Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Posted: 4/1/2006 9:18:09 AM EDT
'Its from a liberal source and can't be believed" or some such sentiment will condemn it, but it's an interesting read nonetheless. Interesting take on the "war on terror'.


The Founders Never Imagined a Bush Administration
By Joyce Appleby and Gary Hart

Joyce Appleby is professor emerita of history at UCLA and co-director of the History News Service. Gary Hart is a former U.S. senator and Wirth Chair in the Graduate School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado, Denver.

George W. Bush and his most trusted advisers, Richard B. Cheney and Donald H. Rumsfeld, entered office determined to restore the authority of the presidency. Five years and many decisions later, they've pushed the expansion of presidential power so far that we now confront a constitutional crisis.

Relying on legal opinions from Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Professor John Yoo, then working at the Justice Department, Bush has insisted that there can be no limits to the power of the commander-in-chief in time of war. More recently the president has claimed that laws relating to domestic spying and the torture of detainees do not apply to him. His interpretation has produced a devilish conundrum.

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. No peace treaty can possibly bring an end to the fight against far-flung terrorists. The emergency powers of the president during this "war" can now extend indefinitely, at the pleasure of the president and at great threat to the liberties and rights guaranteed us under the Constitution.

When President Nixon covertly subverted checks and balances 30 years ago during the Vietnam War, Congress passed laws making clear that presidents were not to engage in unconstitutional behavior in the interest of "national security." Then Congress was reacting to violation of Fourth Amendment protections against searches and seizures without judicial warrants establishing "probable cause," attempts to assassinate foreign leaders and surveillance of American citizens.

Now the Iraq war is being used to justify similar abuses. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, providing constitutional means to carry out surveillance, and the Intelligence Identification Protection Act, protecting the identity of undercover intelligence agents, have both been violated by an administration seeking to restore "the legitimate authority of the presidency," as Cheney puts it.

The presidency possesses no power not granted to it under the Constitution. The powers the current administration seeks in its "war on terror" are not granted under the Constitution. Indeed, they are explicitly prohibited by acts of Congress.

The Founding Fathers, who always come to mind when the Constitution is in danger, anticipated just such a possibility. Writing in the Federalist Papers, James Madison defined tyranny as the concentration of powers in one branch of the government.

"The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department," Madison wrote in Federalist 51, "consists in giving to those who administer each department, the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others."

Warming to his subject, Madison continued, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition;" the interest of the office holders must "be connected with the constitutional rights of the place."

Recognizing that he was making an appeal to interest over ideals, he concluded that it "may be a reflection of human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government." "But what," Madison asked, "is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

Madison's solution to the concentration of powers that lead to tyranny relied upon either Congress or the Supreme Court to check the overreaching of a president. In our present crisis, Congress has been supine in the face of the president's grab for unconstitutional, unlimited power, and no case is working its way towards a Supreme Court judgment.

If Madison's reliance on the ambition of other office holders has failed us, we need to look elsewhere. Can what Thomas Jefferson called the "common sense and good judgment of the American people" help us now? In the past, they have been a critical last resort when our leaders endangered the constitutional checks and balances that have made us the world's oldest democracy. But first the public must wake up to this constitutional crisis.

hnn.us/articles/23297.html

Link Posted: 4/1/2006 9:22:30 AM EDT

George W. Bush and his most trusted advisers, Richard B. Cheney and Donald H. Rumsfeld, entered office determined to restore the authority of the presidency. Five years and many decisions later, they've pushed the expansion of presidential power so far that we now confront a constitutional crisis.

Relying on legal opinions from Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Professor John Yoo, then working at the Justice Department, Bush has insisted that there can be no limits to the power of the commander-in-chief in time of war. More recently the president has claimed that laws relating to domestic spying and the torture of detainees do not apply to him. His interpretation has produced a devilish conundrum.

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. No peace treaty can possibly bring an end to the fight against far-flung terrorists. The emergency powers of the president during this "war" can now extend indefinitely, at the pleasure of the president and at great threat to the liberties and rights guaranteed us under the Constitution.



can't find much to disagree with here. I'd rather see terrorism in America than an unlimited Presidency.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 9:24:48 AM EDT
'Its from a liberal source and can't be believed"
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 9:26:32 AM EDT
Sadly, that is right on the money as far as Presidential powers are concerned.

"We're at war, so the President can do whatever he wants! Hes the CinC!"

So the President can grant himself powers now? And where in the Constitution does it grant the President more powers during wartime? And who, according to the Constitution declares a state of war anyways?
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 9:27:50 AM EDT
The FF never imagined that our voting polulace would be so utterly ignorant. THAT is the root of the problems.

CMOS
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 9:29:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By spartacus2002:

George W. Bush and his most trusted advisers, Richard B. Cheney and Donald H. Rumsfeld, entered office determined to restore the authority of the presidency. Five years and many decisions later, they've pushed the expansion of presidential power so far that we now confront a constitutional crisis.

Relying on legal opinions from Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Professor John Yoo, then working at the Justice Department, Bush has insisted that there can be no limits to the power of the commander-in-chief in time of war. More recently the president has claimed that laws relating to domestic spying and the torture of detainees do not apply to him. His interpretation has produced a devilish conundrum.

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. No peace treaty can possibly bring an end to the fight against far-flung terrorists. The emergency powers of the president during this "war" can now extend indefinitely, at the pleasure of the president and at great threat to the liberties and rights guaranteed us under the Constitution.



can't find much to disagree with here. I'd rather see terrorism in America than an unlimited Presidency.



You make that foolish statement based on the fact you believe that BS to be true.

I have seen so many threads that were pure BS and people react with posts as if the thread is the gospel truth.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 9:32:20 AM EDT
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
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 9:32:35 AM EDT
Gary Hart.....


Could have been the President if not for Donna Rice...
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 9:34:48 AM EDT
Go read some quotes and better yet some of the original letters that the Founding Fathers wrote

This current Country and Gov't is not what they envisioned
For one Public Schools were prescribed to teach Christianity
Freedom of Religion didn't mean any Religion, it meant no specific Denomination of Christianity

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

Gun Control
Socialized Medicine
Unrestrained Immigration
Open Borders
Higher Taxes
and on and on

America is not America anymore

Link Posted: 4/1/2006 9:36:10 AM EDT
I wonder what else the founding fathers did not imagine... let's see

did they imagine the decimation caused by an atomic weapon detonated on our soil if some crazy got a hold of one? probably not

did they imagine the use of a chemical or biological agent to kill tens of thousands, again if some crazy got a hold of one? probably not

did they imagine a flying machine that would be intentionally crashed into a couple of hundred story buildings killing thousands of americans? probaly not

did they imagine that the advanced technology that has made our lives so much better would be used against us? probably not.

i actually feel abit sorry for President Bush he has had some really profound catastrophies occur during his administration and I believe he has handled MOST of them admirably . he seems to be trying to prevent the worst from occuring. and it would appear he has been pretty successful. jmho
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 9:37:06 AM EDT
Suddenly liberals care about the thoughts and opinions of the Founding Fathers. Interesting.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 9:41:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
Suddenly liberals care about the thoughts and opinions of the Founding Fathers. Interesting.



It's part of thier plan to look "tough" on foreign policy.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 9:42:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
Suddenly liberals care about the thoughts and opinions of the Founding Fathers. Interesting.



Amazing how that works, isn't it?
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 9:43:07 AM EDT
US constitution says otherwise.

Congress declared war againt AlQueada. President is carrying out the war.



Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Link Posted: 4/1/2006 9:44:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bulldog1967:

Originally Posted By raven:
Suddenly liberals care about the thoughts and opinions of the Founding Fathers. Interesting.



It's part of thier plan to look "tough" on foreign policy.



"Tough and smart! We'll get Osama!" As if we haven't been trying.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 9:47:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/1/2006 9:59:04 AM EDT by drjarhead]

Originally Posted By CMOS:
The FF never imagined that our voting polulace would be so utterly ignorant. THAT is the root of the problems.

CMOS



It sure as hell is.

But let's take a look at this "article".

1] First, consider the source.


2] Just because something is persuasive does not make it either true or correct. Plenty of rhetoric but where is the substance? It is nonexistent.


3] Bush has been an utter disappointment but not for the reasons they give.


4] I fail to see how Presidente Bush has violated the Constitution with regards to either the WOT, domestic spying, or the War in Iraq. Certainly however, the stage has been set for abuses by socialists when they come to power. That power will not be used against the Terrorists, Islam, Envirowhackos, illegal immigrants. It will be used agianst US.


5] Terrorist detainees do not require a trial. They are not "criminals" in the true sense. Requiring trials for known terrorists acting from foreign nations would make us impotent and require that we release virtually all of these, allowing to wreak further and greater havoc on our nation.
That said, one must question the motives of those who encourage that. What is their ultimate goal in that regard? More power, the victory of socialism over the US and a dismantling of our freedoms, even our nation.


6] Nixon was not the goblin socialists make him out to be. He was a human being and likewise flawed but did an overall fine job as President. That is truly what the socialists could not handle. He was almost too successful for them and that made them look pathetically inffectual. Everything he said and did about Viet Nam was correct, after watching the socialists turn the entire war into a giant clusterfuck of enormous proportions for corrupt reasons. The result of their failed strategy was many dead, including young american men, a loss of American power and respect around the world and this nation's first military defeat.
This could not be tolerated and with their socialist media lackeys in lockstep their 5th Column set about destroying conservative America and damaging their own nation to regain power. The result of all that was 4 years of Jimmy Carter and a near collapse of the US. 4 more years of that and we would have been the ones to collapse, not the Soviet Union.



I for one, cannot believe some of you buy into this ridiculously contrived socialist drivel. Socialists are excellent at propaganda -- it is what they do. Conservatives are far too honest to be so disingenuous and manipulative. I am somewhat embarrassed to be here hanging out with such simple minded individuals who still believe that anything written or on television must be the truth. Get a fucking clue people.

You would all do well to be far more independently thinking and discerning when listening to ANYTHING the socialist tells you.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 9:49:55 AM EDT
I also feel bad for Bush
He's had alot on his plate while Bill what screwing around in the WhiteHouse

But to me Borders Language and Culture are huge Ideals to defend

When we lose those it wont make a bit of difference what the hell is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan


Link Posted: 4/1/2006 9:54:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/1/2006 9:55:57 AM EDT by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By Dance:
Terrorism is a method, not an ideology; terrorists are criminals, not warriors. No peace treaty can possibly bring an end to the fight against far-flung terrorists.


Jefferson had the right idea in dealing with "far-flung" Arab terrorists of his day:

"it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them... The [Barbary] states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them... our determination to prefer war in all cases to tribute under any form, and to any people whatever... I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace through the medium of war."
~ Thomas Jefferson,
referring to the Islamic Barbary State pirates to which he sent warships to the Mideast to confront and defeat in 1801.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 10:07:46 AM EDT
Libs refer to the constitution as aliving document when it fits their agenda, and then want to hold to the absolute letter of the document, when it fits their agenda. Typical lib double talk. The one concerning part of it, is as somone else said, hitlery, or another lib with the same unchecked powers. If she is elected, abuse of power will be taken to a level never before seen, ie..socialist/dictatorship.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 10:32:56 AM EDT
When someone points out the future consequences of future presidents having totalitarian power, people would do good to listen.

There is a reason why the founding fathers put in place such things as "right to a fair and open trial for all USA citizens" or a number of the things which this article touches on.

ok, so one american citizen in arrested here in the USA, his rights are stripped, and he is declared an "enemy soldier" (jose padila) it's just one person, no big deal, right? And he's a scum bag anyways, right? He deserves it... so now that he is an enemy combatant, he is elligable for torture, and indefinite detainment without lawyer, charges, or rights. Yea! sure does make a person feel good to get a little payback.

And now the consequences.

Remember, this guy was born in the USA?

Remember the way our court system works? "once it is OK'd one time, it is OK forever"

So, what happens the next time we get a wacko socialist president? You think Hillary will simply let these new presidential powers expire?

Remember guys, in any society, there are people who claim to be patriots, who are in actuality facists. And facism does not always carry the banner of agnostic socialism. IF you recall, hitler was a "christian". The bane of facism is seperation of powers. While I am not calling our current govenment facist... PAY ATTENTION CLASS

We are setting up a system which can be easily turned to facism in the FUTURE.

And like forest gump said "That's all I have to say about that"
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 10:38:59 AM EDT
I bet the Founders never imagined a lot of things. Like idiotic liberal traitors who pull "facts" out of their ass and think they smell like roses.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 10:39:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dance:
'Its from a liberal source and can't be believed" or some such sentiment will condemn it, but it's an interesting read nonetheless. Interesting take on the "war on terror'.


The Founders Never Imagined a Bush Administration
By Joyce Appleby and Gary Hart

Joyce Appleby is professor emerita of history at UCLA and co-director of the History News Service. Gary Hart is a former U.S. senator and Wirth Chair in the Graduate School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado, Denver.

George W. Bush and his most trusted advisers, Richard B. Cheney and Donald H. Rumsfeld, entered office determined to restore the authority of the presidency. Five years and many decisions later, they've pushed the expansion of presidential power so far that we now confront a constitutional crisis.

Relying on legal opinions from Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Professor John Yoo, then working at the Justice Department, Bush has insisted that there can be no limits to the power of the commander-in-chief in time of war. More recently the president has claimed that laws relating to domestic spying and the torture of detainees do not apply to him. His interpretation has produced a devilish conundrum.

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. No peace treaty can possibly bring an end to the fight against far-flung terrorists. The emergency powers of the president during this "war" can now extend indefinitely, at the pleasure of the president and at great threat to the liberties and rights guaranteed us under the Constitution.

When President Nixon covertly subverted checks and balances 30 years ago during the Vietnam War, Congress passed laws making clear that presidents were not to engage in unconstitutional behavior in the interest of "national security." Then Congress was reacting to violation of Fourth Amendment protections against searches and seizures without judicial warrants establishing "probable cause," attempts to assassinate foreign leaders and surveillance of American citizens.

Now the Iraq war is being used to justify similar abuses. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, providing constitutional means to carry out surveillance, and the Intelligence Identification Protection Act, protecting the identity of undercover intelligence agents, have both been violated by an administration seeking to restore "the legitimate authority of the presidency," as Cheney puts it.

The presidency possesses no power not granted to it under the Constitution. The powers the current administration seeks in its "war on terror" are not granted under the Constitution. Indeed, they are explicitly prohibited by acts of Congress.

The Founding Fathers, who always come to mind when the Constitution is in danger, anticipated just such a possibility. Writing in the Federalist Papers, James Madison defined tyranny as the concentration of powers in one branch of the government.

"The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department," Madison wrote in Federalist 51, "consists in giving to those who administer each department, the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others."

Warming to his subject, Madison continued, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition;" the interest of the office holders must "be connected with the constitutional rights of the place."

Recognizing that he was making an appeal to interest over ideals, he concluded that it "may be a reflection of human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government." "But what," Madison asked, "is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

Madison's solution to the concentration of powers that lead to tyranny relied upon either Congress or the Supreme Court to check the overreaching of a president. In our present crisis, Congress has been supine in the face of the president's grab for unconstitutional, unlimited power, and no case is working its way towards a Supreme Court judgment.

If Madison's reliance on the ambition of other office holders has failed us, we need to look elsewhere. Can what Thomas Jefferson called the "common sense and good judgment of the American people" help us now? In the past, they have been a critical last resort when our leaders endangered the constitutional checks and balances that have made us the world's oldest democracy. But first the public must wake up to this constitutional crisis.

hnn.us/articles/23297.html




More liberal tripe.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 10:41:05 AM EDT
You know, GW was a VERY good Texas Governor. Landslide victories and his TV commercials actually had him literally saying, " . . . . . this is a state of responsibility, of being responsibile for yourself and for the shildren you bring in the world. . . . . ". Great commercial.

Someone in DC is giving GW some really shitty advice.


CMOS
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 10:41:43 AM EDT
oh, and I do think that is the first time I have even heard of a liberal socialist/collectivist using a quote from a founding father.

Link Posted: 4/1/2006 10:42:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By santanatwo:
When someone points out the future consequences of future presidents having totalitarian power, people would do good to listen.

There is a reason why the founding fathers put in place such things as "right to a fair and open trial for all USA citizens" or a number of the things which this article touches on.

ok, so one american citizen in arrested here in the USA, his rights are stripped, and he is declared an "enemy soldier" (jose padila) it's just one person, no big deal, right? And he's a scum bag anyways, right? He deserves it... so now that he is an enemy combatant, he is elligable for torture, and indefinite detainment without lawyer, charges, or rights. Yea! sure does make a person feel good to get a little payback.

And now the consequences.

Remember, this guy was born in the USA?

Remember the way our court system works? "once it is OK'd one time, it is OK forever"

So, what happens the next time we get a wacko socialist president? You think Hillary will simply let these new presidential powers expire?

Remember guys, in any society, there are people who claim to be patriots, who are in actuality facists. And facism does not always carry the banner of agnostic socialism. IF you recall, hitler was a "christian". The bane of facism is seperation of powers. While I am not calling our current govenment facist... PAY ATTENTION CLASS

We are setting up a system which can be easily turned to facism in the FUTURE.

And like forest gump said "That's all I have to say about that"



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

ANSWER: NOTHING. Bush's lackeys have argued for and implemented the foundations of all President Hillary would need.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 10:43:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:
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.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 10:44:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Turnkey:
I also feel bad for Bush
He's had alot on his plate while Bill what screwing around in the WhiteHouse

But to me Borders Language and Culture are huge Ideals to defend

When we lose those it wont make a bit of difference what the hell is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan





As I recall, Clinton never had anything move complex or potentially dangerous to deal with than Monica's blue dress.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 10:44:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
I bet the Founders never imagined a lot of things. Like idiotic liberal traitors who pull "facts" out of their ass and think they smell like roses.



Anyone who questions the President is a traitor? You do realize the President is more liberal than the vast majority of people on this board, right?
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 10:46:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By santanatwo:
oh, and I do think that is the first time I have even heard of a liberal socialist/collectivist using a quote from a founding father.




Only when it works to their own propaganda advantage. They really don't believe it, it is only meant to be used as socialist propaganda to divide conservatives and regain power. Marx, Lenin and Mao would have been proud.


Trust not the socialist. The speak honestly only enough to create the illusion that what they are sying MIGHT be the truth and gain politically through deception and lies.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 10:48:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By santanatwo:
oh, and I do think that is the first time I have even heard of a liberal socialist/collectivist using a quote from a founding father.




Only when it works to their own propaganda advantage. They really don't believe it, it is only meant to be used as socialist propaganda to divide conservatives and regain power. Marx, Lenin and Mao would have been proud.


Trust not the socialist. The speak honestly only enough to create the illusion that what they are sying MIGHT be the truth and gain politically through deception and lies.



I'd say the Leftist we have for a president and the leftists in Congress with an "R" by their name are doing that all by themselves.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 10:49:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
I bet the Founders never imagined a lot of things. Like idiotic liberal traitors who pull "facts" out of their ass and think they smell like roses.



Anyone who questions the President is a traitor? You do realize the President is more liberal than the vast majority of people on this board, right?



The President is also a socialist. He only differs from the rest in that he wants this nation's version of socialism to be based on strength, rather than weakness. In some regards I am led to beleive he is merely a socialist plant, meant to undermine the Republican Party and divide conservatives. Divide and conquer. Oldest strategy in the books.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 10:50:20 AM EDT
...
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 10:51:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
I bet the Founders never imagined a lot of things. Like idiotic liberal traitors who pull "facts" out of their ass and think they smell like roses.



Anyone who questions the President is a traitor?



No, that would be you putting words on my keyboard. There's a difference between "questioning the president" and calling him Hitler and a Nazi as the liberal assholes do on a regular basis.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 10:51:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DeltaDelta214:

Originally Posted By Turnkey:
I also feel bad for Bush
He's had alot on his plate while Bill what screwing around in the WhiteHouse

But to me Borders Language and Culture are huge Ideals to defend

When we lose those it wont make a bit of difference what the hell is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan





As I recall, Clinton never had anything move complex or potentially dangerous to deal with than Monica's blue dress.



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.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 10:52:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
I bet the Founders never imagined a lot of things. Like idiotic liberal traitors who pull "facts" out of their ass and think they smell like roses.



Anyone who questions the President is a traitor? You do realize the President is more liberal than the vast majority of people on this board, right?



The President is also a socialist.



Link Posted: 4/1/2006 10:58:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
I bet the Founders never imagined a lot of things. Like idiotic liberal traitors who pull "facts" out of their ass and think they smell like roses.



Anyone who questions the President is a traitor? You do realize the President is more liberal than the vast majority of people on this board, right?



BTW, Bush is more centrist than liberal. I am a proud conservative and I wish Bush was more so. I think his use of presidential power is appropriate. The head judge of the FiSA court thinks Bush is completely justified and has definitely not comitted a crime. What is a crime are liberals that want us to pull out of Iraq and plaster it all over the media to give our enemies a psychological advantage. Why doesn't Europe like us? It's because our own free press has convinced the world that Bush is a liar, he's on a power trip, he's anti immigration; he speaks Texan, he's a cowboy etc.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 11:04:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
I bet the Founders never imagined a lot of things. Like idiotic liberal traitors who pull "facts" out of their ass and think they smell like roses.



Anyone who questions the President is a traitor? You do realize the President is more liberal than the vast majority of people on this board, right?



The President is also a socialist.






explain why he isn't. He spends $$ like a drunken sailor, buying votes with social programs like NCLB, Medicare Prescription Drug, etc.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 11:04:41 AM EDT
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 Clinton was doing all this?
Wouldn't you be a little worried?
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 11:13:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By spartacus2002:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
I bet the Founders never imagined a lot of things. Like idiotic liberal traitors who pull "facts" out of their ass and think they smell like roses.



Anyone who questions the President is a traitor? You do realize the President is more liberal than the vast majority of people on this board, right?



The President is also a socialist.






explain why he isn't. He spends $$ like a drunken sailor, buying votes with social programs like NCLB, Medicare Prescription Drug, etc.



Profligate spending isn't the definition of "socialist."
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 11:19:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/1/2006 11:21:02 AM EDT by drjarhead]

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By spartacus2002:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
I bet the Founders never imagined a lot of things. Like idiotic liberal traitors who pull "facts" out of their ass and think they smell like roses.



Anyone who questions the President is a traitor? You do realize the President is more liberal than the vast majority of people on this board, right?



The President is also a socialist.






explain why he isn't. He spends $$ like a drunken sailor, buying votes with social programs like NCLB, Medicare Prescription Drug, etc.



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.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 11:23:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/1/2006 11:29:44 AM EDT by JumboJim]

Originally Posted By raven:
Suddenly liberals care about the thoughts and opinions of the Founding Fathers. Interesting.



They do only when it fits their agenda.

ETA: I'm too late. That's what I get for not reading the whole thread before posting.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 11:23:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
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."
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 11:32:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Profligate spending isn't the definition of "socialist."



Oh, no? Come to Massachusetts and see the drunken binge of socialist spending here.....
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 11:34:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
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.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 11:41:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By spartacus2002:

What prevents any one of us from being sent off to Gitmo as an 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.





Link Posted: 4/1/2006 11:43:44 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 11:45:00 AM EDT
Taken from your home? What about your freedoms OUSIDE of your home?


CMOS
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 11:45:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/1/2006 11:53:01 AM EDT by Turnkey]

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

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
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 11:46:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mytwocents:
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.

Link Posted: 4/1/2006 11:48:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/1/2006 11:51:06 AM EDT by mytwocents]

We might not be able to change them, but we can keep them from changing us.


We already do its called seperation of church and state. All that sharia shit they do over there doesnt work here. They try honor killing they go to prison etc etc.



Originally Posted By mytwocents:
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.



Hey thanks for making my point for me
You sound like a reactionary far right wing nut with poor social skills
But hey its just a label
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 11:48:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By mytwocents:
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"
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Top Top