson Clinton’s impeachment, which I supported, I then held a different view regarding the propriety or legitimacy of censure. I worried that it would enable Congress to engage in character assassination by condemning a president without an opportunity to present exculpatory evidence, in contrast to the impeachment process. I am now persuaded that my worry was overbroad.

In this case, the President has been given a full opportunity to dispute the censure assertions and the Senate record is open to publish any presidential response, the danger of character assassination is much attenuated. Censure now seems to me a legitimate expression of Congress about the conduct of the President that contributes to enlightened public opinion and debate. With regard to my former unsound view, I can cite President Abraham Lincoln for the proposition that a man who does not grow wiser by the day is a fool, and Justice Robert H. Jackson who explained a similar recantation with the observation that he was astonished that a man of his intelligence had been guilty of such foolishness. See McGrath v. Kristensen, 340 U.S. 162 (1950)(concurring opinion).

Censure should not be employed over every legal disagreement between Congress and the Executive. A president should not be intimidated from good faith interpretations, especially where presidential prerogatives are at stake. But the warrantless surveillance program justifies censure because of the convergence of aggravating factors.

First, President Bush’s intent was to keep the program secret from Congress and to avoid political or legal accountability indefinitely. Secrecy of that sort makes checks and balances a farce. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Popular government without popular information is impossible. Neither Congress nor the American people can question or evaluate a program that is entirely unknown. Mr. Bush could have informed Congress that he was acting outside FISA without disclosing intelligence sources or methods or otherwise alerting terrorists to the need for evasive action.

Since 1978, FISA has informed the world that the United States spies on its enemies, and disclosing the fact of the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program would not have added to the enemy’s knowledge on that score. That explains why the Bush administration continued the program after The New York Times’ publication. Second, President Bush’s refusal to disclose the number of Americans that have been targeted under the surveillance program and the success rate in gathering intelligence useful in thwarting terrorism from Americans targeted makes a congressional assessment of its constitutionality or wisdom impossible. Fourth Amendment reasonableness pivots in part on whether the government is on a fishing expedition hoping that something will turn up based on statistical probabilities, like breaking and entering every home in the United States because a handful of emails might be discovered showing a communication with an Al Qaeda member. Without knowing the general nature and success of the surveillance program, Congress is handicapped in fashioning new legislation or undertaking other appropriate responses.

Third, President Bush’s interpretation of the AUMF is preposterous, not simply wrong. FISA is clearly a constitutional exercise of congressional power both to protect the Bill of Rights and to regulate the power of the President to gather foreign intelligence through either electronic surveillance or physical searches during both war and peace. The necessary and proper clause in Article I authorizes Congress to legislate with regard to all powers of the United States, not simply those of the legislative branch. Congress was emphatic that FISA was intended as the exclusive method of gathering foreign intelligence through electronic surveillance or physical searches. And FISA was enacted when the United States confronted a greater danger to its existence from Soviet nuclear-tipped missiles than it does today from Al Qaeda. The argument that the AUMF was intended an exception to FISA is discredited by the following. Neither any Member of Congress not President Bush even hinted at such an interpretation in the course of its enactment, including a presidential signing statement. The interpretation would inescapably mean that the AUMF also was intended to authorize President Bush to break and enter homes, open mail, torture detainees, or even open internment camps for American citizens in violation of federal statutes in order to gather foreign intelligence. To think Congress would have intended to inflict such a gaping wound on the Bill of Rights by silence is thoroughly implausible. The AUMF argument was concocted years after its enactment. It does not represent a contemporaneous interpretation entitled to deference. Further, numerous provisions of THE PATRIOT ACT would have been superfluous if the AUMF means what President Bush now says it means. Finally, FISA is a specific statute prohibiting the gathering of foreign intelligence in both war and peace except within its terms, whereas the AUMF is silent on the issue of foreign intelligence. The specific customarily trumps the general as a matter of statutory interpretation. FISA is more definitive against the President than the failure of Congress to enact legislation in Youngstown because the former tells the Commander-in-Chief “you cannot act” whereas the latter simply said “we are not conferring this power to seize private businesses.” Fourth, President Bush has evaded judicial review of the legality of the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program by refusing to use its fruits in seeking FISA warrants or in criminal prosecutions. Pending private suits are problematic because of difficult standing questions. The President’s evasion of the courts makes it proper for Congress to step into the breach to express its on view on the legality of the spying program. Fifth, President Bush’s theory of inherent prerogatives under Article II to justify warping a natural interpretation of the AUMF would reduce Congress to an ink blot in the permanent conflict with international terrorism. The President could pick and choose which statutes to obey in gathering foreign intelligence and employing battlefield tactics on the sidewalks of the United States, akin to exercising a line-item veto over FISA and its amendments.

Even if President Bush’s official misconduct regarding the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program would justify censure, the ultimate decision of whether to press forward is political—a type of prosecutorial discretion. The objective should be to restore the Constitution’s checks and balances that President Bush has begun to cripple. If President Bush had shown a serious inclination to collaborate with Congress over joint approaches to defeating international terrorism and gathering foreign intelligence, then censure would be counterproductive. But the President has been intransigent. Censure would not worsen the intransigence, but would facilitate a judgment by the American people during the next election as to whether they approve or disapprove of President Bush’s contempt for the rule of law and constitutional limitations. But an even superior response would be the exercise of the power of the purse to prohibit electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes outside of FISA, which I have previously advocated before this Committee.

Posted: 4/1/2006 8:08:48 PM EDT

[#49]

Actually Censure is probably the best thing for the president. If he doesnt get censured now. He will get impeached in december when the democraps take over congress.

Posted: 4/1/2006 8:13:13 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:
what really scares me is this.

the "war on terror" is not going to be over once bush leaves office. it will last decades, possible indefinitely.

what happens if hitlery of guliani wins in 2008? and therefore get all these new expanded presidential powers? it's something gunowners should be very afraid of.

if she can't get a .50 BMG ban through congress, hitlery could just use her powers to do something like this:

"the .50BMG is a terrorist weapon, and anyone who owns one needs to be monitored 24/7 to be sure they don't give it to terrorists who would want to shoot down the space shuttle"

etc etc

Yup.

OMFG. That is so true, it honestly could really happen. Seriously just sit down and think about it. If she said something like that nearly 2/3 of our countries yuppie and soccer moms would be really anti gun, and they would follow her blindly, just as many of us follow Bush blindly. This could spell the end of our rights to bear arms. Even Bush has pushed in on on our rights with the Patriot Act, just imagine what the Democrats would do. The definition of a "terrorist" could become any gun owing American. Jesus this country is going downhill.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The Founders Never Imagined a Bush Administration (Page 2 of 5)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us