Bush compares Revolutionary, terror wars

[LiberalNation]

What a poor comparison. Bush is grasping at straws. Why does he turn everything into a way to harp on his international policy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070219/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_george_washington;_ylt=Al7H0mM1cT_ZQgmWyQoByZ qyFz4D

MOUNT VERNON, Va. - President Bush honored the 275th birthday of the nation's first president on Monday, likening George Washington's long struggle that gave birth to a nation to the war on global terrorism.

"Today, we're fighting a new war to defend our liberty and our people and our way of life," said Bush, standing in front of Washington's home and above a mostly frozen Potomac River.

"And as we work to advance the cause of freedom around the world, we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone."

Bush chose the national Presidents Day holiday to make his first visit as president to Mount Vernon. He and first lady Laura Bush helped lay a wreath at Washington's tomb, then the president gave a speech from a platform on the bowling green lawn of the estate.

"I feel right at home here. After all, this is the home of the first George W. I thank President Washington for welcoming us today. He doesn't look a day over 275 years old," Bush said to laughter.

Washington was born on Feb. 22, 1732.

"On the field of battle, Washington's forces were facing a mighty empire, and the odds against them were overwhelming. The ragged Continental Army lost more battles than it won, suffered waves of desertions, and stood on the brink of disaster many times. Yet George Washington's calm hand and determination kept the cause of independence and the principles of our Declaration alive," Bush said on a clear but frigid day, speaking to several hundred people.

Mount Vernon is about 16 miles south of the White House. Bush traveled by helicopter.

"In the end, General Washington understood that the Revolutionary War was a test of wills, and his will was unbreakable," said Bush. "After winning the war, Washington did what victorious leaders rarely did at the time. He voluntarily gave up power.

Washington's retirement didn't last long, Bush noted.

"As president, George Washington understood that his decisions would shape the future of our young nation and set precedent. He formed the first Cabinet, appointed the first judges, and issued the first veto."

"Over the centuries, America has succeeded because we have always tried to maintain the decency and the honor of our first president," Bush said.

Before and after Bush's speech, recorded music by the 3rd U.S. Infantry Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps blared through loudspeakers. Organizers of the event said the fife and drum corps had planned to perform live, but decided against it Sunday night because of expected temperatures in the 20s that could have damaged their historic instruments.

[Yurt]

I see, so others wanting to take over this country means nothing to you...

[Dilloduck]

Because that's what politicians do.

[LiberalNation]

I see, so others wanting to take over this country means nothing to you...
The fact being that they can't and this "war" hardly compares to the revolutionary war. If he gona go with the comparison as least use one that's partly legit the cold war and even those comparisons have problems.

[trobinett]

Freedom is fragile and must be protected. To sacrifice it, even as a temporary measure, is to betray it. - Germaine Greer

Your quote sir...............:poke:

[Dilloduck]

The fact being that they can't and this "war" hardly compares to the revolutionary war. If he gona go with the comparison as least use one that's partly legit the cold war and even those comparisons have problems.

They can't ?

[LiberalNation]

Freedom is fragile and must be protected. To sacrifice it, even as a temporary measure, is to betray it. - Germaine Greer

Your quote sir...............:poke:

My quote and Bush actions speak against it as much as the terrorist. A outside terrorist has not taken away any of our freedoms but Bush has and has taken away the "terrorists" with secret prisons, giving them no right to trial but not treating them as POW.

[LiberalNation]

They can't ?
No they can't, not now. All the muslim countries banded together could not invade and defeat us militarily.

[Yurt]

No they can't, not now. All the muslim countries banded together could not invade and defeat us militarily.

And this helps you? People said the same about Hitler.

[LiberalNation]

And this helps you? People said the same about Hitler.
Yeah right, explain to me how a few terrorists with their few mild attacks throughout the world really compares to Hitler who conquered most of Europe and whose army was still on the march.

[Dilloduck]

Yeah right, explain to me how a few terrorists with their few mild attacks throughout the world really compares to Hitler who conquered most of Europe and whose army was still on the march.

Thanks for expressing what I think is the honest POV of Liberals regarding the dangers we are facing. Denial.

[Gaffer]

My quote and Bush actions speak against it as much as the terrorist. A outside terrorist has not taken away any of our freedoms but Bush has and has taken away the "terrorists" with secret prisons, giving them no right to trial but not treating them as POW.

Could you tell me what freedoms Bush has taken away from you or me?

As for locking away terrorist in secret prisons, I'm all for it. They get treated better there then they deserve. I think they need to held till they tell everything they know then covered with pigs blood and shot. But that's just me.

[LiberalNation]

As for locking away terrorist in secret prisons, I'm all for it. They get treated better there then they deserve. I think they need to held till they tell everything they know then covered with pigs blood and shot. But that's just me.

That can be your POV but the quote still applies.

Could you tell me what freedoms Bush has taken away from you or me?
His hebous corpus and privacy violation have been debated for awile. Wiretaps he didn't get warrents for, US citizens he threw in jail and treated as enemy combatents/denied representation and a speedy trial.

[Dilloduck]

That can be your POV but the quote still applies.

His hebous corpus and privacy violation have been debated for awile. Wiretaps he didn't get warrents for, US citizens he threw in jail and treated as enemy combatents/denied representation and a speedy trial.

So in America you worry abou things that haven't hapened to you yet but globally you could care less what our enemies our planning.

[LiberalNation]

I care about terrorist threat but that doesn't mean I have to think it's in the same category of the revolution or WW1/2. It doesn't mean I should be so afraid that I would allow even the potential of my rights being stripped away from me by my own government without protest or comment.

[Dilloduck]

I care about terrorist threat but that doesn't mean I have to think it's in the same category of the revolution or WW1/2. It doesn't mean I should be so afraid that I would allow even the potential of my rights being stripped away from me by my own government without protest or comment.

Let me get this straight---America has to play by rules that no one else is held to and if we get blown all to hell (and yes--a briefcase nuke would do that nicely) it's just too bad ?

[LiberalNation]

Let me get this straight---America has to play by rules that no one else is held to and if we get blown all to hell
If America is gona go round saying how much better she is than those who are not held to that standard then yes. Don't claim to be better than a terrorist if you aren't gona act any better.

[Dilloduck]

If America is gona go round saying how much better she is than those who are not held to that standard then yes. Don't claim to be better than a terrorist if you aren't gona act any better.

If you don't believe that America is the most benevolent country in the world, you need to try living in Iran, North Korea, China -----------.

[LiberalNation]

If you don't believe that America is the most benevolent country in the world, you need to try living in Iran, North Korea, China -----------.
I think we are benevolent when it's suits us and not when it doesn't. We've screwed plenty of people in the world over as well has helped many.

[Gunny]

What a poor comparison. Bush is grasping at straws. Why does he turn everything into a way to harp on his international policy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070219/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_george_washington;_ylt=Al7H0mM1cT_ZQgmWyQoByZ qyFz4D

MOUNT VERNON, Va. - President Bush honored the 275th birthday of the nation's first president on Monday, likening George Washington's long struggle that gave birth to a nation to the war on global terrorism.

"Today, we're fighting a new war to defend our liberty and our people and our way of life," said Bush, standing in front of Washington's home and above a mostly frozen Potomac River.

"And as we work to advance the cause of freedom around the world, we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone."

Bush chose the national Presidents Day holiday to make his first visit as president to Mount Vernon. He and first lady Laura Bush helped lay a wreath at Washington's tomb, then the president gave a speech from a platform on the bowling green lawn of the estate.

"I feel right at home here. After all, this is the home of the first George W. I thank President Washington for welcoming us today. He doesn't look a day over 275 years old," Bush said to laughter.

Washington was born on Feb. 22, 1732.

"On the field of battle, Washington's forces were facing a mighty empire, and the odds against them were overwhelming. The ragged Continental Army lost more battles than it won, suffered waves of desertions, and stood on the brink of disaster many times. Yet George Washington's calm hand and determination kept the cause of independence and the principles of our Declaration alive," Bush said on a clear but frigid day, speaking to several hundred people.

Mount Vernon is about 16 miles south of the White House. Bush traveled by helicopter.

"In the end, General Washington understood that the Revolutionary War was a test of wills, and his will was unbreakable," said Bush. "After winning the war, Washington did what victorious leaders rarely did at the time. He voluntarily gave up power.

Washington's retirement didn't last long, Bush noted.

"As president, George Washington understood that his decisions would shape the future of our young nation and set precedent. He formed the first Cabinet, appointed the first judges, and issued the first veto."

"Over the centuries, America has succeeded because we have always tried to maintain the decency and the honor of our first president," Bush said.

Before and after Bush's speech, recorded music by the 3rd U.S. Infantry Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps blared through loudspeakers. Organizers of the event said the fife and drum corps had planned to perform live, but decided against it Sunday night because of expected temperatures in the 20s that could have damaged their historic instruments.

I don't see that this article supports your allegations.

[Dilloduck]

I think we are benevolent when it's suits us and not when it doesn't. We've screwed plenty of people in the world over as well has helped many.

Possibly as a government but as a people the generosity has poured out honestly many times over. Our enemies don't differentiate. I guess you don't either.

[LiberalNation]

Possibly as a government but as a people the generosity has poured out honestly many times over.
True

Our enemies don't differentiate.
I doubt they do, the people elct the government that makes the policy.

[LiberalNation]

I don't see that this article supports your allegations.
Keep trying then.

[Dilloduck]

True

I doubt they do, the people elct the government that makes the policy.

and you?

[Gunny]

Keep trying then.

The only one "trying" is YOU. Yet another fanciful, unsupported allegation with no other purpose than to insult the President.

'Bout sums it up for me.

[Dilloduck]

What policy did our government make that made us deserving of Islamo-facists declaring war on us and killing us ?

[LiberalNation]

Yet another fanciful, unsupported allegation with no other purpose than to insult the President.
Really he didn't compare the war on terror to the American revolution, he didn't do it during a celebration of George Washington day to trumpet his own foreign policy. It somehow in your mind a great comparison and he’s a genius for thinking it up.

[LiberalNation]

What policy did our government make that made us deserving of Islamo-facists declaring war on us and killing us ?
Never said that. You can't help but piss people off when your playing on the world stage. That's what happened here with the terrorists. They're attacks were not a justified responce to our actions IMO.

[Dilloduck]

Never said that. You can't help but piss people off when your playing on the world stage. That's what happened here with the terrorists. They're attacks were not a justified responce to our actions IMO.

What actions ??? Aren't terrorists capable of diplomacy if they have a beef with America ?

[Gaffer]

All wire tapping was done legally. The only thing done differently was the delay in getting a courts permission for expediency. And the wire taps were effective and broke up a number of terror attacks, including the one plotted in england to hijack planes and crash them into cities. they didn't listen in on random conversations, they checked for specific names and places.

There have been no Americans arrested and shipped off to secret prisons without trial or charges. All the ones being held have been captured on the battlefield and are foriegners. They are not POW's, they are enemy combatants because they were not fighting for a nation but for an ideology which wants to dominate the world. Any Americans held have been caught plotting to kill people like you, and they have been given due process.

[Gunny]

Really he didn't compare the war on terror to the American revolution, he didn't do it during a celebration of George Washington day to trumpet his own foreign policy. It somehow in your mind a great comparison and he’s a genius for thinking it up.

How many times are you going to get burned for putting words in my mouth before you get the idea you aren't anywhere as smart as you think you are, and not intuitive at all if your attempting to guess what I'm thinking is representative of it?

To the contrary, I have never accused Bush of being a genuis.

Likewise, odds are REAL good I will never accuse you of being one either; although, you must think you're a genius for dragging up some non-issue such as this and attempting to politicize it.

[LiberalNation]

Any Americans held have been caught plotting to kill people like you, and they have been given due process.
Jose Padilla was an American and they did not give him access to the courts for quite a long time. Too long to be legit.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406c.asp

[LiberalNation]

you must think you're a genius for dragging up some non-issue such as this and attempting to politicize it.
This is a political issue, I had no need to politicize it. When the prez says something it's open for public opinion, judgement, and discussion. This also happens to be just the type of board where things like this are discussed, it is a news and current event board, he is a public figure who made the news.

[Gunny]

Jose Padilla was an American and they did not give him access to the courts for quite a long time. Too long to be legit.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406c.asp


José Padilla (born October 18, 1970), also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir or Muhajir Abdullah, is a U.S. citizen accused of being a terrorist by the United States government. He was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, and was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President Bush designated him an illegal enemy combatant and transferred him to a military prison, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to the normal protection of U.S. law or the Geneva Conventions. On January 3, 2006, he was transferred to a Miami, Florida jail to face criminal conspiracy charges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(alleged_terrorist)

This Jose Padilla? Guess you need to educate yourself a bit since he falls within the parameters outlined by gaffer.

[Dilloduck]

What actions ??? Aren't terrorists capable of diplomacy if they have a beef with America ?

WHAT ACTIONS ?

[LiberalNation]

This Jose Padilla? Guess you need to educate yourself a bit since he falls within the parameters outlined by gaffer.
Bush does not have the right to declare Americans enemy combatents and lock them up without access to the courts or council. It's unconstitutional to say the least.

[Dilloduck]

Never said that. You can't help but piss people off when your playing on the world stage. That's what happened here with the terrorists. They're attacks were not a justified responce to our actions IMO.

What actions?-------What did America do that made Islamists feel it necessary to declare war on us and start killing us ?

[Gunny]

Bush does not have the right to declare Americans enemy combatents and lock them up without access to the courts or council. It's unconstitutional to say the least.

Yes he does, and it is not unconstitutional. Guess you missed this part:


The order legally justified the detention using the AUMF, which authorized the President to "use all necessary force against . . . such nations, organizations, or persons" and by opining that a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil can be classified an enemy combatant. (This opinion is based on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of ex parte Quirin, a case involving the detention of a group of German-Americans working for Nazi Germany).[3]

[LiberalNation]

Go ask OBL.

[LiberalNation]

Yes he does, and it is not unconstitutional. Guess you missed this part:
Yep I did, revise to say should be unconstitutional. The SC let Japanese Americans be locked away in camps during WW2 without justification and that was legal at the time too. Doesn't mean it was right or stayed that way.

[Dilloduck]

Go ask OBL.

I'm asking you---- !!!!

[Gunny]

Go ask OBL.

This is a response? To what? It is rather intellectually bankrupt for any kind or response to anything asked.

[LiberalNation]

Why, how should I know all the grievances the terrorist had which led them to attack us.

[Gunny]

Yep I did, revise to say should be unconstitutional. The SC let Japanese Americans be locked away in camps during WW2 without justification and that was legal at the time too. Doesn't mean it was right or stayed that way.

How FDR handled the Japanese during WWII is irrelevant and a poor attempt to deflect.

The fact is, you attempted to use an example to support your disagreement with gaffer, when that example actually supported his statement and refuted yours.

[Dilloduck]

Why, how should I know all the grievances the terrorist had which led them to attack us.

I think understanding the entire context of his WOT might be helpful when you complain about how we fight it. I realize that you don't care what people think about but you are sounding more and more like a product of our grand liberal education system.

[LiberalNation]

How FDR handled the Japanese during WWII is irrelevant
No it's really not. Read the constitution and you can easily see why some things should be unconstitutional even tho one SC might rule otherwise at one time, Their rulling can be reversed. And it did prove my point that Bush is arresting US citizens and holding them without a speedy trial.

[Gunny]

No it's really not. Read the constitution and you can easily see why some things should be unconstitutional even tho one SC might rule otherwise at one time, Their rulling can be reversed. And it did prove my point that Bush is arresting US citizens and holding them without a speedy trial.

I have read the Constitution, probably more times than you. How you wish to misinterpret or alter the Consitution to suit your political beliefs isn't really a player here since we are discussing within the context of actual interpretation.

Your point was not proved. Try following the link instead of guessing. He was in court approximately a month after being arrested. Bush had him declared an enemy combatant at that time; which, legally stripped him of his right to a speedy trial. Since he legally has no right to a speedy trial once being declared an enemy combatant, you really have no point.

[Dilloduck]

I have read the Constitution, probably more times than you. How you wish to misinterpret or alter the Consitution to suit your political beliefs isn't really a player here since we are discussing within the context of actual interpretation.

Your point was not proved. Try following the link instead of guessing. He was in court approximately a month after being arrested. Bush had him declared an enemy combatant at that time; which, legally stripped him of his right to a speedy trial. Since he legally has no right to a speedy trial once being declared an enemy combatant, you really have no point.

Well---I think she does---it's the same old "America is evil" one.

[Gunny]

Well---I think she does---it's the same old "America is evil" one.

I guess the conversation is over?:laugh:

[manu1959]

I guess the conversation is over?:laugh:

when facts get in the way of opinions and beliefs that tends to happen

[avatar4321]

Yep I did, revise to say should be unconstitutional. The SC let Japanese Americans be locked away in camps during WW2 without justification and that was legal at the time too. Doesn't mean it was right or stayed that way.

It was hardly without justification. The Supreme Court applied the strict scrutiny stanardard. And it actually passed that standard.

It's easy to look back and say someone was wrong with 20 20 hind sight. but the people felt they had a compelling reason for such extreme actions.

[avatar4321]

No it's really not. Read the constitution and you can easily see why some things should be unconstitutional even tho one SC might rule otherwise at one time, Their rulling can be reversed. And it did prove my point that Bush is arresting US citizens and holding them without a speedy trial.

You mean like Roe v. Wade?

[LiberalNation]

Yep

[Dilloduck]

Why, how should I know all the grievances the terrorist had which led them to attack us.

Why ? So you will know why those who support the WOT do so.
How ? Read it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

[LiberalNation]

All wire tapping was done legally. The only thing done differently was the delay in getting a courts permission for expediency.
Which is illegal. Lily knows more on the subject than I but yes this looked illegal.

[manu1959]

Which is illegal. Lily knows more on the subject than I but yes this looked illegal.

if a court rule it is legal is it?

were us citizens tapped or non-citizens and foriegners?

in a time of war...does the president have the power to do whatever is necessary to protect the american people?

[Gunny]

Which is illegal. Lily knows more on the subject than I but yes this looked illegal.

Incorrect. It is completely legal to monitor calls coming from outside the US. If it was actually illegal, the Dems would have kept up the fuss until Bush was charged with a crime.

Try again.

[LiberalNation]

if a court rule it is legal is it?
I wana see that ruling, they must not of thought they had a good case for it because they cut it out.


were us citizens tapped or non-citizens and foriegners?
All people have the same rights on US soil.


in a time of war...does the president have the power to do whatever is necessary to protect the american people
No.

[Gunny]

I wana see that ruling, they must not of thought they had a good case for it because they cut it out.


All people have the same rights on US soil.


No.

Yes he does.

[LiberalNation]

Yes he does.
So he could kill all who opposed him unfettered if he did it in the name of protecting the American people. Bullshit.

[Gunny]

So he could kill all who opposed him unfettered if he did it in the name of protecting the American people. Bullshit.

Bullshit would be your argument. Need another history lesson? Perhaps you don't recall that Congress authorized the President, as Commander in Cheif, to do exactly that.

[LiberalNation]

Yeah lets kill off all American who disagree with the prez, a fascist state is a great idea.

[Gunny]

Yeah lets kill off all American who disagree with the prez, a fascist state is a great idea.

Besides YOU, who has suggested doing such a thing? If you weren't such a know-it-all smartass, you would find out that many conservatives on this board disagree with President Bush on quite a few issues.

Your problem is you keep arguing left-wingnut talking points easily refutable by fact.

[Dilloduck]

Yeah lets kill off all American who disagree with the prez, a fascist state is a great idea.

Unfortunately they do this in some countries but no one has suggested that it be done here. Why are you determined to demonize the GOP for criticizing it's opponents. Isn't that what politics is all about in America these days ?

[manu1959]

Yeah lets kill off all American who disagree with the prez, a fascist state is a great idea.

Yeah lets kill off all American who agree with the prez, a fascist state is a great idea.

[darin]

Yeah lets kill off all American who disagree with the prez, a fascist state is a great idea.

When you get un-banned, maybe you'll see what a fallacy the above comment is.

[5stringJeff]

Yeah lets kill off all American who disagree with the prez, a fascist state is a great idea.

No one has ever seriously said that. You are setting up a real straw man argument.

[Hagbard Celine]

No one has ever seriously said that. You are setting up a real straw man argument.

I've seen Pale Rider call for the extermination of all homos and liberals on USMC and he's a moderator! I called him a "nazi" and I got banned.

[Gunny]

I've seen Pale Rider call for the extermination of all homos and liberals on USMC and he's a moderator! I called him a "nazi" and I got banned.

Not the point. The point is, LiberalNation has jumped from one lefty talking point to another as fast as she gets hammered for posting it. Her reply to Bush having the authority to do what is necessary to protect the US and its citizens was:


Yeah lets kill off all American who disagree with the prez, a fascist state is a great idea.

No one but SHE suggested such a thing. Quite a different scenario than the one you are presenting.

[LiberalNation]

No one but SHE suggested such a thing. Quite a different scenario than the one you are presenting.

I pointed out what giving a president the power to do absolutly anything if he says it's in the name of protecting the country will and could lead to. A president who justifies blatently wrong things in the name of protecting us.

[Dilloduck]

I pointed out what giving a president the power to do absolutly anything if he says it's in the name of protecting the country will and could lead to. A president who justifies blatently wrong things in the name of protecting us.

Then why did congress do it ?

[LiberalNation]

Then why did congress do it ?

because it was full of republicans loyal to the party and they didn't want to seem weak on terror thinking it would be bad for the next election. They kind of miscaculated on that one.

[Dilloduck]

because it was full of republicans loyal to the party and they didn't want to seem weak on terror thinking it would be bad for the next election. They kind of miscaculated on that one.

So the democrats relly didn't mean it----they just wanted to look good?

[LiberalNation]

So the democrats relly didn't mean it----they just wanted to look good?

Yes all politicians main goal is to look good and when elections.

[Dilloduck]

Yes all politicians main goal is to look good and when elections.

Then how do you explain Bush sticking to his plan knowing full well that people either don't understand it, don't like or want to see him be even MORE agressive PRIOR to the last presidential election?

[LiberalNation]

Then how do you explain Bush sticking to his plan knowing full well that people either don't understand it, don't like or want to see him be even MORE agressive PRIOR to the last presidential election?
Bush isn't up for re election again and has always been like that. That's why his approval ratings are in the toilet. He believes what he believes and wont listen to anybody else.

[avatar4321]

Bush isn't up for re election again and has always been like that. That's why his approval ratings are in the toilet. He believes what he believes and wont listen to anybody else.

That is exactly what we should have in a leader. One who makes decisions for whats best in this nation based upon principles rather than polls.

[LiberalNation]

Not if the leader happens to be "wrong" and continuously makes some very big mistakes for the country he is leading.

[5stringJeff]

Not if the leader happens to be "wrong" and continuously makes some very big mistakes for the country he is leading.

That's why we have elections every four years - to determine whether we want to keep said leader or get a new one. In this case, the majority of Americans (actually, the majority of the Electoral College) voted to kepp him.

[avatar4321]

Not if the leader happens to be "wrong" and continuously makes some very big mistakes for the country he is leading.

Which is why we have terms, term limits, and elections.

[LiberalNation]

True but it doesn't make said person a good leader just because he has the quality mentioned.

[avatar4321]

True but it doesn't make said person a good leader just because he has the quality mentioned.

whether he is good or not is debatable but he is leading. you cant lead people when you change positions with every whim of the public. Especiallly when polls can lie about what the public is wanting.

[Gunny]

I pointed out what giving a president the power to do absolutly anything if he says it's in the name of protecting the country will and could lead to. A president who justifies blatently wrong things in the name of protecting us.

You "pointed it out" by stating:


Yeah lets kill off all American who disagree with the prez, a fascist state is a great idea.

Now you are saying giving the President such power can and will lead to such.

Please provide evidence to support your theory.

[Gunny]

because it was full of republicans loyal to the party and they didn't want to seem weak on terror thinking it would be bad for the next election. They kind of miscaculated on that one.

Bullshit. Everyone who deserves to be called an American wanted some payback for 9/11. Those that didn't are pussies, doomed to exist at the whim of others.

[Gunny]

Not if the leader happens to be "wrong" and continuously makes some very big mistakes for the country he is leading.

Yeah, but he seems to be "continually wrong" only to leftwingnuts. To rational-thinking people, he's only wrong some of the time, and definitely not about anything you lives spend your days ranting about.

[LiberalNation]

Now you are saying giving the President such power can and will lead to such.

Please provide evidence to support your theory.
Look at NAZI Germany, yeah that's an extreme example but Hitler did take away the Germans rights and consolidate his power under the guise of protecting Germany from threats like the evil commies and Jews who were terrorists bent on destroying them.

Note I am not comparing the Bush admin to Hitler and Nazis, he’s not even close but it does show what giving one man so much power has long has is says what he’s doing is necessary to protect the country can lead to very bad things.

[Gunny]

Look at NAZI Germany, yeah that's an extreme example but Hitler did take away the Germans rights and consolidate his power under the guise of protecting Germany from threats like the evil commies and Jews who were terrorists bent on destroying them.

Note I am not comparing the Bush admin to Hitler and Nazis, he’s not even close but it does show what giving one man so much power has long has is says what he’s doing is necessary to protect the country can lead to very bad things.

Hitler was not President of the United States, nor did the US Congress authorize him as CinC to use whatever means necessary to protect the American people.

Evidence that supports your allegation would be presenting a US President who has done such a thing, not Attila the Hun and/or Gengis Khan.

[LiberalNation]

Evidence that supports your allegation would be presenting a US President who has done such a thing, not Attila the Hun and/or Gengis Khan.
That hasn't happened yet so of course I can't. That doesn't mean giving one man absolute power under a certain set of conditions wont lead to it though if you look at history and history repeats.

[Gunny]

That hasn't happened yet so of course I can't. That doesn't mean giving one man absolute power under a certain set of conditions wont lead to it though if you look at history and history repeats.

You're right ... it hasn't happened. Your statement is baseless fearmongering against President Bush.

History can't repeat itself without a precedent.

[LiberalNation]

It has a president just not in the US yet.

and no it's not fearmongering against Bush. He is about a lame duck now anyway.

[Yurt]

You're right ... it hasn't happened. Your statement is baseless fearmongering against President Bush.

History can't repeat itself without a precedent.

An excellent point. The phrase "history will repeat itself" is extremely broad and vague and often open to much interpretation.

The catch, is that libs point is that someone with that much power is "likely" to repeat history. Such a generalization may be true, given "history" and we know that the second person to "make history" is technically acting upon precedent. However, it is broad stroke of the logical brush to simply say:

history repeats itself.

It offers little, other than a snazzy catchy phrase, kinda like a rainbow, it looks pretty, but no one biological, chemical, or political component owns it.

[Gaffer]

The reason I would be against Bush having too much power is when he leaves office there could be a dem there to replace him who would inherit that power. Now THAT would be dangerous.

[Gunny]

It has a president just not in the US yet.

and no it's not fearmongering against Bush. He is about a lame duck now anyway.

Which is not within the context of President Bush being authorized to use whatever force necessary to protect the people of the US.

You're tapdancing your ass off.

[Gunny]

The reason I would be against Bush having too much power is when he leaves office there could be a dem there to replace him who would inherit that power. Now THAT would be dangerous.

The biggest threat of fascism in this Nation comes from the left. I get no end of entertainment when libs start acting like Republicans will do it, when it's the left that's all for massive government sticking their fingers into every facet of life.

[manu1959]

Which is not within the context of President Bush being authorized to use whatever force necessary to protect the people of the US.

You're tapdancing your ass off.

she is 17 dude...gravity hasn't taken over yet.....let her go....:poke:

[Gunny]

she is 17 dude...gravity hasn't taken over yet.....let her go....:poke:

Hell, I've tried. Tell HER, not me. I've kicked her ass so many times in this one thread it isn't even fun.

[manu1959]

Hell, I've tried. Tell HER, not me. I've kicked her ass so many times in this one thread it isn't even fun.

so let her dance then........

[Gunny]

so let her dance then........

I get it ... YOU want a turn at her.:poke:

[manu1959]

I get it ... YOU want a turn at her.:poke:

nah....you saw her first.....

[Gunny]

nah....you saw her first.....

No way dude. The pass has been made.:laugh2:

[manu1959]

No way dude. The pass has been made.:laugh2:

:finger3:

[Gunny]

:finger3:

I don't think we're her "type" anyway. That would be "of age.":laugh2:

[manu1959]

I don't think we're her "type" anyway. That would be "of age.":laugh2:

yea but i am rich

[LiberalNation]

lol how rich.

and gunny you just think you've kicked my ass in debate. it's all in your mind dude.

[manu1959]

lol how rich.

and gunny you just think you've kicked my ass in debate. it's all in your mind dude.

lets just say i sign the front of more checks than i sign the back of

[Gunny]

lol how rich.

and gunny you just think you've kicked my ass in debate. it's all in your mind dude.

Look, just give it up. You aren't even a challenge. And it ain't all in my mind, it's all over this thread.

[LiberalNation]

Who is winning or loosing is relative.

[Gunny]

Who is winning or loosing is relative.

Sometimes. But not when one person continually cannot support her arguments with facts. Nothing relative about that at all.

[manu1959]

Who is winning or loosing is relative.

only in your mind

[LiberalNation]

It's all in the mind.

[Gaffer]

lets just say i sign the front of more checks than i sign the back of

That just means you pay out more than you bring in.:dance:

[Gunny]

It's all in the mind.

:smoke:

[manu1959]

That just means you pay out more than you bring in.:dance:

it could mean that ..... or it could mean i have direct deposit