Bush's Power Grab

[taks]

rest assured, my son will not suffer as you have, and he'll be able to distinguish fact from reality in the end.

 

Sorry taks, just had to do it.

oh that's a gotcha for sure.

 

should be "fantasy from reality" or even "opinion from reality." duh.

 

you're right guarddog, people want bush out sooooo badly they leap on everything some ill-informed author writes as if it has some merit or basis in reality. nevermind what we were taught about what the constitution _really_ means, congress should have a right to limit the president, right?

 

those that desire ultimate control would prefer an uneducated society. it's a lot easier to fool people when they don't already know the truth.

 

taks

[Calax]

no actually I was referring to the fact that in a newspaper article recently he wouldn't veto as much as simply say "only I can do that" as he kept expanding the executive branches power and played upon the hysteria and paranoia to override civil liberties.

you clearly said he thinks HE can veto things simply because HE wants to, which is his right as president. your words were:

 

he shoots down certain bills because they infringe on what HE thinks is his right as leader of the executive branch

this is unequivocally ONLY the president's job, and the fact that you don't understand this is the point that i made. anyone past the 6th/7th grade _should_ be able to understand why your statement is senseless. i call it a failure of the US public school system as they are more concerned with teaching some freakish ideal that has nothing to do with reality. i'm sorry you must suffer, though i suppose ignorance is bliss. rest assured, my son will not suffer as you have, and he'll be able to distinguish fact from reality in the end.

Look, I haven't seen the friggen article in 8 months so I forgot the title of the power and used veto as a catch all for it. What I was led to believe by the article was that he wouldn't just veto it he'd be able to completely override congress and make it so that they can't even try to get a 2/3rd majority to push the bill through.

Hell, now he's trying to say that his own office is immune to oversight when it comes to classified intelligence.

it is.

except for an executive order he put in place in 2003 to have better control (by the government) on what is classified and declassified, the executive order makes note that ALL classification/declassifications must be reported to a watchdog group. First Chaney started to ignore it now bush is out and out ignoring it and trying to fend off the watchdog group and now parts of congress in order to preserve what he thinks is his privilege and his alone.

 

I apologize if your so high on your damn horse that you can't help but look down on everything and everyone but realize that politics is not something I study or even really pay attention to other than to make sure I don't have to make an end run to Canada. However it seems that between the US attorney firings and the fact that bush has been pushing for more power for the executive branch he's been dangerously unbalancing the "balance of power" that the framers stove to achieve, meanwhile you keep nitpicking in order to find things wrong with what is essentially a half remembered news story so you can feel righteous and smart for striking down "one of the idiots of this world".

 

remember genius, 2 things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. Except that we're unsure about the universe.

[taks]

Look, I haven't seen the friggen article in 8 months so I forgot the title of the power and used veto as a catch all for it.

then you should not have been discussing it.

 

What I was led to believe by the article was that he wouldn't just veto it he'd be able to completely override congress and make it so that they can't even try to get a 2/3rd majority to push the bill through.

which is my point. you're willing to believe anything anyone writes that makes the case for outing bush simply because you (or those thinking this way) want it so badly. you don't care that there's no merit in the claim and what gets written by these fools is, well, foolish.

 

except for an executive order he put in place in 2003 to have better control (by the government) on what is classified and declassified, the executive order makes note that ALL classification/declassifications must be reported to a watchdog group. First Chaney started to ignore it now bush is out and out ignoring it and trying to fend off the watchdog group and now parts of congress in order to preserve what he thinks is his privilege and his alone.

again, you don't seem to get it. first, bush can override ANY executive order, whether he wrote it, clinton wrote it, or any other president wrote it. this is because executive orders are NOT LAW. this is simple stuff man. don't debate what you don't understand.

 

I apologize if your so high on your damn horse that you can't help but look down on everything and everyone but realize that politics is not something I study or even really pay attention to other than to make sure I don't have to make an end run to Canada.

then why argue points you clearly don't understand. why not simply ask "is this OK?" instead, folks like you run around with some axe to grind because you so dislike bush, but end up looking silly when you try to make immaterial points.

 

However it seems that between the US attorney firings

funny, same thing happened under clinton, did you complain then? they all serve at the pleasure of the president, btw. no brainer.

 

and the fact that bush has been pushing for more power for the executive branch he's been dangerously unbalancing the "balance of power" that the framers stove to achieve, meanwhile you keep nitpicking in order to find things wrong with what is essentially a half remembered news story so you can feel righteous and smart for striking down "one of the idiots of this world".

no, i, and others, keep pointing out that the president only has powers that are granted by the constitution. you on the other hand, have such a poor grasp of that concept that you're willing to believe anything anyone writes that makes the case for ousting bush.

 

remember genius, 2 things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. Except that we're unsure about the universe.

actually, genius, the universe is finite. you're working on proving the latter simply by your unwillingness to even understand the concepts of your own freaking government.

 

taks

[Calax]

remember genius, 2 things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. Except that we're unsure about the universe.

actually, genius, the universe is finite. you're working on proving the latter simply by your unwillingness to even understand the concepts of your own freaking government.

 

taks

is it really my government if it doesn't actually represent me and my wants/needs?

[Meshugger]

The U.S. President has more power than one would guess (at least for the ignorant foreigner in me). It reminds me of the previous Finnish presidents, that in order to appease the Soviet union, they would sack the goverment because of not having a policy that was pro-soviet enough. New referendums were of course held, but a more Soviet-appeasing goverment was elected, since voting otherwise would be redundant.

 

Since the fall of the Iron Curtain, things have changed, and a lot of power has been shifted from the President to the Parliament.

Edited June 25, 2007 by Meshugger

[Azarkon]

Practically speaking, I'm fairly confident that no US administration can ever go too far from the desires of the American people, and the Constitution is simply one of several safeguards against that. The danger, therefore, lies not in the threat of tyranny, but in the threat of demagoguery. People, with whom all power supposedly lie, can be surprisingly easy to persuade, unfortunately - as Hermann Goering once testified to U.S. Army Captain Gustave M. Gilbert. For those who have not heard of the exchange:

 

"Goering: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some

poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that

he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece.

 

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in

England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is

understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who

determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the

people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or

a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

 

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some

say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the

United States only Congress can declare wars.

 

Goering: Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the

bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them

they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of

patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in

any country."

 

Keeping terrible leaders from power is one thing, but the more important task, I've always thought, is to cultivate a population that refuses to be led by terrible leaders. That, unfortunately, seems the more daunting task by far.

Edited June 25, 2007 by Azarkon

[Gorgon]

Or you can just keep them scared and convince them that you are protecting them by chiseling away at their rights.

[taks]

unfortunately, governments naturally do this regardless of political affiliation. it is always "in the interest of the people" and usually the worst offenses are "temporary." somehow, however, the people never benefit, and temporary solutions are never rescinded when the danger has passed.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

Firstly Goering was as mad as gingerbread pantaloons. Secondly, he's talking rubbish, albeit very commonly espoused rubbish. This is for the simple reason that there can be very good reasons to go to war if you believe that your opponent is going to do so in the future and now is an opportunity to hit them while it's still easy. The alternative position, of peace at any price inevitably will result in your only fighting opponents when they believe they are good and ready. The result of such wars can only be expecetd to be disastrous for the defender. At best they will be extremely costly, at worst you will lose them. Losing wars sucks a lot worse than winning them.

 

Back on topic, Bush has certainly been cementing the power of the executive. But he was doing it on environmental controls before 9/11. It is the sad nature of the US constitution to be oppositional, and to thus encourage people to grab for power rather than share it. This is exacerbated by the failures of the two main branches. The executive is seen as partisan, short-termist and megalomaniacal (which it is), and congress is seen as parochial and oblivious to the outside world (which it is).

[metadigital]

Back off-topic, Income Tax was "temporarily" levied on the British population to prepare for the Napoleonic wars, in 1798, by Pitt the Younger to help bail out the government's debt. linkie!

[Walsingham]

To be fair though, Meta. We've been at war with France ever since.

[Azarkon]

Firstly Goering was as mad as gingerbread pantaloons. Secondly, he's talking rubbish, albeit very commonly espoused rubbish. This is for the simple reason that there can be very good reasons to go to war if you believe that your opponent is going to do so in the future and now is an opportunity to hit them while it's still easy. The alternative position, of peace at any price inevitably will result in your only fighting opponents when they believe they are good and ready. The result of such wars can only be expecetd to be disastrous for the defender. At best they will be extremely costly, at worst you will lose them. Losing wars sucks a lot worse than winning them.

 

But that's not what Goering said... He's not saying that war is bad (in fact, given who he is, it's just about the opposite) or that peace at any price is the way to go, just that it's easy for leaders to persuade the people to go to war, no matter the reason. The "voice" of the people cannot be depended on as the sole safeguard against war or the atrocities associated with it, because in the end people are malleable and fall easily to demagoguery.

 

I don't think Goering is at all wrong in this, and what you're talking about is actually one of many arguments politicians commonly use to incite the public to war. Certainly, there are times when war is unavoidable (WW II, for the US, was one such time), but there are also times when war is actually avoidable, but can be argued to be unavoidable in order to serve political interests (WW II, for Germany, was one such time). People must have the ability to make such a distinction for themselves, or be eternally led around by charismatic and self-serving leaders. This is true moreso, perhaps, in a dictatorship than in a democracy - but it is true in a democracy nonetheless.

Edited June 25, 2007 by Azarkon

[Calax]

found what I was referring to earlier, Signing statements.

[Walsingham]

Azarkon, I believe Goering was saying war is bad. Or at least he says there is no point for the people who have to fight it. Which is basically everybody. However, I think you and I agree that there are circumstances where war is worth fighting even for normal people.

 

My question to you is - how is the common man to distinguish between a charismatic leader inciting him to war on good grounds and the same guy inciting him to war on bad grounds?

[Guard Dog]

My question to you is - how is the common man to distinguish between a charismatic leader inciting him to war on good grounds and the same guy inciting him to war on bad grounds?

To quote that great American, Antonin Scalia "I cannot define it but I know it when I see it".

[Azarkon]

My question to you is - how is the common man to distinguish between a charismatic leader inciting him to war on good grounds and the same guy inciting him to war on bad grounds?

 

GD gave a good answer, but the more pratical one may simply be - through education, environment, and good sense learned early in life. Don't get me wrong - effecting such change in society is not easy, but then progress never is. If history is of any inspiration, however, we may hope that future politicians will be less capable of excess than contemporary ones, just as today's leaders are less capable of excess compared to their predecessors in the past. Of course, this trend is never a certainty - and that's why it's so important to keep the debates and discussions alive.

Edited June 30, 2007 by Azarkon

[Calax]

My question to you is - how is the common man to distinguish between a charismatic leader inciting him to war on good grounds and the same guy inciting him to war on bad grounds?

To quote that great American, Antonin Scalia "I cannot define it but I know it when I see it".

...

 

Really? Because some might say that Bush was riding a wave of popularity (similar to having incredible charisma) and sent us to war on what some would consider bad grounds. Now I'm sure you don't consider them bad grounds but I would consider lying to get a license to invade bad grounds.

[Enoch]

To quote that great American, Antonin Scalia "I cannot define it but I know it when I see it".

The "I know it when I see it" line wasn't Scalia. It was Potter Stewart, in his concurrence to Jacobellis v. Ohio, in 1964.

[Guard Dog]

To quote that great American, Antonin Scalia "I cannot define it but I know it when I see it".

The "I know it when I see it" line wasn't Scalia. It was Potter Stewart, in his concurrence to Jacobellis v. Ohio, in 1964.

I stand corrected.

[Sand]

I for one was against the Iraqi war to begin with, it was baseless and I was right. No WMDs, no terrorist ties, nothing in Iraq that warranted us to go to war with them. We should have focused on Afganistan, cut off Al Qaeda escape routes, and eliminated the orginzation but instead Bushie and his band of idiots had us go to Iraq. Iraq has been nothing but a waste of resources and a waste of lives.

 

The last thing we need to give Bush is more power. I just wished Congress sticked to their guns and eliminate the funds for the Iraqi war and force Bush to bring our troops home.

Edited June 30, 2007 by Sand

[Walsingham]

Nothing like recapturing old ground...

 

 

Lying about the reasons for intervention in Iraq was suboptimal. However, the fact that we had to be lied to in order to act is shame on us, not shame on the liars.

[Sand]

Why should we have acted against Iraq in the first place? The threat was contained. It isn't the place of the United States military to be the police force of the world.

[Gorth]

Lying about the reasons for intervention in Iraq was suboptimal. However, the fact that we had to be lied to in order to act is shame on us, not shame on the liars.

I am curious about that reasoning...

 

Which country would you suggest is next in the line of those who needs intervention?

 

North Korea (throwing around nuclear threats) ?

Israel (constant human rights violations and two scores UN sanctions not adhered to) ?

Iran (where even the president is a sick sexual pervert, shaking the hands of women) ?

Columbia (so they can finally spray agent orange on anything with the colour green) ?

Fiji (ruled by a general and the military) ?

Syria (alledgedly hiding all the evidence that the coalition forces couldn't find in Iraq) ?

Canada (Killer of baby seals and threatening danish sovereignty over Hans Island) ?

China (list too long to even start on here) ?

Pakistan (is already in possession of nuclear weapons) ?

Etc.

 

I think the US and UK needs to seriously reconsider the draft if you want to carry this kind if doctrine out

[Walsingham]

I think two countries per generation should be enough. You younger chaps can have Burma and the Sudan. No draft required if the world at large would stop playing games and get on with the business of mopping up complete tinpot dictatorships. Yes, France, I'm looking at YOU.

[Calax]

Lying about the reasons for intervention in Iraq was suboptimal. However, the fact that we had to be lied to in order to act is shame on us, not shame on the liars.

I am curious about that reasoning...

 

Which country would you suggest is next in the line of those who needs intervention?

 

North Korea (throwing around nuclear threats) ?

Israel (constant human rights violations and two scores UN sanctions not adhered to) ?

Iran (where even the president is a sick sexual pervert, shaking the hands of women) ?

Columbia (so they can finally spray agent orange on anything with the colour green) ?

Fiji (ruled by a general and the military) ?

Syria (alledgedly hiding all the evidence that the coalition forces couldn't find in Iraq) ?

Canada (Killer of baby seals and threatening danish sovereignty over Hans Island) ?

China (list too long to even start on here) ?

Pakistan (is already in possession of nuclear weapons) ?

Etc.

 

I think the US and UK needs to seriously reconsider the draft if you want to carry this kind if doctrine out

Didn't you know? Team america is the world police agency... we only get off our fat lazy asses to help those who are either A)rich or B) well publicized...

 

>.>

 

<.<

 

I kid.

Edited July 1, 2007 by Calax