George Bush's America...Laying the Foundation for Fascism

[bullypulpit]

History has provided us with a very clear picture of the arc a democracy takes when it is being systematically destroyed from within. We watched this happen last September as the military seized power in Thailand, overthrowing the duly elected government.

There are a number of steps to this process, and rather like a recipe, following them will yield the desired result...A fascist state. And the political arc of the Bush administration is laying the foundation for a fascist state.

The first step is to invoke an enemy which is presented as a threat to the a country's very existence. This enemy presented itself to the Bush administration on a silver platter on September 11, 2001. A few short weeks later, with little meaningful debate, a cowed Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act. Unfortunately the PATRIOT Act had less to do with patriotism or protecting America than it did with concentrating power into the hands of the President.

Next, an extra-judicial prison system is created. Such a system is, initially, populated by "enemies of the people". Since the populace of a given country doesn't really identify with this prison population, they fell safer and generally condone these extra-legal prisons. In the case of the Bush administration, this system is populated by "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Baghram and other as yet undisclosed locations. The caveat here is that President Bush has reserved the right to declare <i><b>anyone</b></i> an enemy combatant.

The establishment of a network of paramilitary groups to impose the will of the government under the auspices of restoring civil order. We see this nascent system in the rise of US dependence on PMC's (Private Military Contractors) to provide services, both at home and abroad, generally performed by the military or duly established law enforcement agencies. The deployment of Blackwater Security forces to New Orleans.

Another essential ingredient is establishing a system of internal surveillance to be deployed against a country's population. We saw this with the revelations of Bush ordering a program of warrantless surveillance of US citizens outside the bounds of FISA and Title III. With this program being justified in the name of "national securitry", this cornerstone of dictatorial power may be freely wielded by the government as a blunt weapon to keep dissent in check.

With the infiltration of anti-war groups throughout the country by various government agencies, another stone in the foundation of a fascist state has been firmly set in place by the Bush administration. And with the definition of terrorism under the PATRIOT Act so broad as to include many activities considered as activism or civil disobedience, the definition of "terrorism" eventually will expand to include mere dissent.

The most glaring example of the next ingredient, the arbitrary detention and release of citizens, comes in the form of the Transportation Security Administration's "no-fly" list. This list includes peace activists, college professors, Ted Kennedy, and ordinary citizens. History has shown us that this list of potential enemies of the state only expands ever deeper into the life of the average person.

Threats to those who voice their opposition to government policies or are in positions to obstruct the implementation of increasingly oppressive government action is the next ingredient. We have seen members of the US government penalized for whistle-blowing on the ongoing corruption of US contractors in Iraq, a military lawyers career wrecked for opining that the GITMO detainees be given fair trials, threats against a law firm offering to defend the GITMO detainees pro bono. Most ominous, however was the abortive attempt to subvert the Justice Department by attempting to fire any and all federal prosecutors who place loyalty to the law and the Constitution above loyalty to party and president.

Control of the news media is crucial to any nascent fascist state. This process is underway in America with the increasing consolidation of major news outlets into fewer and fewer hands. But there are to many alternative outlets for that effort to be entirely successful. The alternative, as pointed out by Frank Rich and Sidney Blumenthal, is for the news well to be poisoned by a continuous stream of lies, misinformation, disinformation and dissembling coming from the White House.

Equating dissent with treason is another ingredient to this foul hell-broth. This has been used by the Bush administration soon after 9/11 when, then Attorney General, John Ashcroft gave his "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" speech before Congress. And with the passage of the Military Commissions act of 2006, Bush now has the power to charge anyone with being an "enemy combatant". It is also worth noting that President Bush can delegate any member of the executive branch to define "enemy combatant" in any way they wish.

Suspending the rule of law while paying lip service to the rule of law is the final ingredient to this noxious brew. With the Posse Comitatus Act essentially gutted by the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, President Bush can declare martial law for any number of "crises" other than insurrection or invasion. Even more pernicious is the use of signing statements by President Bush in order to skirt, or outright ignore, the provisions of the laws passed by Congress and he signs into law rather than vetoing them as he should if he is in disagreement with them.

America is not yet fully down the road to a fascist state, and the transition will not be violent, as it was in Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany. It will come on "little cat feet", whilst we are transfixed by the latest episode of "American Idol" or the mos recent stumble by any of a bevy of celebretards.

Thomas Jefferson said it best..."The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Yet we, as a nation, have become distracted from that ideal and goal. Having been born in freedom we have come to take it for granted that freedom will always be there. It won't. We should allow no president the power the Bush Administration is attempting to gather to the presidency. Such power, in any hands, corrupts the wielder absolutely and will lead this nation down a path to oppression and tyranny.

Sources:

<a href=http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html>Fascist America, in 10 easy steps</a>

<a href=http://oldamericancentury.org/14_pts_2.htm>An Examination of Bush Fascism</a>

<a href=http://www.amazon.com/End-America-Letter-Warning-Patriot/dp/1933392797/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-4188024-8073215?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190903876&sr=8-1>The End of America: A Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot, By: Naomi Wolf</a>

[Sir Evil]

Watchout Bully, the sky is falling as well! :D

How ya been Bully?

[Nukeman]

Dont tell me, He's been inhaling the steam from those bags of microwave popcorn again!!:laugh2::laugh2:

[manu1959]

the left....guilty of Freudian projection.....yet again.....

the fascist left using fascist tactics to accuse others of being fascists....

[JackDaniels]

the left....guilty of Freudian projection.....yet again.....

the fascist left using fascist tactics to accuse others of being fascists....

Do you know what fascism really is?

[manu1959]

Do you know what fascism really is?

yes....i also understand the tactics that are used....

your question twords me being one.....you are trying to silence me by implying i am stupid and you are smart and therfore only you should have a voice....

it is a pity you can not see the fascist tactics that both sides employ in partisan politics....

[hjmick]

Get back to me when they cancel the 2008 Presidential election.

[avatar4321]

Do you know what fascism really is?

its clear no one who things Bush is a fascist knows what fascism really is.

[actsnoblemartin]

can u give me the cliff notes version, my a.d.d. makes it hard to read long sentences.

1. the consolidation of media, happened before bush jr. goes back to the 80's i believe, I agree with you, that its disgusting, and we need far less, not far more consilidation, it makes less, not more competition, and we get bias.

2. I am not sure if i agree here, because the 9/11 attacks, proved the government needed to work together, and im not well versed enough to have an opinion,hence the im not sure.

3. what do you wanna call them, if not enemy combatants, you think they are as good as an american citizen with the same rights?, or that when the geneva convention says, fighting for a country, which they are not, how can they be entitled to anything?

4. Its possible this president or the next, can take their power too far, I am worried about that. we do need oversight, to make sure that doesnt happen.

5. I think we should monitor phone calls, but the problem i am thinking about is, where do we stop. american muslims can call scotland and any other non terrorist state, then what, or any american muslim, can call a fellow american muslim, so do we monitor every single call or how many?

6. The media needs an overhaul, its just atrocious, vindictive, biased, and filled with lies


History has provided us with a very clear picture of the arc a democracy takes when it is being systematically destroyed from within. We watched this happen last September as the military seized power in Thailand, overthrowing the duly elected government.

There are a number of steps to this process, and rather like a recipe, following them will yield the desired result...A fascist state. And the political arc of the Bush administration is laying the foundation for a fascist state.

The first step is to invoke an enemy which is presented as a threat to the a country's very existence. This enemy presented itself to the Bush administration on a silver platter on September 11, 2001. A few short weeks later, with little meaningful debate, a cowed Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act. Unfortunately the PATRIOT Act had less to do with patriotism or protecting America than it did with concentrating power into the hands of the President.

Next, an extra-judicial prison system is created. Such a system is, initially, populated by "enemies of the people". Since the populace of a given country doesn't really identify with this prison population, they fell safer and generally condone these extra-legal prisons. In the case of the Bush administration, this system is populated by "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Baghram and other as yet undisclosed locations. The caveat here is that President Bush has reserved the right to declare <i><b>anyone</b></i> an enemy combatant.

The establishment of a network of paramilitary groups to impose the will of the government under the auspices of restoring civil order. We see this nascent system in the rise of US dependence on PMC's (Private Military Contractors) to provide services, both at home and abroad, generally performed by the military or duly established law enforcement agencies. The deployment of Blackwater Security forces to New Orleans.

Another essential ingredient is establishing a system of internal surveillance to be deployed against a country's population. We saw this with the revelations of Bush ordering a program of warrantless surveillance of US citizens outside the bounds of FISA and Title III. With this program being justified in the name of "national securitry", this cornerstone of dictatorial power may be freely wielded by the government as a blunt weapon to keep dissent in check.

With the infiltration of anti-war groups throughout the country by various government agencies, another stone in the foundation of a fascist state has been firmly set in place by the Bush administration. And with the definition of terrorism under the PATRIOT Act so broad as to include many activities considered as activism or civil disobedience, the definition of "terrorism" eventually will expand to include mere dissent.

The most glaring example of the next ingredient, the arbitrary detention and release of citizens, comes in the form of the Transportation Security Administration's "no-fly" list. This list includes peace activists, college professors, Ted Kennedy, and ordinary citizens. History has shown us that this list of potential enemies of the state only expands ever deeper into the life of the average person.

Threats to those who voice their opposition to government policies or are in positions to obstruct the implementation of increasingly oppressive government action is the next ingredient. We have seen members of the US government penalized for whistle-blowing on the ongoing corruption of US contractors in Iraq, a military lawyers career wrecked for opining that the GITMO detainees be given fair trials, threats against a law firm offering to defend the GITMO detainees pro bono. Most ominous, however was the abortive attempt to subvert the Justice Department by attempting to fire any and all federal prosecutors who place loyalty to the law and the Constitution above loyalty to party and president.

Control of the news media is crucial to any nascent fascist state. This process is underway in America with the increasing consolidation of major news outlets into fewer and fewer hands. But there are to many alternative outlets for that effort to be entirely successful. The alternative, as pointed out by Frank Rich and Sidney Blumenthal, is for the news well to be poisoned by a continuous stream of lies, misinformation, disinformation and dissembling coming from the White House.

Equating dissent with treason is another ingredient to this foul hell-broth. This has been used by the Bush administration soon after 9/11 when, then Attorney General, John Ashcroft gave his "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" speech before Congress. And with the passage of the Military Commissions act of 2006, Bush now has the power to charge anyone with being an "enemy combatant". It is also worth noting that President Bush can delegate any member of the executive branch to define "enemy combatant" in any way they wish.

Suspending the rule of law while paying lip service to the rule of law is the final ingredient to this noxious brew. With the Posse Comitatus Act essentially gutted by the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, President Bush can declare martial law for any number of "crises" other than insurrection or invasion. Even more pernicious is the use of signing statements by President Bush in order to skirt, or outright ignore, the provisions of the laws passed by Congress and he signs into law rather than vetoing them as he should if he is in disagreement with them.

America is not yet fully down the road to a fascist state, and the transition will not be violent, as it was in Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany. It will come on "little cat feet", whilst we are transfixed by the latest episode of "American Idol" or the mos recent stumble by any of a bevy of celebretards.

Thomas Jefferson said it best..."The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Yet we, as a nation, have become distracted from that ideal and goal. Having been born in freedom we have come to take it for granted that freedom will always be there. It won't. We should allow no president the power the Bush Administration is attempting to gather to the presidency. Such power, in any hands, corrupts the wielder absolutely and will lead this nation down a path to oppression and tyranny.

Sources:

<a href=http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html>Fascist America, in 10 easy steps</a>

<a href=http://oldamericancentury.org/14_pts_2.htm>An Examination of Bush Fascism</a>

<a href=http://www.amazon.com/End-America-Letter-Warning-Patriot/dp/1933392797/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-4188024-8073215?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190903876&sr=8-1>The End of America: A Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot, By: Naomi Wolf</a>

[actsnoblemartin]

do you have the definition for us, and who gets to decide who is facist, and who is not?


Do you know what fascism really is?

[bullypulpit]

its clear no one who things Bush is a fascist knows what fascism really is.

And how do you define fascism?

From a practical standpoint, fascism is a totalitarian political system headed by a dictator, political ideologies aside.

America is not a fascist state as yet, but the Bush administration has set most of the foundation for one in place. The policies pursued by the Bush administration have centralized power in the executive branch at an unprecedented level. And once this power has been set in place, those who wield it are loath to give it up, and may even seek to further expand it. It may take several election cycles, but it could happen even here. And that's how democracies are suborned...By using the law to weaken, undermine and finally destroy the law and put in its place the mandates of the dictator.

To those who say, "It can't happen here...", history shows us that it can happen here. Most solid citizens of the Weimar Republic said the same thing, and then woke up one morning with the Nazis in absolute power.

[April15]

The supreme Court has been loaded with those who would follow into a fascist state. The disregard for the individual is foremost in any fascist climate.

[diuretic]

Get back to me when they cancel the 2008 Presidential election.

Fair point that one. But is there a plan somewhere just in case?

[manu1959]

The supreme Court has been loaded with those who would follow into a fascist state. The disregard for the individual is foremost in any fascist climate.

except we all have guns.....

[diuretic]

except we all have guns.....

So? :D Here we go..............:laugh2:

[Hugh Lincoln]

The supreme Court has been loaded with those who would follow into a fascist state. The disregard for the individual is foremost in any fascist climate.

Actually, the bigger disregarders of individualism are unquestionably the liberals. When everything you earn goes to the government, you lose a hell of a lot more individuality than if the government bans abortion.

[diuretic]

Actually, the bigger disregarders of individualism are unquestionably the liberals. When everything you earn goes to the government, you lose a hell of a lot more individuality than if the government bans abortion.

"When everything you earn goes to the government." Don't accuse any other poster here of hyperbole, you just won First Prize :laugh2:

[Psychoblues]

Have a Foster's on me, doc.



"When everything you earn goes to the government." Don't accuse any other poster here of hyperbole, you just won First Prize :laugh2:

It's a conservative thing, don't you know?

[diuretic]

Have a Foster's on me, doc.




It's a conservative thing, don't you know?

That old ideology thing :laugh2:

[Psychoblues]

Don't forget the 10 steps to fascism, doc.



That old ideology thing :laugh2:

gwb has taken all of them, don't you know? I would :laugh2: but it hurts too much for me right now.

[diuretic]

Don't forget the 10 steps to fascism, doc.




gwb has taken all of them, don't you know? I would :laugh2: but it hurts too much for me right now.

But he was on a Segway, he fell off at number 5 - society was saved :laugh2:

[bullypulpit]

except we all have guns.....

Which is one reason why fascism/totalitarianism will not take America by storm. It will be the creeping, incremental erosion of civil-liberties and undermining of the Constitution in the name of "national security" until, one morning we wake up blinking stupidly as the boot-heel comes crashing down in our faces...forever.

That erosion of civil liberties has accelerated under the Bush administration, and it may take several election cycles before it comes to fruition, or as soon as the next disaster befalls the country...be it man-made or natural.

Unless we wake up as a nation assume the responsibility for assuring and protecting the freedoms our fore-fathers fought and died for, we will soon be bereft of them.

Wake up!

[avatar4321]

Which is one reason why fascism/totalitarianism will not take America by storm. It will be the creeping, incremental erosion of civil-liberties and undermining of the Constitution in the name of "national security" until, one morning we wake up blinking stupidly as the boot-heel comes crashing down in our faces...forever.

That erosion of civil liberties has accelerated under the Bush administration, and it may take several election cycles before it comes to fruition, or as soon as the next disaster befalls the country...be it man-made or natural.

Unless we wake up as a nation assume the responsibility for assuring and protecting the freedoms our fore-fathers fought and died for, we will soon be bereft of them.

Wake up!

alright. name a single civil liberty that has been eroded.

[theHawk]

The first step is to invoke an enemy which is presented as a threat to the a country's very existence. This enemy presented itself to the Bush administration on a silver platter on September 11, 2001. A few short weeks later, with little meaningful debate, a cowed Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act. Unfortunately the PATRIOT Act had less to do with patriotism or protecting America than it did with concentrating power into the hands of the President.
Its your opinion that the Patriot Act has less to do with protecting America. Most the rest of us like the idea of giving our terror fighting agencies more leeway to do their mission, which is of course why the legistlation passed in the first place.




Next, an extra-judicial prison system is created. Such a system is, initially, populated by "enemies of the people". Since the populace of a given country doesn't really identify with this prison population, they fell safer and generally condone these extra-legal prisons. In the case of the Bush administration, this system is populated by "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Baghram and other as yet undisclosed locations. The caveat here is that President Bush has reserved the right to declare <i><b>anyone</b></i> an enemy combatant.
And yet in all the years Bush as been in office and considering how little time he has left, exactly how many American citizens have been declared enemy combatants and been put in Gitmo? Even John Walker Lihnd who was found with the Taliban fighting against US forces was given a federal trial and is currently serving his time in a U.S. federal prison, he never once stepped foot onto Gitmo.




The establishment of a network of paramilitary groups to impose the will of the government under the auspices of restoring civil order. We see this nascent system in the rise of US dependence on PMC's (Private Military Contractors) to provide services, both at home and abroad, generally performed by the military or duly established law enforcement agencies. The deployment of Blackwater Security forces to New Orleans.

And until the military is actually funded and manned the way it should be it will probably continue this way. And if New Orleans government wasn't so corrupt and could take care of their own responisbilities then there would be no need for private security forces. I fail to see how you can complain about lack of security whether it be in Iraq or in NO and then turn around and complain about a companies that are trying to help in that matter.





Another essential ingredient is establishing a system of internal surveillance to be deployed against a country's population. We saw this with the revelations of Bush ordering a program of warrantless surveillance of US citizens outside the bounds of FISA and Title III. With this program being justified in the name of "national securitry", this cornerstone of dictatorial power may be freely wielded by the government as a blunt weapon to keep dissent in check.
Yet you are here voicing your dissent. So your very own protests disprove your own point.




With the infiltration of anti-war groups throughout the country by various government agencies, another stone in the foundation of a fascist state has been firmly set in place by the Bush administration. And with the definition of terrorism under the PATRIOT Act so broad as to include many activities considered as activism or civil disobedience, the definition of "terrorism" eventually will expand to include mere dissent.

Is there any proof of this claim? Government agencies have "infiltrated" anti-war groups? Which agencies?




The most glaring example of the next ingredient, the arbitrary detention and release of citizens, comes in the form of the Transportation Security Administration's "no-fly" list. This list includes peace activists, college professors, Ted Kennedy, and ordinary citizens. History has shown us that this list of potential enemies of the state only expands ever deeper into the life of the average person.

So your saying the US government is going to eventually put us all on the no-fly list? I'm sure the environmentalists will be happy the day no more planes are buring up enormous amounts of fuel in the sky.





Threats to those who voice their opposition to government policies or are in positions to obstruct the implementation of increasingly oppressive government action is the next ingredient. We have seen members of the US government penalized for whistle-blowing on the ongoing corruption of US contractors in Iraq, a military lawyers career wrecked for opining that the GITMO detainees be given fair trials, threats against a law firm offering to defend the GITMO detainees pro bono. Most ominous, however was the abortive attempt to subvert the Justice Department by attempting to fire any and all federal prosecutors who place loyalty to the law and the Constitution above loyalty to party and president.

LOL, "subvert the Justice Department by attemping to fire" prosecutors? Is that what it was when Clinton fired ALL the prosecutors?




Control of the news media is crucial to any nascent fascist state. This process is underway in America with the increasing consolidation of major news outlets into fewer and fewer hands. But there are to many alternative outlets for that effort to be entirely successful. The alternative, as pointed out by Frank Rich and Sidney Blumenthal, is for the news well to be poisoned by a continuous stream of lies, misinformation, disinformation and dissembling coming from the White House.

Yet most all news networks and newspapers are liberal and very anti-Bush. Doesn't appear to me that the government has any control over the media at all.




Equating dissent with treason is another ingredient to this foul hell-broth. This has been used by the Bush administration soon after 9/11 when, then Attorney General, John Ashcroft gave his "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" speech before Congress. And with the passage of the Military Commissions act of 2006, Bush now has the power to charge anyone with being an "enemy combatant". It is also worth noting that President Bush can delegate any member of the executive branch to define "enemy combatant" in any way they wish.

Wow, this point sounds exactly like the second point brought up your list. Looks like you're really out of points and just regurgitating old ones to make it appears as though you have a long list of valid points to make. All your doing is repeating the same garbage.





Suspending the rule of law while paying lip service to the rule of law is the final ingredient to this noxious brew. With the Posse Comitatus Act essentially gutted by the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, President Bush can declare martial law for any number of "crises" other than insurrection or invasion. Even more pernicious is the use of signing statements by President Bush in order to skirt, or outright ignore, the provisions of the laws passed by Congress and he signs into law rather than vetoing them as he should if he is in disagreement with them.

Well get your guns ready Bully for that last day Bush is in office he'll declare martial law and remain President indefinitely. :rollseyes:





America is not yet fully down the road to a fascist state, and the transition will not be violent, as it was in Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany. It will come on "little cat feet", whilst we are transfixed by the latest episode of "American Idol" or the mos recent stumble by any of a bevy of celebretards.

Well thats a relief to know were not "fully" down the road to a fascist state.




Thomas Jefferson said it best..."The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Yet we, as a nation, have become distracted from that ideal and goal. Having been born in freedom we have come to take it for granted that freedom will always be there. It won't. We should allow no president the power the Bush Administration is attempting to gather to the presidency. Such power, in any hands, corrupts the wielder absolutely and will lead this nation down a path to oppression and tyranny.
Or, consider the alternative. That you, and your kind, are completely delusional. To think that there are people out there, like you, that actually believe Bush is going to usurp the Presidency indefinately with all his new found powers is just laughable. Bush is going to leave office with a fizzle with very few people sad to see him go. He has very little political power any more because he failed conservative America in regards to illegal immigration, border security, and his pro-"free trade with China" stance.

[April15]

Which is one reason why fascism/totalitarianism will not take America by storm. It will be the creeping, incremental erosion of civil-liberties and undermining of the Constitution in the name of "national security" until, one morning we wake up blinking stupidly as the boot-heel comes crashing down in our faces...forever.

That erosion of civil liberties has accelerated under the Bush administration, and it may take several election cycles before it comes to fruition, or as soon as the next disaster befalls the country...be it man-made or natural.

Unless we wake up as a nation assume the responsibility for assuring and protecting the freedoms our fore-fathers fought and died for, we will soon be bereft of them.

Wake up!

In short use them don't talk about them!

[April15]

alright. name a single civil liberty that has been eroded.Privacy! Movement. Illegal, to most, searches. Just for starters. Maybe all if i don't feel like adding.

[truthmatters]

http://www.infowars.net/articles/september2007/280907Cake.htm

teaching our kids to be obedient little clones


School security guards in Palmdale, CA have been caught on camera assaulting a 16-year-old girl and breaking her arm after she spilled some cake during lunch and left some crumbs on the floor after cleaning it up.

The incident occurred last week at Knight High School in Palmdale and was caught on a cell phone camera by another pupil who was then also assaulted by the security guards.

Watch video of the incident here and here.

The girl, Pleajhai Mervin, told Fox News LA that she was bumped while queuing for lunch and dropped the cake. After being ordered to clean it up and then re-clean the spot three times, she attempted to leave the area out of embarrassment but was jumped on by security who forced her onto a table, breaking her wrist in the process.

Pleajhai also says that the security guard in the picture yelled "hold still nappy-head" at her, which at the time she did not know was a racist comment.

[bullypulpit]

alright. name a single civil liberty that has been eroded.

Under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, <i>habeas corpus</i>, the key-stone of American jurisprudence was effectively abolished. In addition, the president was granted the power to declare ...on his own...who is an enemy combatant, decide who should be held indefinitely without being charged with a crime and define what is...and what is not...torture and abuse.

[typomaniac]

except we all have guns.....

You know how easy it would be for the government to say, "We need those for the Great Patriotic War on Terror?" Most of you sheep would gladly drop 'em off at the nearest armory.

[avatar4321]

Privacy! Movement. Illegal, to most, searches. Just for starters. Maybe all if i don't feel like adding.

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Last time I checked people were still free to move across the country. The government has always been allowed to make reasonable searches.

The problem with you liberals if you have no historical perspective. The Constitution doesnt protect as much as the courts have extended it to "protect." Restoring the full effect of the Constitution is not an erosion of civil liberties.

The people are still free. The people can still move about. The people are not subject to unreasonable searches.

In other words, your complaints are an illusion and not based in reality.

[avatar4321]

Under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, <i>habeas corpus</i>, the key-stone of American jurisprudence was effectively abolished. In addition, the president was granted the power to declare ...on his own...who is an enemy combatant, decide who should be held indefinitely without being charged with a crime and define what is...and what is not...torture and abuse.

You do realize that the Constitution gives the federal government to suspend the write of habeas corpus i times of war dont you? You do realize the only reason this had to be done is because liberal front groups sued to give terrorists rights they never had and convinced the court to order Congress to pass this right?

You liberals demand we suspend habeas corpus in prosecuting the war and then get mad when President and the Congress do exactly that. You guys are never happy.

[JackDaniels]

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution.

The whole "that right isn't mentioned" is a stupid argument.

For reference:


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Yurt]

And how do you define fascism?

From a practical standpoint, fascism is a totalitarian political system headed by a dictator, political ideologies aside.

America is not a fascist state as yet, but the Bush administration has set most of the foundation for one in place. The policies pursued by the Bush administration have centralized power in the executive branch at an unprecedented level. And once this power has been set in place, those who wield it are loath to give it up, and may even seek to further expand it. It may take several election cycles, but it could happen even here. And that's how democracies are suborned...By using the law to weaken, undermine and finally destroy the law and put in its place the mandates of the dictator.

To those who say, "It can't happen here...", history shows us that it can happen here. Most solid citizens of the Weimar Republic said the same thing, and then woke up one morning with the Nazis in absolute power.


You analogy is weak, very weak. Nobody is trying to take over and dismantle the government. The Nazis changed the entire face of the government in just a few years, Bush has been there for 8 years Bully. All your trash talk about him for the past few years (i saw you on the other forum) have not come to fruition, not even close.

Yet, its like the dead body of a snake with its head cut off, it just keeps convulsing until it dies. Let it go. Sheesh, you can't even point to a single real fact that we have inched closer to a fascist state, only :tinfoil:

[BoogyMan]

The supreme Court has been loaded with those who would follow into a fascist state. The disregard for the individual is foremost in any fascist climate.

Disregard for the individual? Are you kidding me? What this translates to is slobbering liberal speak is the refusal to accept a floating standard of justice that is redefined for every offender based on what that offender believes or might have been through in life.

Egads......

[Sir Evil]

Disregard for the individual? Are you kidding me? What this translates to is slobbering liberal speak is the refusal to accept a floating standard of justice that is redefined for every offender based on what that offender believes or might have been through in life.

Egads......

And a lack of connection to the topic. :laugh2:

[Yurt]

And a lack of connection to the topic. :laugh2:

LOOOOOOOOOL, nice avi.

[bullypulpit]

You do realize that the Constitution gives the federal government to suspend the write of habeas corpus i times of war dont you? You do realize the only reason this had to be done is because liberal front groups sued to give terrorists rights they never had and convinced the court to order Congress to pass this right?

You liberals demand we suspend habeas corpus in prosecuting the war and then get mad when President and the Congress do exactly that. You guys are never happy.

If you read the Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, the second sentence reads:

<blockquote>The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of <b>Rebellion or Invasion</b> the public Safety may require it. (<i>emphasis mine</i>)</blockquote>

We have neither rebellion nor invasion to justify the suspension of habeas corpus.

Furthermore, those past suspensions during times of war were taken with a clear endpoint...as in the end of the war, at which time habeas corpus was restored. The global war on terror, as envisioned by President Bush and his neo-con brain-trust is open ended. There is no endpoint in sight. A state of continuous conflict in which national security can be invoked to overturn the rule of law, shatter the separation of powers and give the office of President unbridled, unchecked power.

It is this open ended conflict with a shadowy, amorphous enemy which may or may not be within our borders, but is definitely outside our borders which the Bush administration is attempting to use, and totalitarian/fascist dictators and dictator wannabes have historically used, to justify their suspension of democratic processes.

[bullypulpit]

You analogy is weak, very weak. Nobody is trying to take over and dismantle the government. The Nazis changed the entire face of the government in just a few years, Bush has been there for 8 years Bully. All your trash talk about him for the past few years (i saw you on the other forum) have not come to fruition, not even close.

Yet, its like the dead body of a snake with its head cut off, it just keeps convulsing until it dies. Let it go. Sheesh, you can't even point to a single real fact that we have inched closer to a fascist state, only :tinfoil:

I'm glad I was wrong, but the signs of a shift towards fascism/totalitarianism are clearly visible if you but open your eyes and look. Follow the links I posted at the top of the thread, and they'll lead you to the evidence you demand.

[manu1959]

You know how easy it would be for the government to say, "We need those for the Great Patriotic War on Terror?" Most of you sheep would gladly drop 'em off at the nearest armory.

do your "friends" belive your bullshit?

[avatar4321]

The whole "that right isn't mentioned" is a stupid argument.

For reference:

No. its not a stupid argument. It's factual.

The stupid arguments are the ones people try to claim rights that arent in the Constitution are constitutional rights.

[diuretic]

No. its not a stupid argument. It's factual.

The stupid arguments are the ones people try to claim rights that arent in the Constitution are constitutional rights.

Does the constitution (particularly the Bill of Rights) grant rights or simply acknowledge them and restrain government from unreasonably infringing on them?

[truthmatters]

I never thought I would see a day when Americans excuse away the stripping of the constitution.

To talk about habeas corpus in such a light manner as if it is completely expendepable. You are giving the government complete control of people if you simply laugh this away as meaning nothing.
Please read these couple of paragraphs and then think about them for a momment and think about this being wielded by a different admin which you do not like. It should give any American pause.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm

habeas corpus

Lat. "you have the body" Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences. In family law, a parent who has been denied custody of his child by a trial court may file a habeas corpus petition. Also, a party may file a habeas corpus petition if a judge declares her in contempt of court and jails or threatens to jail her.

In Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1778 (1992), the court observed that the Supreme Court has "recognized the fact that`[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.' Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969). " Therefore, the writ must be "administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to insure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected." Harris, 394 U.S. at 291.

The writ of habeas corpus serves as an important check on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights. The writ is "the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action." Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969). Because the habeas process delays the finality of a criminal case, however, the Supreme Court in recent years has attempted to police the writ to ensure that the costs of the process do not exceed its manifest benefits. In McCleskey the Court raised barriers against successive and abusive petitions. The Court raised these barriers based on significant concerns about delay, cost, prejudice to the prosecution, frustration of the sovereign power of the States, and the "heavy burden" federal collateral litigation places on "scarce federal judicial resources," a burden that "threatens the capacity of the system to resolve primary disputes." McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 467.

[diuretic]

Habeas corpus was born in the Magna Carta, buried by Star Chamber and resurrected into glory by the Habeas Corpus Act in England in the reign of Charles I.

It's harder to kill than Arnie in the Terminator(s) :D

It will outlast Darth Cheney and his little mate, especially when Americans realise they've been played for suckers.

[truthmatters]

I believe you are right but it starts with people in the society remembering how important it is which is why I post such information.

[diuretic]

I believe you are right but it starts with people in the society remembering how important it is which is why I post such information.

And you're quite right to do so. Orwell warned us in Nineteen Eighty-Four, it's up to all of us to ensure that sort of revisionism isn't used against us. Human nature doesn't change. The nature of tyrants doesn't change. We need to be aware of our history because, although I know some folks have the idea that history progresses, my jaundiced view is that humans are locked into a limited range of responses and so we tend to recycle rather than indulge in the perfect Hegelian process of moving forward by thesis/antithesis/synthesis and so on. We haven't yet rid ourselves of dictators.

[truthmatters]

We probably never will rid ourselves of the threat. It is a constant fight which we will always have to protect oursleves from.

[Dilloduck]

We probably never will rid ourselves of the threat. It is a constant fight which we will always have to protect oursleves from.

Questioning authority makes sense. Rebelling against it no matter what is an unproductive luxury.

[diuretic]

Questioning authority is absolutely essential. It should be done every chance anyone gets.

[truthmatters]

It was the check to the balence of power our founders intended us to perform. Its our duty as Americans.

[avatar4321]

It was the check to the balence of power our founders intended us to perform. Its our duty as Americans.

I am pretty sure our founders intended the people to protest actual abuses of authority and not to make them up for political purposes which would undermine the freedom we have.

[bullypulpit]

I am pretty sure our founders intended the people to protest actual abuses of authority and not to make them up for political purposes which would undermine the freedom we have.

In order to successfully protest those abuses, we must not turn a blind eye to them, as you and you fellow travelers seem all to willing to do regarding the Bush administration's abuses of power.

[JackDaniels]

No. its not a stupid argument. It's factual.

The stupid arguments are the ones people try to claim rights that arent in the Constitution are constitutional rights.

Yes, it's an incredibly stupid argument. As I stated above, please read and understand the 9th Amendment before spouting off.

[bullypulpit]

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Last time I checked people were still free to move across the country. The government has always been allowed to make reasonable searches.

The problem with you liberals if you have no historical perspective. The Constitution doesnt protect as much as the courts have extended it to "protect." Restoring the full effect of the Constitution is not an erosion of civil liberties.

The people are still free. The people can still move about. The people are not subject to unreasonable searches.

In other words, your complaints are an illusion and not based in reality.

The trouble is, the Bush administration isn't "Restoring the full effect of the Constitution...". They are eroding it. From their drive to pass the USA PATRIOT Act to the most recent attempt to gut FISA, their actions have been geared to marginalizing the Legislative and Judicial branches and securing an unprecedented amount of power in the hands of the executive branch. This clearly in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.

When are you and your fellow travelers going to wake up and stop apologizing for this wannabe despot and his enablers? No president should be given the power the Bush administration has accrued to the Executive branch. The separation of posers as outlined in the Constitution was designed to prevent this, and worse, from happening. What the Founding Fathers never counted on was that we, the people, would fall asleep at the wheel and fail to maintain the vigilance necessary to ensure the survival of the democratic processes in this republic.

[typomaniac]

do your "friends" belive your bullshit?

:lame2:
Best not to try discussing topics that you have no experience with, Manny. Like the concept of having friends.

[April15]

“But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of Liberty, and that you must pay that price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government.”

– Andrew Jackson

I would rather try to persuade a man to go along, because once I have persuaded him, he will stick. If I scare him, he will stay just as long as he is scared, and then he is gone.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

[manu1959]

:lame2:
Best not to try discussing topics that you have no experience with, Manny. Like the concept of having friends.

i will take that as a no....

[bullypulpit]

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Last time I checked people were still free to move across the country. The government has always been allowed to make reasonable searches.

The problem with you liberals if you have no historical perspective. The Constitution doesnt protect as much as the courts have extended it to "protect." Restoring the full effect of the Constitution is not an erosion of civil liberties.

The people are still free. The people can still move about. The people are not subject to unreasonable searches.

In other words, your complaints are an illusion and not based in reality.

Your illusions about reality are rooted in ignorance. The TSA maintains a list of "persons of interest" who are more thoroughly screened at airports. These include middle-aged women, nuns, academics, politicians, and even an average person named Robert Johnson, who was strip searched and detained for several hours simply because his name was on the TSA's list.

This list is classified at such a level that even congressional representatives can't see it. The only reason we do have a copy available is because one was leaked to the media...some 540 pages. The TSA and FBI won't discuss the criteria for being placed on the list, except for accidentally telling constitutional scholar, Professor Walter F. Murphy of Princeton that his recent criticism of the Bush administration's full court press against the Constitution was the likely cause. And once on the list, your name never comes off. If these arbitrary detentions and searches at airports don't meet your standards for unreasonable searches, pray-tell, what does?

The people are <i>still</i> free and are <i>still</i> free to move about. That freedom, however, is tempered with the knowledge that their movements are being tracked, and they may be arbitrarily detained at an airport and subjected to unreasonable and unwarranted searches. And, my friend, that's how simple it is to crush dissent. In the shift towards a fascist/totalitarian state, all the people need not be surveilled all of the time. Just a few of the people need to be watched...you know political opponents, dissidents, protesters, regular people. But the key is to make that surveillance known to the general populace, make them aware that they too can be subject to the full weight of government scrutiny. History shows us that it has a chilling effect on dissent.

[stephanie]

Your illusions about reality are rooted in ignorance. The TSA maintains a list of "persons of interest" who are more thoroughly screened at airports. These include middle-aged women, nuns, academics, politicians, and even an average person named Robert Johnson, who was strip searched and detained for several hours simply because his name was on the TSA's list.

This list is classified at such a level that even congressional representatives can't see it. The only reason we do have a copy available is because one was leaked to the media...some 540 pages. The TSA and FBI won't discuss the criteria for being placed on the list, except for accidentally telling constitutional scholar, Professor Walter F. Murphy of Princeton that his recent criticism of the Bush administration's full court press against the Constitution was the likely cause. And once on the list, your name never comes off. If these arbitrary detentions and searches at airports don't meet your standards for unreasonable searches, pray-tell, what does?

The people are <i>still</i> free and are <i>still</i> free to move about. That freedom, however, is tempered with the knowledge that their movements are being tracked, and they may be arbitrarily detained at an airport and subjected to unreasonable and unwarranted searches. And, my friend, that's how simple it is to crush dissent. In the shift towards a fascist/totalitarian state, all the people need not be surveilled all of the time. Just a few of the people need to be watched...you know political opponents, dissidents, protesters, regular people. But the key is to make that surveillance known to the general populace, make them aware that they too can be subject to the full weight of government scrutiny. History shows us that it has a chilling effect on dissent.

You might be a tiny bit dramatic my dear bully.......:laugh2:


these people didn't have any problems staging their PROTEST IN PINKIE..

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/649700468_aaf455f4a1_o-1.jpg

And it didn't have any affect on us having our freedom to poke our eyes out, instead of seeing this.......

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/topless2.jpg
I didn't post the FULL SAGGING BREAST PICTURE.....cuase it was....well..

:laugh2:

[diuretic]

Just a thought. Are cops getting tougher with people in the States nowadays? And by "cops" I mean people in a law enforcement/security type role.

[truthmatters]

Just a thought. Are cops getting tougher with people in the States nowadays? And by "cops" I mean people in a law enforcement/security type role.


There seems to be a rash of this flairing up more recently. Fits a pattern huh?

[diuretic]

There seems to be a rash of this flairing up more recently. Fits a pattern huh?

It seems to fit a pattern. I have thought about this a lot. It seems that police and law enforcement practice has changed somewhat.

[truthmatters]

911 cowed people into accepting different treatment than they would have before it happened. There is now a sense from many the ruff treatment by Cops is part of their job. It sets up a cycle in which people in these positions start feeling impowered with rights they do not really have.I have noticed a level of backlash starting to seep to the surface by the populace. I think there may be a shift coming. I sure hope so.

[bullypulpit]

You might be a tiny bit dramatic my dear bully.......:laugh2:


these people didn't have any problems staging their PROTEST IN PINKIE..

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/649700468_aaf455f4a1_o-1.jpg

And it didn't have any affect on us having our freedom to poke our eyes out, instead of seeing this.......

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/topless2.jpg
I didn't post the FULL SAGGING BREAST PICTURE.....cuase it was....well..

:laugh2:

THe more obvious the protest, the more likely it will be ignored, at least at the beginning of a slide towards a fascist/totalitarian state.

[Gaffer]

I use to tell the sage they were coming for him. He suddenly disappeared. Makes you wanna go hmmmm.

They're coming for you Bully.

[diuretic]

911 cowed people into accepting different treatment than they would have before it happened. There is now a sense from many the ruff treatment by Cops is part of their job. It sets up a cycle in which people in these positions start feeling impowered with rights they do not really have.I have noticed a level of backlash starting to seep to the surface by the populace. I think there may be a shift coming. I sure hope so.

That's interesting because I remember reading that there was a lot of respect for cops in the weeks following 9/11. I remember wondering at the time how long it would take before the usual hostilities were resumed. But it seems that somehow - and I sincerely hope I'm wrong - that there is a sense of growing authoritarianism among cops in the States post-9/11. It could have a lot to do with growing watchfulness of course, more suspicion (more than usual) and perhaps, because cops are usually politically conservative, some ideological influences.

[Dilloduck]

That's interesting because I remember reading that there was a lot of respect for cops in the weeks following 9/11. I remember wondering at the time how long it would take before the usual hostilities were resumed. But it seems that somehow - and I sincerely hope I'm wrong - that there is a sense of growing authoritarianism among cops in the States post-9/11. It could have a lot to do with growing watchfulness of course, more suspicion (more than usual) and perhaps, because cops are usually politically conservative, some ideological influences.

To say nothing of the fact that they are being MURDERED.

[diuretic]

To say nothing of the fact that they are being MURDERED.

Who's being murdered? Cops? Yes, it happens, it's an occupational hazard of course. But I was wondering if there was an attitude change post-9/11.

[bullypulpit]

Who's being murdered? Cops? Yes, it happens, it's an occupational hazard of course. But I was wondering if there was an attitude change post-9/11.

The attitude change started at the top...in the White House. Instead of a one term mediocrity Bush and his neo-con brain-trust now had a golden opportunity...To play the fear card and begin to gather power into the hands of the Executive branch. The first step on this path was the dragooning of Congress into passing the USA PATRIOT Act unexamined and unquestioned, which the craven bastards did.

Rather than galvanizing America and the world into action against the very real threat of terrorism, Bush told Americans not tot worry and go shopping. He gave the rest of the world the finger and invaded Iraq. Thus, as a "war time" president even more power could be accrued to the Executive branch at the expense of the co-equal Judicial and Legislative branches. Every action of the Bush administration since 9/11 has had less to do with actually protecting the country from further attack and more to do with securing the precedents and legal framework within which the Constitution may be disposed of, either by them or some future administration.

[diuretic]

Fair points BP. Now it seems to me that while the power has accrued to the federal government and its agencies (in particular its internal security agencies) it may well be at the tone was set for the whole country. So, while law enforcement in the US is largely at the local level (municipal and county), the tone of local law enforcement has continued to reflect that in the federal levels of government.

Yep, could be, it could well be.

[avatar4321]

The attitude change started at the top...in the White House. Instead of a one term mediocrity Bush and his neo-con brain-trust now had a golden opportunity...To play the fear card and begin to gather power into the hands of the Executive branch. The first step on this path was the dragooning of Congress into passing the USA PATRIOT Act unexamined and unquestioned, which the craven bastards did.

Rather than galvanizing America and the world into action against the very real threat of terrorism, Bush told Americans not tot worry and go shopping. He gave the rest of the world the finger and invaded Iraq. Thus, as a "war time" president even more power could be accrued to the Executive branch at the expense of the co-equal Judicial and Legislative branches. Every action of the Bush administration since 9/11 has had less to do with actually protecting the country from further attack and more to do with securing the precedents and legal framework within which the Constitution may be disposed of, either by them or some future administration.

Restoring the executive branch to the power it was given under the Constitution is hardly a bad thing.

Why exactly do you want the government to be completely ineffective at stopping terrorism?

[bullypulpit]

Restoring the executive branch to the power it was given under the Constitution is hardly a bad thing.

Why exactly do you want the government to be completely ineffective at stopping terrorism?

How are adherence to the Constitution and effective national defense mutually exclusive?

As for your assertion that the Bush administration is "restoring" powers enumerated in the Constitution, I would suggest that you actually READ <a href=http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1>Article II</a>. Nowhere will you find, neither explicitly stated nor implied, the powers the Bush administration has accrued to the Executive branch. If these powers are enumerated, please highlight the relevant clauses and post them.

The concept of a unitary executive branch, used by the Bush administration to justify its actions, is inconsistent with a democratic state. The unitary executive, as defined by the Bush administration, usurps the authority and powers of the Legislative and Judicial branches and relegates these branches to little more than an advisory capacity rather than the co-equal branches as outlined in the Constitution. This leaves the use of power by the presidency unaccountable to any oversight, rendering the presidency a law unto itself. In effect, a dictatorship.

[eighballsidepocket]

Got this out of Merriam Webster's Web Site.

fascism

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>

- fas·cist /-shist also -sist/ noun or adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·tic /fa-'shis-tik also -'sis-/ adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb, often capitalized
******
Not wanting to be entangled in this debate.

Does this definition reveal that our nation's current president fills this definition to a "T", anymore than any other party's President in the past?

Personally, I don't see GWB doing or enacting anything that would give me shivers about Fascism on the horizon, or being here presently.

In fact, just ask what few surviving Germans who lived under Adolf Hitler, or Italians who lived under Mussolini have to say about their experiences under National Socialism and Fascism, and I think you'll find that GWB is being unfairly accused.
******
I do, however find that when folks politically don't like a particular Prez., they often resort to "monikers" of "said Prez" that are of a very extreme, description; using the subjective route, instead of an objective critique.
*****

[Abbey Marie]

The word doesn't need to make sense, Eightball. When do libs ever let the truth get in the way of a good scare tactic?

[bullypulpit]

Got this out of Merriam Webster's Web Site.

fascism

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>

- fas·cist /-shist also -sist/ noun or adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·tic /fa-'shis-tik also -'sis-/ adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb, often capitalized
******
Not wanting to be entangled in this debate.

Does this definition reveal that our nation's current president fills this definition to a "T", anymore than any other party's President in the past?

Personally, I don't see GWB doing or enacting anything that would give me shivers about Fascism on the horizon, or being here presently.

In fact, just ask what few surviving Germans who lived under Adolf Hitler, or Italians who lived under Mussolini have to say about their experiences under National Socialism and Fascism, and I think you'll find that GWB is being unfairly accused.
******
I do, however find that when folks politically don't like a particular Prez., they often resort to "monikers" of "said Prez" that are of a very extreme, description; using the subjective route, instead of an objective critique.
*****

Actually, the Bush administration has made an unprecedented grab for power by means of the methods outlined in the opening post of the thread, thus laying the foundations for a functional fascist state a few election cycles down the road, or as soon as the next natural disaster/terrorist attack/other emergency. No president, Democrat or Republican can be allowed to have so much unchecked power, the constitutional balance between the three branches of government must be restored.

We can eliminate this threat by waking up from our Ambien induced stupor, tearing ourselves away from the most recent celebretard exploits and taking up the work that freedom demands...Holding government accountable for its actions. This is the eternal vigilance Thomas Jefferson spoke of in describing the price of freedom.

[eighballsidepocket]

Actually, the Bush administration has made an unprecedented grab for power by means of the methods outlined in the opening post of the thread, thus laying the foundations for a functional fascist state a few election cycles down the road, or as soon as the next natural disaster/terrorist attack/other emergency. No president, Democrat or Republican can be allowed to have so much unchecked power, the constitutional balance between the three branches of government must be restored.

We can eliminate this threat by waking up from our Ambien induced stupor, tearing ourselves away from the most recent celebretard exploits and taking up the work that freedom demands...Holding government accountable for its actions. This is the eternal vigilance Thomas Jefferson spoke of in describing the price of freedom.

Bully:

Is this any different than during LBJ's 2 terms? A great deal of lattitude was given to this president to manage the Vietnam war, and also his social agenda called the "Great Society"? :)

[bullypulpit]

Bully:

Is this any different than during LBJ's 2 terms? A great deal of lattitude was given to this president to manage the Vietnam war, and also his social agenda called the "Great Society"? :)

Yeah...It is. LBJ's manipulations of power were child's play compared to the very real assault on the Constitution being made by the Bush administration. As for a social agenda, Bush doesn't have one.

[diuretic]

Giving a president latitude (support) to prosecute a war and/or to implement social policies is fair enough. What's bizarre about the Bush Administration is it's attempt to assume powers it doesn't possess and was never intended to possess.

The separation of powers doctrine stops a democracy from becoming a dictatorship. The Bush Administration has trampled all over that doctrine.

[eighballsidepocket]

Giving a president latitude (support) to prosecute a war and/or to implement social policies is fair enough. What's bizarre about the Bush Administration is it's attempt to assume powers it doesn't possess and was never intended to possess.

The separation of powers doctrine stops a democracy from becoming a dictatorship. The Bush Administration has trampled all over that doctrine.

LBJ didn't have much in the way of worries about terrorism from within or without, did he?

I would think that GWB's policies that seem to make many think that there is a strong authoritarian/control thing happening is a result of the times, and what our country/gov. must do, in order to protect itself and stay a cohesive, and safe society.

Don't we live in unprecendented times with the massive illegal immigration which equates to record numbers of undocumented folks (of unknown character/background) within our borders, as well as the extreme measures to protect our citizens in respect to air travel?

Did LBJ have to contend with this?

Any President that is lax in protecting the security of a nation will certainly receive negative reviews, especially if terrorism starts to reign supreme in that nation.

On the other hand, a President who tries very hard to make his nation safe by both combating or protecting the populous from potential terrorism from within, and also actively pursues the sources, or the "Queen bee" of the terrorism from without, seems to be construed as over-authoritarian and nation building.

Even Abe Lincoln was heavily criticized during the time of the Civil war for many strong authoritarian laws being instituted on the Northern or Union states. One was the draft, that was sadly unfairly selective and allowed wealthy men and sons to avoid it if they could pay the government $300.00. This created a great riot in NYC, that was only quelled by bringing in Union soldiers after much human casualties.

Many probably don't know that under Secretary of War, Stanton, during that time, we had a secret police that rooted out seditious citizens, and any Southern or Confederate sympathizers. Yet, nowadays, nothing of that extreme occurs with the present administration, but it is inferred as a near-truth that we are under Fascist or potential Fascist rule.

There were so many death threats against Abe Lincoln, that the Union war department couldn't keep track of all the leads. This as well was going on in the Confederacy too, as President Jefferson Davis was constantly guarded by a military guard. Many Southerners blamed him/Davis for a lack of resolve in pursuing the early Union defeats all the way to Washington D.C.., with the Southern armed forces.

During times of war or threats to a nation, that can come in the form of religious extremism from within and without, as well as non religious idealism in the form of National Socialism or Fascism, countrys must make or enact some extreme measures.

My parents had black-out shades on their home in the S.F. bay area during WW2, and had ration cards for foods and fuel.

Whether this enemy is a distinct nation or a blurry, hiding, entity as is with this Islamo extremist movement that comprises numbers in the millions throughout the Western and Eastern world geographically, it is still a war against us. It threatens are culture of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of dissent, and equality of the sexes as well as good old democracy in action.

So I'm for the governmental lattitude, until the danger is minimized to a point that we can ease up. Many fear that once we enact certain laws or enforcements they will not be retracted. This wasn't the case after WW2 or WW1.

Also, the mindset of the Gen X'ers is one of demanding or needing, immediate response and results, yet fighting wars has never filled that "bill" except for the Gulf War under Bush 41 or the famous 6 day war in the 1960's.

If your going to wave your raw raw flag or old Glory right after 9/11, plan on staying the course and not retreating like bored, impatient, over-indulged children. Our parents who grew up in the depression knew what patience meant, and so did their parents. Sadly this and the earlier generation have had so much given to them and don't know how to give back or commit to staying the course in anything except pursuing self indulgent careers to make big bucks, and own Bimmers and Audiis.

The depression started in 1929 and didn't start to come out of it's horrid valley until near the time of Pearl Harbor, or 12/7/41. Folks, that's 12 years! That's 12 years of ex-big shots in wall street selling apples for a nickel apiece on street corners!

We are sadly an impatient, bored, judgemental, self-centered culture, that wants instant results, from our government, and from any and all other sources. We want a "teat" just for us at every area of our lives. We don't know what it is to work in a soup kitchen, and make other's happy or content. We are totally into solving the world, our country, and pointing fingers left/right/up/ and down, but generally don't know how to be part of the change.

We bicker, we debate, we don't listen to what others say, as we are already thinking about what nuggets of wisdom to say back in their faces.

Sadly, being a Democrat or a Repub or Libertarian isn't much different than saying I only buy Fords, Chevys or Dodges. Some folks own Fords their whole lives, and if you ask them why they don't have an objective reason. "I always owned them, because my dad always owned them.".

Everyones afraid to try brand "B", and do some research.

I'm a Republican, but I'm not happy with a lot of what my party is doing. I will vote my conscience before I vote a straight ticket, cause thats the party line to keep the your party's representation at a certain level in Congress. I say bull feathers to that.

It's just like global warming. The glaciers will melt like they've done on and off for eons. We will have El Nino currents some years and not some other years. The earth will probably have another mini ice age in a hundred or so years..........Things are cyclical. I refuse to be on the bandwagon.

I refuse to say that biblical Christians only belong to one party. I will say that the platform of certain parties make if very difficult for biblical Chrisitans to feel represented, though.

We live in a skewed world, and our country that was once a beacon or light house on a hill is becoming skewed in it's own self indulgent, and anti-ethical way. Even though sex comprises less than 1/10th of 1% of a human's life activities, we are deluged through media and other cultural communications as though it comprises 90% of humanity's concerns or activities.

If GWB were a Democrat, he would be loved by most Democrats. It's the old Chevy thing. I buy chevys and they're better than Fords. "Why?"...I don't know.......I've always been a Chevy man.

Same goes for Republicans. We believe business keeps the economy going, and feeds the people, but we totally lose sight of the "little" man who got "chucked" out of his job and is selling apples. With coarseness we tell'em that they just need to get in their and work and they can achieve. Seems easy for us who have arrived, but we really don't know what it's like to walk in that other persons shoes for a day a week a month or a year.

These are only generalizations, as I know that good, and empathetic folks can inhabit most spectrums of political philosophy.

I'm just tired of the name calling of politicians on both sides. The personal attacks on person's character or integrity if they differ in view.

Slandering individuals and groups is en vogue now. Objective, well thought-out discussion is boring, or takes too much work. Degradation of others is much easier. Consciences are seared. You are with us or your against us.

I'm tired. Also disappointed, but I am hoperful too.

:)

[diuretic]

What does that have to do with my post?

[bullypulpit]

LBJ didn't have much in the way of worries about terrorism from within or without, did he?

I would think that GWB's policies that seem to make many think that there is a strong authoritarian/control thing happening is a result of the times, and what our country/gov. must do, in order to protect itself and stay a cohesive, and safe society.

Don't we live in unprecendented times with the massive illegal immigration which equates to record numbers of undocumented folks (of unknown character/background) within our borders, as well as the extreme measures to protect our citizens in respect to air travel?

Did LBJ have to contend with this?

Any President that is lax in protecting the security of a nation will certainly receive negative reviews, especially if terrorism starts to reign supreme in that nation.



On the other hand, a President who tries very hard to make his nation safe by both combating or protecting the populous from potential terrorism from within, and also actively pursues the sources, or the "Queen bee" of the terrorism from without, seems to be construed as over-authoritarian and nation building.

Even Abe Lincoln was heavily criticized during the time of the Civil war for many strong authoritarian laws being instituted on the Northern or Union states. One was the draft, that was sadly unfairly selective and allowed wealthy men and sons to avoid it if they could pay the government $300.00. This created a great riot in NYC, that was only quelled by bringing in Union soldiers after much human casualties.

Many probably don't know that under Secretary of War, Stanton, during that time, we had a secret police that rooted out seditious citizens, and any Southern or Confederate sympathizers. Yet, nowadays, nothing of that extreme occurs with the present administration, but it is inferred as a near-truth that we are under Fascist or potential Fascist rule.

There were so many death threats against Abe Lincoln, that the Union war department couldn't keep track of all the leads. This as well was going on in the Confederacy too, as President Jefferson Davis was constantly guarded by a military guard. Many Southerners blamed him/Davis for a lack of resolve in pursuing the early Union defeats all the way to Washington D.C.., with the Southern armed forces.

During times of war or threats to a nation, that can come in the form of religious extremism from within and without, as well as non religious idealism in the form of National Socialism or Fascism, countrys must make or enact some extreme measures.

My parents had black-out shades on their home in the S.F. bay area during WW2, and had ration cards for foods and fuel.

Whether this enemy is a distinct nation or a blurry, hiding, entity as is with this Islamo extremist movement that comprises numbers in the millions throughout the Western and Eastern world geographically, it is still a war against us. It threatens are culture of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of dissent, and equality of the sexes as well as good old democracy in action.

So I'm for the governmental lattitude, until the danger is minimized to a point that we can ease up. Many fear that once we enact certain laws or enforcements they will not be retracted. This wasn't the case after WW2 or WW1.

Also, the mindset of the Gen X'ers is one of demanding or needing, immediate response and results, yet fighting wars has never filled that "bill" except for the Gulf War under Bush 41 or the famous 6 day war in the 1960's.

If your going to wave your raw raw flag or old Glory right after 9/11, plan on staying the course and not retreating like bored, impatient, over-indulged children. Our parents who grew up in the depression knew what patience meant, and so did their parents. Sadly this and the earlier generation have had so much given to them and don't know how to give back or commit to staying the course in anything except pursuing self indulgent careers to make big bucks, and own Bimmers and Audiis.

The depression started in 1929 and didn't start to come out of it's horrid valley until near the time of Pearl Harbor, or 12/7/41. Folks, that's 12 years! That's 12 years of ex-big shots in wall street selling apples for a nickel apiece on street corners!

We are sadly an impatient, bored, judgemental, self-centered culture, that wants instant results, from our government, and from any and all other sources. We want a "teat" just for us at every area of our lives. We don't know what it is to work in a soup kitchen, and make other's happy or content. We are totally into solving the world, our country, and pointing fingers left/right/up/ and down, but generally don't know how to be part of the change.

We bicker, we debate, we don't listen to what others say, as we are already thinking about what nuggets of wisdom to say back in their faces.

Sadly, being a Democrat or a Repub or Libertarian isn't much different than saying I only buy Fords, Chevys or Dodges. Some folks own Fords their whole lives, and if you ask them why they don't have an objective reason. "I always owned them, because my dad always owned them.".

Everyones afraid to try brand "B", and do some research.

I'm a Republican, but I'm not happy with a lot of what my party is doing. I will vote my conscience before I vote a straight ticket, cause thats the party line to keep the your party's representation at a certain level in Congress. I say bull feathers to that.

It's just like global warming. The glaciers will melt like they've done on and off for eons. We will have El Nino currents some years and not some other years. The earth will probably have another mini ice age in a hundred or so years..........Things are cyclical. I refuse to be on the bandwagon.

I refuse to say that biblical Christians only belong to one party. I will say that the platform of certain parties make if very difficult for biblical Chrisitans to feel represented, though.

We live in a skewed world, and our country that was once a beacon or light house on a hill is becoming skewed in it's own self indulgent, and anti-ethical way. Even though sex comprises less than 1/10th of 1% of a human's life activities, we are deluged through media and other cultural communications as though it comprises 90% of humanity's concerns or activities.

If GWB were a Democrat, he would be loved by most Democrats. It's the old Chevy thing. I buy chevys and they're better than Fords. "Why?"...I don't know.......I've always been a Chevy man.

Same goes for Republicans. We believe business keeps the economy going, and feeds the people, but we totally lose sight of the "little" man who got "chucked" out of his job and is selling apples. With coarseness we tell'em that they just need to get in their and work and they can achieve. Seems easy for us who have arrived, but we really don't know what it's like to walk in that other persons shoes for a day a week a month or a year.

These are only generalizations, as I know that good, and empathetic folks can inhabit most spectrums of political philosophy.

I'm just tired of the name calling of politicians on both sides. The personal attacks on person's character or integrity if they differ in view.

Slandering individuals and groups is en vogue now. Objective, well thought-out discussion is boring, or takes too much work. Degradation of others is much easier. Consciences are seared. You are with us or your against us.

I'm tired. Also disappointed, but I am hoperful too.

:)

What our government is doing has less to do with protecting the country than it does with the establishment of a unitary Executive branch at the expense of the the Legislative and Judicial branches and the Constitution.

With his unprecedented use of signing statements, Bush effectively nullifies those bills passed by Congress, rather than vetoing them and sending them back to Congress as the Constitution requires. In doing so, he usurps the role of the Legislative branch.

By assuming sole authority in determining just who is and is not and "enemy combatant", and held indefinitely, with no right to counsel...with no legal recourse...Anyone, including a US citizen can by subjected to arrest and detention without charge or recourse. With this power, Bush usurps the authority of the Judicial branch.

Either way, you have an Executive branch assuming powers which no president, Democrat or Republican, should have and are inimical to the Constitution and the democratic process in this country.


So I'm for the governmental lattitude, until the danger is minimized to a point that we can ease up.

This attitude fails to recognize the open-ended nature of the "global war on terror" as the Bush administration has defined it. Its also the same attitude held by the average citizen of pre-WW Germany and Italy. With the establishment of an enemy which could be anywhere, and strike at any time, and is characterized as "<i>a threat to civilization</i>" itself, the Bush administration has sought to create an atmosphere of fear in order to continue to justify their assault on the Constitution. It's a tactic long used by despots in order to shut down democratic, open societies. The Bush administration has sought to invoke:

- A sense of overwhelming crisis which is not amenable to any traditional solutions...

-The belief that one's nation is a victim, a sentiment which which justifies ANY action, without moral or legal limits, against its enemies, both foreign and domestic...

-The superiority of the leader's instinct over any abstract and universal reason...

These three themes were common to those who sought to, and eventually did, bring down democracies and establish fascist/totlitarian states in the 20th century. It is obvious by your statement that you accept these premises. You've been duped.

(<i>edited 10/3/07 @ 0908</i>)

[diuretic]

Bugger it, I can't rep you BP, but bravo :clap:

[Gaffer]

What our government is doing has less to do with protecting the country than it does with the establishment of a unitary Executive branch at the expense of the the Legislative and Judicial branches and the Constitution.

With his unprecedented use of signing statements, Bush effectively nullifies those bills passed by Congress, rather than vetoing them and sending them back to Congress as the Constitution requires. In doing so, he usurps the role of the Legislative branch.

By assuming sole authority in determining just who is and is not and "enemy combatant", and held indefinitely, with no right to counsel...with no legal recourse...Anyone, including a US citizen can by subjected to arrest and detention without charge or recourse. With this power, Bush usurps the authority of the Judicial branch.

Either way, you have an Executive branch assuming powers which no president, Democrat or Republican, should have and are inimical to the Constitution and the democratic process in this country.



This attitude fails to recognize the open-ended nature of the "global war on terror" as the Bush administration has defined it. Its also the same attitude held by the average citizen of pre-WW Germany and Italy. With the establishment of an enemy which could be anywhere, and strike at any time, and is characterized as "<i>a threat to civilization</i>" itself, the Bush administration has sought to create an atmosphere of fear in order to continue to justify their assault on the Constitution. It's a tactic long used by despots in order to shut down democratic, open societies. The Bush administration has sought to invoke:

- A sense of overwhelming crisis which is not amenable to any traditional solutions...

-The belief that one's nation is a victim, a sentiment which which justifies ANY action, without moral or legal limits, against its enemies, both foreign and domestic...

-The superiority of the leader's instinct over any abstract and universal reason...

These three themes were common to those who sought to, and eventually did, bring down democracies and establish fascist/totlitarian states in the 20th century. It is obvious by your statement that you accept these premises. You've been duped.

(<i>edited 10/3/07 @ 0908</i>)

So how do you define the global war on terror? Do so in your own words please, not some pundit.

[typomaniac]

So how do you define the global war on terror? Do so in your own words please, not some pundit.

I define it as a propaganda tool used by would-be autocrats. It isn't a "war" at all, nor has any government entity defined what constitutes terror.

[JackDaniels]

So how do you define the global war on terror? Do so in your own words please, not some pundit.

I suppose you define it as going to war in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had a leader that hated OBL as much as we did?

There's a reason the NeoCon movement is led by former Communists.

[eighballsidepocket]

What does that have to do with my post?

Just replace your chevy with another chevy and don't fret about it. :)

[Gaffer]

I define it as a propaganda tool used by would-be autocrats. It isn't a "war" at all, nor has any government entity defined what constitutes terror.

The war of terror is a misnomer, You can't have a war on a tactic. It's purely a pc name because they won't call it what it is. A war on islam. No matter how many various terror groups there are they are all islamists. That IS the enemy. No matter what part of islam they believe in they all have the same goal, conquest of the world by islam.

What constitutes a government entity? And what gives them the authority to define terror?

[Gaffer]

I suppose you define it as going to war in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had a leader that hated OBL as much as we did?

There's a reason the NeoCon movement is led by former Communists.

You suppose a lot. I haven't defined anything. I asked another poster to define the global war on terror in his own words. Something you have failed to do in this post. I define it as the war on islam, not terror. Terror is a tactic not an ideology.

The neocon movement is led by liberals?

[JackDaniels]

The neocon movement is led by liberals?

Absolutely. It's a fact. This debate has been hashed through on this board. Perhaps you missed it? There is no doubt that the NeoCons are Communists and Liberals.

[typomaniac]

Absolutely. It's a fact. This debate has been hashed through on this board. Perhaps you missed it? There is no doubt that the NeoCons are Communists and Liberals.

Not sure it's accurate to call them liberals, but they're definitely radicals.

[theHawk]

I define it as a propaganda tool used by would-be autocrats. It isn't a "war" at all, nor has any government entity defined what constitutes terror.

I would say that there is definately a "war" going on right now. But Gaffer is right, its a war between Islam and the West, not "terrorism", so in that respect you are correct typo. Since its a war with Islam, the definition of the word "terrorism" is sort of a moot point, though I don't understand why we would need a government to define it for us, I think we are capable of defining it ourselves.

[bullypulpit]

So how do you define the global war on terror? Do so in your own words please, not some pundit.

As it now stands, the "war on terror" is nothing more than a propaganda tool to give the Bush administration continued leverage to undermine the Constitution.

A realistic approach to fighting terrorism would involve, not the heavy hand of the military, but the close cooperation between law enforcement agencies around the globe and intelligence agencies. This would permit the sharing of intel between these agencies allowing the law enforcement to track down and nip operations in the bud,as was recently done in Germany. As was done in Europe throughout the 60's 70's and 80's, effectively putting to rest the terrorist operations that were active in that era.

[Sir Evil]

As it now stands, the "war on terror" is nothing more than a propaganda tool to give the Bush administration continued leverage to undermine the Constitution.

A realistic approach to fighting terrorism would involve, not the heavy hand of the military, but the close cooperation between law enforcement agencies around the globe and intelligence agencies. This would permit the sharing of intel between these agencies allowing the law enforcement to track down and nip operations in the bud,as was recently done in Germany. As was done in Europe throughout the 60's 70's and 80's, effectively putting to rest the terrorist operations that were active in that era.

Not realstic at all when your friends over at the ACLU are at constantly fighting the system that the admin has put into place to put a track on said terrorists. and you expect the police would have an easier go at it?:poke:

[bullypulpit]

You suppose a lot. I haven't defined anything. I asked another poster to define the global war on terror in his own words. Something you have failed to do in this post. I define it as the war on islam, not terror. Terror is a tactic not an ideology.

The neocon movement is led by liberals?

As you noted, terrorism is a tactic, and Islamic fundamentalist movements are not its only practitioners. But this thread is not about terrorism per se. it is about the foundation for a future fascist state being laid by the Bush administration.

So, perhaps you'd like to answer a question along those lines...

How are adherence to the Constitution and effective national defense mutually exclusive?

[Sir Evil]

But this thread is not about terrorism per se. it is about the foundation for a future fascist state being laid by the Bush administration.


Bully, who finishes this finely paved road? I dunno, is there not a thing called elections coming?

[bullypulpit]

Not realstic at all when your friends over at the ACLU are at constantly fighting the system that the admin has put into place to put a track on said terrorists. and you expect the police would have an easier go at it?:poke:

We have the means to combat terrorism with in the four corners of the Constitution. The Bush administration chooses, however, to try and operate outside legal and constitutional bounds, and is using the "war on terror" more as a means of justifying these abuses of power and gathering more power to the presidency than of conducting any serious defense of America against future terrorist attack.

[Sir Evil]

We have the means to combat terrorism with in the four corners of the Constitution. The Bush administration chooses, however, to try and operate outside legal and constitutional bounds, and is using the "war on terror" more as a means of justifying these abuses of power and gathering more power to the presidency than of conducting any serious defense of America against future terrorist attack.

:laugh2:

Bully, are you just angered because he may of listened to you on the phone?

That's weak man, and again the ACLU makes it easier for the police or it's just that the police would never stoop to such tactics?

[bullypulpit]

Bully, who finishes this finely paved road? I dunno, is there not a thing called elections coming?

If the next president, Democrat or Republican, fails to roll back the measures put in place by the Bush administration which have undermined the constitutional separation of powers and checks and balances, the process will continue to its logical conclusion...An America bereft of its freedoms, a fascist/totalitarian state. Or, it could happen tomorrow with another attack on the US or a natural disaster. Bush's ability to declare martial law was expanded under the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007.

[Sir Evil]

If the next president, Democrat or Republican, fails to roll back the measures put in place by the Bush administration which have undermined the constitutional separation of powers and checks and balances, the process will continue to its logical conclusion...An America bereft of its freedoms, a fascist/totalitarian state. Or, it could happen tomorrow with another attack on the US or a natural disaster. Bush's ability to declare martial law was expanded under the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007.

I'm feeling another staged 911 coming this way Bush can stay in office.

:laugh2:

You rule Bully!

[bullypulpit]

:laugh2:

Bully, are you just angered because he may of listened to you on the phone?

That's weak man, and again the ACLU makes it easier for the police or it's just that the police would never stoop to such tactics?

No, old son, it's your comment that is weak. It doesn't take the surveillance of all the people all of the time to quash dissent. People just being hauled aside at the airport for questioning and a strip search because you're on the TSA's watch list for no readily apparent reason can be enough to dissuade some from the thought of dissent.

And they don't have to listen to my phone calls. I send regular e-mails to the White House detailing my concerns about their attempts to undermine and subvert the Constitution.

[Sir Evil]

No, old son, it's your comment that is weak. It doesn't take the surveillance of all the people all of the time to quash dissent. People just being hauled aside at the airport for questioning and a strip search because you're on the TSA's watch list for no readily apparent reason can be enough to dissuade some from the thought of dissent.

Sorry bully, not insinuating you were weak but rather the argument.



And they don't have to listen to my phone calls. I send regular e-mails to the White House detailing my concerns about their attempts to undermine and subvert the Constitution.

:laugh2::laugh2:

Bully, Bush is going to personally deport you!

[Gaffer]

As it now stands, the "war on terror" is nothing more than a propaganda tool to give the Bush administration continued leverage to undermine the Constitution.

A realistic approach to fighting terrorism would involve, not the heavy hand of the military, but the close cooperation between law enforcement agencies around the globe and intelligence agencies. This would permit the sharing of intel between these agencies allowing the law enforcement to track down and nip operations in the bud,as was recently done in Germany. As was done in Europe throughout the 60's 70's and 80's, effectively putting to rest the terrorist operations that were active in that era.

This is a WAR! We are not dealing with a few criminals that the police need to pick up. We are dealing with a highly organized well funded orinization supported by countries such as iran and syria. Two other former supporting countries were Afghanistan and iraq. This is not a law enforcement problem. It's a military problem.

Law enforcement enters in when the islamists are found plotting domestically. And law enforcement needs the tools to do their job. Which means freeing them up in areas of eavesdropping, search and seizure, and incarcerating suspects.

You don't want to acknowledge that its a war and you want to tie the hands of the law enforcement community that you think should handle it.

While there are cells in this country most of the threat comes from outside the country. Which means its not police business.

What rights have you lost since the war began? How many times have authorities come to your door because of some constitutional issue?

There are scumbags out there that want to kill you, yet you want to tie the hands of the very people that can prevent that. Since when did the scumbags rights become more important than your life?

[JackDaniels]

Not sure it's accurate to call them liberals, but they're definitely radicals.

Liberal is definitely accurate. Even the godfather of the NeoCon movement said in 2003 that the NeoCons have more in common with FDR than Goldwater. The founders of the NeoCon movement were followers of Leon Trotsky.

The current Republican Party is filled with radical liberals. That is a fact.

[bullypulpit]

This is a WAR! We are not dealing with a few criminals that the police need to pick up. We are dealing with a highly organized well funded orinization supported by countries such as iran and syria. Two other former supporting countries were Afghanistan and iraq. This is not a law enforcement problem. It's a military problem.

Law enforcement enters in when the islamists are found plotting domestically. And law enforcement needs the tools to do their job. Which means freeing them up in areas of eavesdropping, search and seizure, and incarcerating suspects.

You don't want to acknowledge that its a war and you want to tie the hands of the law enforcement community that you think should handle it.

While there are cells in this country most of the threat comes from outside the country. Which means its not police business.

What rights have you lost since the war began? How many times have authorities come to your door because of some constitutional issue?

There are scumbags out there that want to kill you, yet you want to tie the hands of the very people that can prevent that. Since when did the scumbags rights become more important than your life?

<blockquote>
Main Entry:<b>1war</b>
Pronunciation: \ˈwȯr\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
Date: 12th century

<b>1 a</b> (1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations </blockquote>

The definition of the word "war" has become diluted through overuse...the "war" on poverty...the "war" on drugs...the "war" on terrorism. We are not at war, Congress never declared war against Iraq, it did give Bush the authorization to use military force in Afghanistan. But no war was ever declared.

Al Qaeda has franchises, for lack of a better word, in more than 60 nations around the world. To pin our forces down in Iraq on the pretext of "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" is just that a pretext, and a phony one at that. To think that the war on terrorism can be won by the invasion and occupation of Iraq is thinking as delusional as as it is unrealistic.

If nothing else, it serves this administration in its goal of gathering power to the executive branch under the thin guise of national security, while doing little, if anything to secure our nation.

Your arguments for allowing the Bush administration to continue this accumulation of power and usurpation of the constitutionally established powers of the Legislative and Judicial branches will, if left unchecked, give the terrorists a victory they could never have achieved on their own...A totalitarian America which entered willingly into that nightmare because Americans became cowed, and frightened and forgot that,

<blockquote>"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson</blockquote>

Our freedoms were won at great cost, and are not to be surrendered to such base emotions as fear and anxiety. But you, and your fellow travelers, seem all too willing to do just that.

[Gaffer]

<blockquote>
Main Entry:<b>1war</b>
Pronunciation: \ˈwȯr\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
Date: 12th century

<b>1 a</b> (1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations </blockquote>

The definition of the word "war" has become diluted through overuse...the "war" on poverty...the "war" on drugs...the "war" on terrorism. We are not at war, Congress never declared war against Iraq, it did give Bush the authorization to use military force in Afghanistan. But no war was ever declared.

Al Qaeda has franchises, for lack of a better word, in more than 60 nations around the world. To pin our forces down in Iraq on the pretext of "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" is just that a pretext, and a phony one at that. To think that the war on terrorism can be won by the invasion and occupation of Iraq is thinking as delusional as as it is unrealistic.

If nothing else, it serves this administration in its goal of gathering power to the executive branch under the thin guise of national security, while doing little, if anything to secure our nation.

Your arguments for allowing the Bush administration to continue this accumulation of power and usurpation of the constitutionally established powers of the Legislative and Judicial branches will, if left unchecked, give the terrorists a victory they could never have achieved on their own...A totalitarian America which entered willingly into that nightmare because Americans became cowed, and frightened and forgot that,

<blockquote>"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson</blockquote>

Our freedoms were won at great cost, and are not to be surrendered to such base emotions as fear and anxiety. But you, and your fellow travelers, seem all too willing to do just that.

You didn't answer any of my questions.

This country is at war whether you or the congress will admit that. Facts are facts.

I don't believe congress would declare war on anyone regardless of what they do. An out right attack by another country would be met with authorization for the president to carry out military operations. Because the congress hasn't got the balls to declare war on anyone, it might offend somebody to do a thing like that.

As long as there a people like you around the tree of liberty will be replenished with the blood of innocents long before the patriots start to bleed. I just hope most of those innocents are liberals.

[diuretic]

Just replace your chevy with another chevy and don't fret about it. :)

We export them. We build them not far from me but you reckon I can buy one? Nope, have to settle for the local version.

[diuretic]

If there's a war on Islam how come the Saudis are among the west's best buds?

[bullypulpit]

This is a WAR! We are not dealing with a few criminals that the police need to pick up. We are dealing with a highly organized well funded orinization supported by countries such as iran and syria. Two other former supporting countries were Afghanistan and iraq. This is not a law enforcement problem. It's a military problem.

Law enforcement enters in when the islamists are found plotting domestically. And law enforcement needs the tools to do their job. Which means freeing them up in areas of eavesdropping, search and seizure, and incarcerating suspects.

You don't want to acknowledge that its a war and you want to tie the hands of the law enforcement community that you think should handle it.

While there are cells in this country most of the threat comes from outside the country. Which means its not police business.

What rights have you lost since the war began? How many times have authorities come to your door because of some constitutional issue?

There are scumbags out there that want to kill you, yet you want to tie the hands of the very people that can prevent that. Since when did the scumbags rights become more important than your life?

Which is why we have FISA and Title III. These laws deal specifically with the surveillance of suspected terrorists WITHIN THE LAW, which is something the Bush administration seems to find somehow distasteful. As long as law enforcement agencies adhere to and operate within the four corners of the law in their surveillance, they can do so as they wish. Your assertion that anyone wants to somehow "tie the hands" of law enforcement agencies is, at best specious and is tacit support for illegal operations to arbitraily surveil US citizens, a tactic which is clearly inimical to the Constitutional and democratic processes in this country.

While there MAY be terrorist cells within this country, you are correct in asserting that bringing them to heel is the task of law enforcement. In foreign countries, it is the responsibility of local law enforcement acting in concert with local, regional and global intelligence and law enforcement agencies. It is not for the US to unilaterally decide to bring the weight of the military to bear on the matter.

As to what rights have been lost, I refer you <a href=http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=130329&postcount=28>HERE</a>, where i already dealt with that particular question in THIS forum.

Scumbags...? Islamists...? So every Muslim is a scum bag and a terrorist? Your own prejudices and fear have blinded you. You've been completely co-opted by the Bush administration's marginalization and demonization of a group to distract from and justify their assault ion the Constitution. You've been duped, and I'll bet willingly at that.

[eighballsidepocket]

We export them. We build them not far from me but you reckon I can buy one? Nope, have to settle for the local version.

Oh, never mind. :)

[diuretic]

Oh, never mind. :)

Good album, not a classic, but good.

[bullypulpit]

Bump.

Apparently the apologists for Chimpy McPresident have lost the will to continue the debate. It must be tiring...defending the indefensible day in and day out.

[JackDaniels]

Bump.

Apparently the apologists for Chimpy McPresident have lost the will to continue the debate. It must be tiring...defending the indefensible day in and day out.

Everyday, more and more, I see Republicans running away from debate once they get called out on this. Avatar did it in this very thread.

[Sir Evil]

Everyday, more and more, I see Republicans running away from debate once they get called out on this. Avatar did it in this very thread.

:laugh2:

Again Bully, who is Bush laying the foundation for?

And Jack, unless the 8 pages of this thread was just between you & Bully I might be inclined to agree. I think it's probable that more are just used to Bully's hate threads.

[April15]

:laugh2:

Again Bully, who is Bush laying the foundation for?

And Jack, unless the 8 pages of this thread was just between you & Bully I might be inclined to agree. I think it's probable that more are just used to Bully's hate threads.For the corporations to, along with, the Republicans deny Americans of constitutional protections in particular the Bill of Rights. To have the PNAC serve as the world view and those who won't will be made to obey.

[Sir Evil]

For the corporations to, along with, the Republicans deny Americans of constitutional protections in particular the Bill of Rights. To have the PNAC serve as the world view and those who won't will be made to obey.

:laugh2:

Well let's see, the previous two elsection the majority of Americans would disagree with that statement.

With the majority that talk the very same dookie as this also are over confident it will change in the coming election, could be as well. So I would assume if that happen that you are saying they will also continue the theory of having the PNAC serve as world view?

Also hit me with a few of those rights that you have been denied, just curious.

[April15]

:laugh2:

Well let's see, the previous two elsection the majority of Americans would disagree with that statement.

With the majority that talk the very same dookie as this also are over confident it will change in the coming election, could be as well. So I would assume if that happen that you are saying they will also continue the theory of having the PNAC serve as world view?

Also hit me with a few of those rights that you have been denied, just curious.Unreasonable searches, Habeus Corpus, Fair elections, to name a few. But if you haven't experienced any denial of rights you most likely don't know what your rights were.

[Sir Evil]

Unreasonable searches, Habeus Corpus, Fair elections, to name a few. But if you haven't experienced any denial of rights you most likely don't know what your rights were.

:lol::lol::lame2:

Ok, can you provide the proof of where you have been denied?

Fair elections? :laugh2: are we still going with the stolen elections?

What would be an example of an unreasonable search?

I do know my rights, thanks for asking though.

[April15]

:lol::lol::lame2:

Ok, can you provide the proof of where you have been denied?

Fair elections? :laugh2: are we still going with the stolen elections?

What would be an example of an unreasonable search?

I do know my rights, thanks for asking though.Yes that is easy. I am on the no fly list. Why? Because I stated that Bush should be assassinated to keep this nation safe.
If you cannot see any parallel to the elections in Pakistan that resemble a phony election like the 2000 election I pity you and yours in the future.
An unreasonable search is being called for jury duty and having to prove I intend no harm to anyone in the courthouse. I was detained by the sheriff and subjected to interrogation and strip search.

[Sir Evil]

Yes that is easy. I am on the no fly list. Why? Because I stated that Bush should be assassinated to keep this nation safe.

Damn skippy! regardless of who is in office as statement as such is just plain stupidity.



If you cannot see any parallel to the elections in Pakistan that resemble a phony election like the 2000 election I pity you and yours in the future.
An unreasonable search is being called for jury duty and having to prove I intend no harm to anyone in the courthouse. I was detained by the sheriff and subjected to interrogation and strip search.

Me & mine will be just fine, appreciate the thoughts though.

I can't speak for the court issue other than to agree that one should have to prove they intend no harm in such a place. Strip search certainly seems extreme though. Do you have a record of some sort?

[JackDaniels]

:lol::lol::lame2:

Ok, can you provide the proof of where you have been denied?

Fair elections? :laugh2: are we still going with the stolen elections?

What would be an example of an unreasonable search?

I do know my rights, thanks for asking though.

Doesn't sound like you do.

You do understand, when you have a President of the other political party, they will have the power to search your residence without a warrant, clean up, then never tell you they were there. President Hillary is going to be just as harmful to freedom as Bush is.

[mrg666]

Doesn't sound like you do.

You do understand, when you have a President of the other political party, they will have the power to search your residence without a warrant, clean up, then never tell you they were there. President Hillary is going to be just as harmful to freedom as Bush is.

are you a mystic then have you consulted some crystal ball or is it just the bong :laugh2:

[JackDaniels]

are you a mystic then have you consulted some crystal ball or is it just the bong :laugh2:

I said it in a derogatory way, if you read what I said.

However, anyone who understands the nature of politics in the United States knows that as of today, this election is hers to lose.

That may change, but as of right now, it's all Hillary.

Not that we have a real choice for liberty -- socialist Democrats or fascist Republicans...

[bullypulpit]

:laugh2:

Again Bully, who is Bush laying the foundation for?

And Jack, unless the 8 pages of this thread was just between you & Bully I might be inclined to agree. I think it's probable that more are just used to Bully's hate threads.

Since the Reagan era, conservative ideology in this country has taken a more and more authoritarian bent. With the advent of the "neo-conservatives" and their idoelogical guru, Leo Strauss, the conservative movement has turned almost totalitarian in its thinking. And, quite honestly, Bush is too stupid to grasp the implications...He simply follows Cheney's lead.

[bullypulpit]

are you a mystic then have you consulted some crystal ball or is it just the bong :laugh2:

No crystal ball is needed. History provides us with all the examples we need. Even the best intentioned leaders have been corrupted by the lure of power> If the next POTUS is Hillary, and she fails to roll back the damage done to the Constitution and the rule of law by Bush, cheney, et al, then she is not worthy of the office.

[Sir Evil]

Since the Reagan era, conservative ideology in this country has taken a more and more authoritarian bent. With the advent of the "neo-conservatives" and their idoelogical guru, Leo Strauss, the conservative movement has turned almost totalitarian in its thinking. And, quite honestly, Bush is too stupid to grasp the implications...He simply follows Cheney's lead.

:laugh2:

So now it's the vice president laying this elaborate foundation, makes sense now.:rolleyes:

[mrg666]

No crystal ball is needed. History provides us with all the examples we need. Even the best intentioned leaders have been corrupted by the lure of power> If the next POTUS is Hillary, and she fails to roll back the damage done to the Constitution and the rule of law by Bush, cheney, et al, then she is not worthy of the office.

history is usefull and certainly we can learn from it but in politics that is bollox and you know that .
what is the damage you speak of ?

[bullypulpit]

:laugh2:

So now it's the vice president laying this elaborate foundation, makes sense now.:rolleyes:

No contradiction there, since the heart of the Bush administration IS Bush and Cheney. And when you look back, as far back as Watergate, on Cheney's historic contempt for Congress you'll find he has given voice to many of the steps taken by Bush...The use of signing statements to negate laws passed by Congress...aggressive use of US intelligence agencies against American citizens, illegally...The mistaken notion that the president doesn't need prior authorization from Congress to launch military action. All have their genesis in Cheney's distorted view of the Constitution and contempt for the democratic process.

[bullypulpit]

history is usefull and certainly we can learn from it but in politics that is bollox and you know that .
what is the damage you speak of ?

Habeas corpus...Gone. Secret prisons where torture is sanctioned. Illegal surveillance of US citizens. The arbitrary searches of persons at airports who are on a secret list compiled by the FBI. The usurpation of congressional authority in the form of signing statements. The usurpation of judicial authority by claiming the right to deem anyone, even US citizens on American soil,"enemy combatants" who can be arrested and detained indefinitely with no legal recourse available and no contact with anyone outside the jailors. In other countries it was known as "being disappeared".

Oh...and its not "bollox"...It's "bollocks". As in, your assertion that politics cannot be subjected to historical analysis is bollocks.

[Dilloduck]

Habeas corpus...Gone. Secret prisons where torture is sanctioned. Illegal surveillance of US citizens. The arbitrary searches of persons at airports who are on a secret list compiled by the FBI. The usurpation of congressional authority in the form of signing statements. The usurpation of judicial authority by claiming the right to deem anyone, even US citizens on American soil,"enemy combatants" who can be arrested and detained indefinitely with no legal recourse available and no contact with anyone outside the jailors. In other countries it was known as "being disappeared".

Oh...and its not "bollox"...It's "bollocks". As in, your assertion that politics cannot be subjected to historical analysis is bollocks.


they really do need to stop spying on me, picking me up for no reason, and torturing me. It's getting really old and leaves marks.

[diuretic]

they really do need to stop spying on me, picking me up for no reason, and torturing me. It's getting really old and leaves marks.

So you approve of it?

[Gaffer]

Habeas corpus...Gone. Secret prisons where torture is sanctioned. Illegal surveillance of US citizens. The arbitrary searches of persons at airports who are on a secret list compiled by the FBI. The usurpation of congressional authority in the form of signing statements. The usurpation of judicial authority by claiming the right to deem anyone, even US citizens on American soil,"enemy combatants" who can be arrested and detained indefinitely with no legal recourse available and no contact with anyone outside the jailors. In other countries it was known as "being disappeared".

Oh...and its not "bollox"...It's "bollocks". As in, your assertion that politics cannot be subjected to historical analysis is bollocks.

They're coming for you bully.

[Dilloduck]

So you approve of it?

who has it happened to?

[JackDaniels]

who has it happened to?

The whole point of the USA PATRIOT act is that you're not supposed to know.

How fucking dense are you?

[Dilloduck]

The whole point of the USA PATRIOT act is that you're not supposed to know.

How fucking dense are you?

If I get tortured I wanna know it.

[JackDaniels]

If I get tortured I wanna know it.

Do you even know what the USA PATRIOT act says?

[Dilloduck]

Do you even know what the USA PATRIOT act says?

sure I do---I wanna know who has been screwed by it.

[JackDaniels]

sure I do---I wanna know who has been screwed by it.

You obviously have no clue, because if you did, you'd know that the acts provisions deny you the right to know.

[Dilloduck]

You obviously have no clue, because if you did, you'd know that the acts provisions deny you the right to know.

wow--people just disappearing right of the street ? Like the body snatchers ?

[avatar4321]

You obviously have no clue, because if you did, you'd know that the acts provisions deny you the right to know.

hyperbole extrordinare.

If you dont have anyone who has been oppressed or disappeared, how do you know its happened?

[JackDaniels]

hyperbole extrordinare.

If you dont have anyone who has been oppressed or disappeared, how do you know its happened?

Because the USA PATRIOT act gives explicit rights to the federal government for them to search your home without a warrant, without you present, and then they can clean up and never tell you they were there.

I will repeat: how fucking dense are you?

[Dilloduck]

Because the USA PATRIOT act gives explicit rights to the federal government for them to search your home without a warrant, without you present, and then they can clean up and never tell you they were there.

I will repeat: how fucking dense are you?

I knew someone swiped everything I had and replaced it with an exact duplicate !!!!

[JackDaniels]

I knew someone swiped everything I had and replaced it with an exact duplicate !!!!

Do you have the ability to read? You are showing a severe lack of reading comprehension.

[Dilloduck]

Do you have the ability to read? You are showing a severe lack of reading comprehension.

THEY probably stole my glasses and changed the perscription when I wasn't home. BASTARDS !:laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

hyperbole extrordinare.

If you dont have anyone who has been oppressed or disappeared, how do you know its happened?
But is the right to privacy being infringed upon and the Constitution of the United states being ignored?

or as long as they don't haul any of us away in to never never land all is hunky dorey, regardless of our bill of rights?

jd

[manu1959]

But is the right to privacy being infringed upon and the Constitution of the United states being ignored?

or as long as they don't haul any of us away in to never never land all is hunky dorey, regardless of our bill of rights?

jd

well if nothing is happening....you seem to have fear of fear....

[JackDaniels]

well if nothing is happening....you seem to have fear of fear....

The point, manu, is that the USA PATRIOT act was written in such a way that you will never know if anything is happening or not...it's hard that hard to hide.

Even if things happen, the government has made it so that you will never know.

[Dilloduck]

The point, manu, is that the USA PATRIOT act was written in such a way that you will never know if anything is happening or not...it's hard that hard to hide.

Even if things happen, the government has made it so that you will never know.

Aaahhhhhhh you're talking about trying to figure out the tax code. I get it !

[JohnDoe]

well if nothing is happening....you seem to have fear of fear....

no, I was just asking, because I wanted to know how far all of you really think our rights should or can be subsided if need be, and if there is a "line" that is drawn to where it becomes unacceptable to break our Bill of rights any further?

jd

[bullypulpit]

Do you have the ability to read? You are showing a severe lack of reading comprehension.

It's not a lack of comprehension. It's complicity.

[bullypulpit]

no, I was just asking, because I wanted to know how far all of you really think our rights should or can be subsided if need be, and if there is a "line" that is drawn to where it becomes unacceptable to break our Bill of rights any further?

jd

The Constitution and Bill of Rights were not set forth by the Founders to be set aside because they are somehow inconvenient to the President. Nor were the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances established to promote the efficiency of decision making. They were set forth and established to prevent a tyrant from gaining power.

[red states rule]

The Constitution and Bill of Rights were not set forth by the Founders to be set aside because they are somehow inconvenient to the President. Nor were the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances established to promote the efficiency of decision making. They were set forth and established to prevent a tyrant from gaining power.

A liberal whining about corruption is like Al Capone whining about bootlegging

[diuretic]

no, I was just asking, because I wanted to know how far all of you really think our rights should or can be subsided if need be, and if there is a "line" that is drawn to where it becomes unacceptable to break our Bill of rights any further?

jd

I thought your constitution was inviolate? Government can't do what the constitution authorises. How can the constitution authorise the things I've read about here?

[diuretic]

The Constitution and Bill of Rights were not set forth by the Founders to be set aside because they are somehow inconvenient to the President. Nor were the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances established to promote the efficiency of decision making. They were set forth and established to prevent a tyrant from gaining power.

Knowing as they did the tyranny of King George III, I would assume. Small wonder the constitution is in the form it is.

[red states rule]

Knowing as they did the tyranny of King George III, I would assume. Small wonder the constitution is in the form it is.

What tyranny? Libs have had no restrictions showing how they are infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome for the last six years

On the other hand, given what laws libs want passed - they are the ones who want to take rights away from people they disagree with

[diuretic]

What tyranny? Libs have had no restrictions showing how they are infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome for the last six years

On the other hand, given what laws libs want passed - they are the ones who want to take rights away from people they disagree with

Sufficient tyranny for a revolution.

[red states rule]

Sufficient tyranny for a revolution.

Will not hapopen. Libs will not even fight the war on terror

In the US, libs also know who has all the guns. It is not them

[diuretic]

Will not hapopen. Libs will not even fight the war on terror

In the US, libs also know who has all the guns. It is not them

Crossed wires, I was thinking back to the 1770s. I'm not going to suggest a revolution would occur in the US now.

[red states rule]

Crossed wires, I was thinking back to the 1770s. I'm not going to suggest a revolution would occur in the US now.

Glad to hear it. Libs have breathed a huge sigh of relief

[diuretic]

Glad to hear it. Libs have breathed a huge sigh of relief

:laugh2:

The run on gun shops by crazed Dems is officially stopped - I'll head over to DU and give them the word :laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

Will not hapopen. Libs will not even fight the war on terror

In the US, libs also know who has all the guns. It is not them

But Rsr,

If it is not the Libs that own ALL the guns... (and it is those on the Right wing of the Spectrum)

then I would suppose that means all of the armed robberies and assaults with a weapon and murders with a gun were done by those that own ALL the guns, all Republicans.... Right? :poke: j/k

jd

[JackDaniels]

What tyranny? Libs have had no restrictions showing how they are infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome for the last six years

On the other hand, given what laws libs want passed - they are the ones who want to take rights away from people they disagree with

Both parties are interested in taking away your rights. The Republicans have shown with the USA PATRIOT act that they are even worse.

[Dilloduck]

Both parties are interested in taking away your rights. The Republicans have shown with the USA PATRIOT act that they are even worse.

then tell Hillary to change it----shit man--quit acting like a scared little girl. It ain't etched in stone.

[JackDaniels]

then tell Hillary to change it----shit man--quit acting like a scared little girl. It ain't etched in stone.

The Democrats have been complicit in allowing freedom to erode because they are in such a strong position to win the Presidency in 2008 that they want the power to spy on their political enemies.

Both major parties in this countries are ENEMIES of liberty.

[red states rule]

Both parties are interested in taking away your rights. The Republicans have shown with the USA PATRIOT act that they are even worse.

If you are a terrorist, then the Patriot Act was bad news for you

[JackDaniels]

If you are a terrorist, then the Patriot Act was bad news for you

You don't know much about the USA PATRIOT act

[red states rule]

You don't know much about the USA PATRIOT act

I know it drives the moonbat left up the wall - so it must be a good thing.

[JackDaniels]

I know it drives the moonbat left up the wall - so it must be a good thing.

That is not an intelligent statement.

But, what else can we expect from the dumbest member of this board.

[red states rule]

That is not an intelligent statement.

But, what else can we expect from the dumbest member of this board.

The left has done their best to undermine the war effort and Pres Bush - why should they stop now?

[JackDaniels]

The left has done their best to undermine the war effort and Pres Bush - why should they stop now?

If you don't see why the statements you are making are idiotic, you're a lost cause.

You really don't belong anywhere near a keyboard, because you are so dumb you are helpless.

[red states rule]

If you don't see why the statements you are making are idiotic, you're a lost cause.

You really don't belong anywhere near a keyboard, because you are so dumb you are helpless.

Hey, the terrorists endorsed Hillary today - what does that tell you?

The left is the biggest ally the terrorists have and they know it

[eighballsidepocket]

When my wifes 50+ year old brother who lives with his 80+ year old mother isn't taking his Lithium (Manic/Schizoid) on a regular schedule, he truly believes that the FBI, and other secret societies are trying to monitor him, and in some way subdue him. He's cut his phone line several times ( Thinks his phone is bugged); boarded his front door ( thinks the men in black will come rushing in to break the door down any moment), and also when having a donut at the local donut shop, will call to other's attention if they can hear those subtle "voices" that are in the background. Those voices that are from those that are out to get him.

In a nutshell, he's a very sick man, if he doesn't take his Lithium. Why doesn't he take his Lithium? Well, Manics are so used to the "highs" of their mental disease, that when Lithium brings them down to normalcy, they think they are not a normal person. It's not unlike the addict that lives for the "high", and sobriety seems like a "drag" compared to being in the midst of of using-high.

Now this brother-in-law of mine is a very intelligent man. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if his I.Q. were in the upper 100's. Yet, his mind is too active at times, and with the Manic/Schizoid disease, his mind manufactures scenarios of possible persecution of all kinds and bazaar types. Some Manics mercifully manufacture benign situations that don't tax their physical, mental, emotional faculties as much as my brother in law, but that can change at any time with any of these folks.

Art Bell and George Norrey's audiences are probably, in my estimate, 70 to 80% manics/schizoids who just thrive on hearing and participating via phoning-in to those shows.

There would be no Art Bell and George Norrey phenomena on the multitude of AM Stations across the U.S. if it weren't for the myriads of folks that seem to carry these persecution ideas and complexes to the extreme.

It may start with the Patriot act being suspicioned as a George Orwellian move by the government, but it will certainly progress in time to Alien abduction, and Grays and other alien species doing surgeries and placing mysterious implants in innocent humans.

As one famous person said, " The only thing we have to fear is "fear" itself.".

Our country is rampant with "fear" mongers, who I truly need wholesome counseling, and possibly some medication help. This isn't meant to insult, but just the fact that constant concern and worry, that one's life is in danger of a hidden Gestapo, can be a possibly be a reality, but in most cases is a spiraling mental thing, of subjective proportions.

There are so many phobias that us humans can have; fear of spiders, heights, loud noises, things out of order, false guilt, O.C. complexes, and of course........"Those entities out there that want to take away my constitutional rights".

It is true that the U.S. Constitution is and will always be challenged and attacked by individuals and groups who's agendas are counter to the philosophy of the founding fathers of this country. They might be called revisionists. Often their code or covert message is that the Constitution is a living breathing document. That sounds perfectly harmless, but that subtle definition of the Constitution means to them that the Constitution is a document that is "evolving", or will somehow redefine it's parameters with the times and changing culture. Now that is not a conspiracy theory, but a reality. That is to be feared or raise red flags, as it goes totally against the tenents of those who wrote this incredible document.

I don't know why it is so rampant nowadays, but there is much "fear" in the U.S. populous about a gradual loss of constitutional rights, and ironically it is voiced mostly from those who believe in "revisionism" of the U.S. Constitution. There is of course those of the Libertarian vain that desire for all to follow the Constitution as literalists, and I would agree with them. Sadly, the Libertarian loses my total endorcement, as they, in my opinion overreact to any and all stimulous or news from without by desiring or promoting laws or movements that are sometimes anarchist from mild to extreme. In most cases theirs (Libertarians) cases it is an isolationist mentality that can't exist in this globally connected world. It would be nice to be an island that was self sufficient as a nation, but exports/imports are the life blood of all nations. Also having a standing army or armed forces is not an option, but a "must" in this present and I believe future world.

Fear amongst the people will always be present. We all have fears. Fear is something that can protect us from endangerment, but it also can immobilize us from productive living. Just as there are bible Christians that think that the devil is under every bush, also, the many non-religious or non-Christians of very intelligent or possibly ignorant varietals, in this nation believe that the unmarked, black helicopters are just around the corner, or that the Jet Contrails they see on a clear blue-sky day are the "ones" who are dropping chemicals on us Guinea Pigs to test out some mind altering, populous controlling drug or some chemical warfare weapon.

It is dangerous to put all your "chips" or confidence in your government, with total abandonment, as you will certainly be let down, and disollutioned. It is equally dangerous to be of a mindset that suspicions any and all acts of government as a covertly aimed move to derail personal and collective American freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

We must try to live with "sound" minds, and also we must learn to not put all of our confidence in man, as man no matter what party he/she comes from will inevitably let us down.

For the agnostic or atheist, he or she is left here on the road with no more forks to pick. For the Christian or believer in an omniscient, omnipresent, and all powerful Creator, there is still another "fork" in the road. It is the reliance or belief that the ups and downs of life both on a personal level, and with one's nation cannot destroy the human soul, but certainly can put it through hard rigors. It is the rational, that there is a bigger Player than all the governments, all the people, all the leaders, all the wars and rumors of wars, that will inevitably intervene and has been intervening to keep this Terrestrial ball from blowing up many times-over.

Without hope and faith, the alternative is heavy reliance in one's life on finding fault, and finding answers. The end-game of this relentless pursuit is a gradual mistrust in anything or any entity that has some authority or control over our societal, and personal lives.

My wife's brother, so badly needs peace and rest to his overactive mind that sees alarm and danger at every corner of his life. He has so little trust in anyone but himself. He has come so close to being a recluse, as he cannot or will not take or make a move to trust outside of himself. He is a reflection of this Godless, Pseudo-intellectual society and Western world. It craves for wisdom, and answers, yet stumbles over the very cornerstone of wisdom.

To think that this very capable, intelligent man started out being just a little conspiratorial, or suspicious of government, and now, look where his life has spiraled! Now, he has imposed a self-paralysis on his very being.

In some gradual way, the slowly boiling frog scenario has entrapped so many intelligent minds that had the potential to make this nation greater and greater, but instead these minds are beset with fears, conspiracys, and an almost total anathema for any and all authority over their lives. It is such a waist of energy and days of one's life.

As I read the many posts on this and other forums, I see or perceive so much human potential, just spinning their collective wheels, fighting and bickering over issues of this or that, and yet the "big" picture is so overlooked.

Just remember that even Jesus said that there will be wars, rumors of wars, famines, earthquakes, and all kinds of natural and human disturbances throughout this world, but that is but a Gnat's bit of disturbance to the human race, compared to the inevitable second coming of Himself, or Christ.

We as a race, have buried our worries and concerns in so much trivial conflict, and have totally overlooked by ignorance and by choice that all of "this" is but a foreshadow of the real reality to come. The very elements of this existence will one day become "moot", as there will be a serious reckoning for all of us, to present a "reason" for "why" we did what we did, what we said, why we said, why we lived, the way we lived, and in whom we put our commitment of life. Did we served or did we desire to be served. Were we ones who desired reconciliation or ungracious punishment. Did we forgive, and forget, or did we take and avenge. Did we encourage, and help build-up, or did we take morbid delight in tearing-down, and trampling?

I trully think our Western society is rampant with manic and Schizoid disease of the mental faculties ( The sad end-result of self love, self gratification), because these souls have relinquished or ignored the need to release their burdens to their Creator, and allowed the fight or healing to be His, and not their task.

I fault their parents too, for not instilling in them a reverence for God, and teaching them that waiting at the back of the line or not being "first" or "winner", is not a punishment or a lessening of self-worth except in man's self designed economy minus God.

The old saying, "World I want to get off!", is appropriate to these times. Many want to get off, but pick not God's, but man's alternative.......drugs, suicide, divorce, self-abuse, child abuse, promiscuity, spousal abuse, slanderous acts, personal illegal or unethical gain, and flagrant disregard for others in total.

These boards are good places to air out the differences, but they also reflect and reveal the deep seated, and skewed nature of humanity in so many ways.

It is good to have discourse about these problems and differences of opinion and deep-core belief, but we must all try to look beyond and work at seeing the bigger picture than just "pine-ing away" in these squabbles.

[red states rule]

There is also Bush Derangement Syndrome and Post Election Selection Trauma sweeping the nation

It hits blue states the hardest

[JackDaniels]

There is also Bush Derangement Syndrome and Post Election Selection Trauma sweeping the nation

It hits blue states the hardest

Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand...

Do you have the intellectual capacity to actually debate policy?

[red states rule]

Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand...

Do you have the intellectual capacity to actually debate policy?

Alot of libs suffer from both of those illnesses. Libs also say women and children are hardest hit

[JackDaniels]

Alot of libs suffer from both of those illnesses. Libs also say women and children are hardest hit

You have just proven that you do not have the intellectual ability to debate policy.

You are one of the most uneducated, stupid people I have ever encountered.

[red states rule]

You have just proven that you do not have the intellectual ability to debate policy.

You are one of the most uneducated, stupid people I have ever encountered.

Your repsonses show your lack of debate skills. Why not try the Dem Underground and work your way up?

[JackDaniels]

Your repsonses show your lack of debate skills. Why not try the Dem Underground and work your way up?

I have addressed the policy issues throughout this board, just responding to your anti-intellectual posts in kind...

[red states rule]

I have addressed the policy issues throughout this board, just responding to your anti-intellectual posts in kind...

Ah, our MENSA poster squeals again

I have shown where the moonbat Dems have undermined the war effort, the President, and now have the endorsement of terrorists gorups and you go into attack mode

[bullypulpit]

Ah, our MENSA poster squeals again

I have shown where the moonbat Dems have undermined the war effort, the President, and now have the endorsement of terrorists gorups and you go into attack mode

Actually, you've shown nothing of the kind. All you do is spout baseless opinion, both your own and that of whatever right wing-nut pundit you happen to be watching on FOX Noise or listening to on the radio. You provide nothing to support your assertions, beyond "Because I said so...".

Now, either address the issues raised <a href=http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=129867&postcount=1>HERE</a>, at the start of the thread in a reasoned, thoughtful manner, providing citations to support your assertions, or go back and play with the the other morally and intellectually bankrupt cognoscenti at FreeRepublic.com. Dismissed.

[April15]

Ah, our MENSA poster squeals again

I have shown where the moonbat Dems have undermined the war effort, the President, and now have the endorsement of terrorists gorups and you go into attack modePlease use the proper tone when addressing your intellectual superiors. Dissent is the equal of constructive critisizim. If you feel the war effort has been undermined then the premise for war must have been very weak to begin with.
We know the president is a very weak thinker and headstrong to a fault of persistent failure despite advisers who are not listened to.

[JackDaniels]

Actually, you've shown nothing of the kind. All you do is spout baseless opinion, both your own and that of whatever right wing-nut pundit you happen to be watching on FOX Noise or listening to on the radio. You provide nothing to support your assertions, beyond "Because I said so...".

Now, either address the issues raised <a href=http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=129867&postcount=1>HERE</a>, at the start of the thread in a reasoned, thoughtful manner, providing citations to support your assertions, or go back and play with the the other morally and intellectually bankrupt cognoscenti at FreeRepublic.com. Dismissed.

RSR has never shown much of an intellectual capacity to actually debate issues...he just repeats one liners he hears on Rush and Hannity. I've seen him at numerous boards, and the consensus at every board he's been at is that he is dumber than a box of rocks.

[red states rule]

RSR has never shown much of an intellectual capacity to actually debate issues...he just repeats one liners he hears on Rush and Hannity. I've seen him at numerous boards, and the consensus at every board he's been at is that he is dumber than a box of rocks.

The moonbat left usually has that reaction when they can't counter the facts presented to them

[JackDaniels]

The moonbat left usually has that reaction when they can't counter the facts presented to them

(1) Who's a leftist? I want small government, repeal of the income tax and cuts in social programs. The Republicans want and have passed INCREASES of social program spending.

(2) You have not presented any facts, dumbass

[red states rule]

(1) Who's a leftist? I want small government, repeal of the income tax and cuts in social programs. The Republicans want and have passed INCREASES of social program spending.

(2) You have not presented any facts, dumbass

your posts sure do not reflect those beliefs.

as I said on another thread, Dems want to break the spending records set by Republicans and want record tax increases

[JackDaniels]

your posts sure do not reflect those beliefs.

as I said on another thread, Dems want to break the spending records set by Republicans and want record tax increases

Can you name ONE post that does not reflect those beliefs, or are you lying again?

[JackDaniels]

Can you name ONE post that does not reflect those beliefs, or are you lying again?

I guess you really ARE a liar, RSR :poke:

[bullypulpit]

A liberal whining about corruption is like Al Capone whining about bootlegging

Another pointless ad hominem attack because you lack the intellectual wherewithal to actually debate the issues.

[bullypulpit]

If you are a terrorist, then the Patriot Act was bad news for you

How so? Please enumerate for us the specific manner in which the "PATRIOT Act" is "bad news" for terrorists rather than a grab for power by the Bush administration.

[bullypulpit]

The left has done their best to undermine the war effort and Pres Bush - why should they stop now?

The only undermining has been that of the Constitution by the Bush administration. Your assertion of the "left" undermining the war effort is little more the the whine of the right about those seeking to hold Bush and his cabal accountable for their actions.

[bullypulpit]

The moonbat left usually has that reaction when they can't counter the facts presented to them

If you would actually PRESENT any substantiated facts, it would be my pleasure to offer a counter to them. But as you don't, I'll simply beat you into submission with them until you retreat back under your rock like a cockroach fleeing the light.

[bullypulpit]

What, to busy watching "Dancing with the Stars" to debate a real issue?

[red states rule]

What, to busy watching "Dancing with the Stars" to debate a real issue?

For a President to kook left says is taking away their rights - YOU have no problem posting your imagined violations of rights being supressed

I never see the "Secret Police" taking protesters away. The liberal media continues to post their biased and insulting crap on a daily basis.

So where is all this suppression BP?

[bullypulpit]

For a President to kook left says is taking away their rights - YOU have no problem posting your imagined violations of rights being supressed

I never see the "Secret Police" taking protesters away. The liberal media continues to post their biased and insulting crap on a daily basis.

So where is all this suppression BP?

Why don't you start at the beginning of the thread and work you way down? The issues you mention have been addressed. Or would that simply tax your limited intellectual capacity to its breaking point?

[red states rule]

Why don't you start at the beginning of the thread and work you way down? The issues you mention have been addressed. Or would that simply tax your limited intellectual capacity to its breaking point?

It should make you warm all over BP knowing the terrorists are backing Dems. Terrorist groups are backing Hillary and Adolf Ahmadinejad loved the reults of the 06 elections

You are exanding your base BP - congrats

[bullypulpit]

It should make you warm all over BP knowing the terrorists are backing Dems. Terrorist groups are backing Hillary and Adolf Ahmadinejad loved the reults of the 06 elections

You are exanding your base BP - congrats

Please, do cite the evidence showing that terrorists are supporting Hillary, or any other Democratic candidate. Do you actually have any? Didn't think so. Dismissed.

[red states rule]

Please, do cite the evidence showing that terrorists are supporting Hillary, or any other Democratic candidate. Do you actually have any? Didn't think so. Dismissed.

How do you like your crow? Rare, medium, or well done?

It's official: Terrorists endorse Hillary in '08
On the record, Mideast jihadi leaders say she's best hope for victory in Iraq

Posted: October 7, 2007
10:29 p.m. Eastern

WASHINGTON – With presidential primaries approaching and the race for the White House heating up, Muslim terrorist leaders in the Middle East have offered their endorsement for America's highest office, stating in a new book they hope Sen. Hillary Clinton is victorious in 2008.

"I hope Hillary is elected in order to have the occasion to carry out all the promises she is giving regarding Iraq," stated Ala Senakreh, West Bank chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group.

Senakreh is one of dozens of terror leaders sounding off about American politics in the new book, "Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans – to a Jew!" by WND Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein.

Abu Hamed, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in the northern Gaza Strip, explained in "Schmoozing" Clinton's repeated calls for a withdrawal from Iraq "proves that important leaders are understanding the situation differently and are understanding the price and the consequences of the American policy in Iraq and in the world."

"The Iraqi resistance is succeeding," stated Hamed. "Hillary and the Democrats call for withdrawal. Her popularity shows that the resistance is winning and that the occupation is losing. We just hope that she will go until the end and change the American policy, which is based on oppressing poor and innocent people."

The Brigades, together with the Islamic Jihad terrorist group, took responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past three years. The Brigades also has carried out hundreds of recent shootings and rocket attacks.

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by Clinton's calls for an eventual withdrawal from Iraq.

"It is clear that it is the resistance operations of the mujahideen that has brought about these calls for withdrawal," boasted Abu Ayman.

for the complete article
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=57970

[bullypulpit]

How do you like your crow? Rare, medium, or well done?

It's official: Terrorists endorse Hillary in '08
On the record, Mideast jihadi leaders say she's best hope for victory in Iraq

Posted: October 7, 2007
10:29 p.m. Eastern

WASHINGTON – With presidential primaries approaching and the race for the White House heating up, Muslim terrorist leaders in the Middle East have offered their endorsement for America's highest office, stating in a new book they hope Sen. Hillary Clinton is victorious in 2008.

"I hope Hillary is elected in order to have the occasion to carry out all the promises she is giving regarding Iraq," stated Ala Senakreh, West Bank chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group.

Senakreh is one of dozens of terror leaders sounding off about American politics in the new book, "Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans – to a Jew!" by WND Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein.

Abu Hamed, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in the northern Gaza Strip, explained in "Schmoozing" Clinton's repeated calls for a withdrawal from Iraq "proves that important leaders are understanding the situation differently and are understanding the price and the consequences of the American policy in Iraq and in the world."

"The Iraqi resistance is succeeding," stated Hamed. "Hillary and the Democrats call for withdrawal. Her popularity shows that the resistance is winning and that the occupation is losing. We just hope that she will go until the end and change the American policy, which is based on oppressing poor and innocent people."

The Brigades, together with the Islamic Jihad terrorist group, took responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past three years. The Brigades also has carried out hundreds of recent shootings and rocket attacks.

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by Clinton's calls for an eventual withdrawal from Iraq.

"It is clear that it is the resistance operations of the mujahideen that has brought about these calls for withdrawal," boasted Abu Ayman.

for the complete article
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=57970

That's the same discredited piece of tripe you posted a few days ago. If it's such a hot story, when's FOX Noise gonna pick it up? If even they won't touch it it must stink worse that week old road kill on hot asphalt. Eat your own crow. Loser.

[JackDaniels]

Can you name ONE post that does not reflect those beliefs, or are you lying again?

RSR, you have failed to back up your idiotic statement. Please cite one post of me reflecting big government beliefs or you need to admit you are a fucking moron.

[JackDaniels]

RSR, you have failed to back up your idiotic statement. Please cite one post of me reflecting big government beliefs or you need to admit you are a fucking moron.

Still waiting, RSR

[JackDaniels]

...

[typomaniac]

...

Just an FYI - RSR had major surgery recently. Might explain the delay.

[bullypulpit]

Just an FYI - RSR had major surgery recently. Might explain the delay.

Hope he's doing well.

[JimmyAteWorld]

Just an FYI - RSR had major surgery recently. Might explain the delay.

Best wishes to RSR.

Now, per request....

[JimmyAteWorld]

fas·cism –noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

So President Bush is leading us toward a fascist state? Of course, it's so clear. He obviously has complete power, that's why the slowly-going-broke social security system has changed and that's why President Bush's (dreadful) immigration policy is now law. A fascist dictator doesn't have to worry about being countered by an opposition party that was democratically elected into office. Especially an opposition party that holds the majority of congress, is doing a piss poor job, and has the lowest approval rate of any congress in history... but I digress.

President Bush has clearly suppressed criticism because you never hear anything bad about him. Right? The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, CNN, CBS, NBC, PBS... They all line up to put President Bush in a glowing light of approval in these state run media outlets. In fact, you had better read this post fast. It's sure to be taken down any minute. :tinfoil::tinfoil:

President Bush suppressing small business and raising the business tax is a sure sign of fascism. We don't possibly live in the world's freest and most unregulated market, because there's no way we could be headed toward a fascist state under those circumstances.

It's obvious to me that President Bush shutting down the borders and forcing out all illegal aliens is a strong move toward nationalism. Racism? The most obvious signs yet. No black Secretary of State being replaced with another black Secretary of State here. No liberation for people in the Middle East coming from this regime. No multi-ethnic nephew sitting at the family table for Thanksgiving at his house, I'll tell ya.

So many actions taken. I no longer have a dozen guns sitting in the next room, because obviously my right to bear arms has been taken away. The independent local newspaper I've helped start has been quickly squashed, since freedom of the press has fallen.

Yes, it's obvious the jolt toward fascism is strong with the re-election of President Bush. He should take note of the opposition party and try to learn from them. We need more actions taken by our leaders to publicly chastise someone like Rush Limbaugh for exercising his freedom of speech, while they ignore a man who claims to have fought in Iraq when he didn't even make it through basic training. Our media should do more to bury the story of the only Medal of Honor recipient in Afghanistan. Yes, CBS and CNN really dropped the ball on that one by giving it a total of 8 minutes of coverage combined. Doing things like fighting to raise the minimum wage, unless your business happens to be in Nancy Pelosi's backyard, is what the country needs. Raising the minimum wage in now way harms small business, ultimately does not make the cost of living rise, and has always done a world of good in the past. It's clearly what we need to move away from a fascist state.

When will we head back in the right direction? When will we go back to attempts to put the government in control of everything? Giving the government control of our retirement fund and our education isn't enough, and what a grand job they've done with both of those by the way. We need to give the government control of our health care too. We must do that because, ya know, the government controlling everything in our private lives is a sure way to avoid fascism.

We need leaders like Hilary Clinton, who said, "We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." Or Bill Clinton who said, "If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."

Ah yes, the Clinton years. No suppression of anything or power trips in the 90s, right? Nothing underhanded going on at all. Those 500 FBI files accidently made their way into the oval office, just like that cigar accidently made it's way into Monica Lewinsky. Yes, the days were good when we had a president who took full responsibility for being the victim of a vast conspiracy and never hid anything except illegal campaign contributions, terrorist attacks like the one at Khobar Towers, and, of course, that cigar in Monica.

How can we return to those days? Maybe someone like Bully can dig into that steaming pile of cow dung that serves as his brain and come up with an idea. There certainly aren't any facts in his way. Or maybe the way back to those days ended up in Sandy Berger's pants.

:bye1:

[eighballsidepocket]

fas·cism –noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

So President Bush is leading us toward a fascist state? Of course, it's so clear. He obviously has complete power, that's why the slowly-going-broke social security system has changed and that's why President Bush's (dreadful) immigration policy is now law. A fascist dictator doesn't have to worry about being countered by an opposition party that was democratically elected into office. Especially an opposition party that holds the majority of congress, is doing a piss poor job, and has the lowest approval rate of any congress in history... but I digress.

President Bush has clearly suppressed criticism because you never hear anything bad about him. Right? The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, CNN, CBS, NBC, PBS... They all line up to put President Bush in a glowing light of approval in these state run media outlets. In fact, you had better read this post fast. It's sure to be taken down any minute. :tinfoil::tinfoil:

President Bush suppressing small business and raising the business tax is a sure sign of fascism. We don't possibly live in the world's freest and most unregulated market, because there's no way we could be headed toward a fascist state under those circumstances.

It's obvious to me that President Bush shutting down the borders and forcing out all illegal aliens is a strong move toward nationalism. Racism? The most obvious signs yet. No black Secretary of State being replaced with another black Secretary of State here. No liberation for people in the Middle East coming from this regime. No multi-ethnic nephew sitting at the family table for Thanksgiving at his house, I'll tell ya.

So many actions taken. I no longer have a dozen guns sitting in the next room, because obviously my right to bear arms has been taken away. The independent local newspaper I've helped start has been quickly squashed, since freedom of the press has fallen.

Yes, it's obvious the jolt toward fascism is strong with the re-election of President Bush. He should take note of the opposition party and try to learn from them. We need more actions taken by our leaders to publicly chastise someone like Rush Limbaugh for exercising his freedom of speech, while they ignore a man who claims to have fought in Iraq when he didn't even make it through basic training. Our media should do more to bury the story of the only Medal of Honor recipient in Afghanistan. Yes, CBS and CNN really dropped the ball on that one by giving it a total of 8 minutes of coverage combined. Doing things like fighting to raise the minimum wage, unless your business happens to be in Nancy Pelosi's backyard, is what the country needs. Raising the minimum wage in now way harms small business, ultimately does not make the cost of living rise, and has always done a world of good in the past. It's clearly what we need to move away from a fascist state.

When will we head back in the right direction? When will we go back to attempts to put the government in control of everything? Giving the government control of our retirement fund and our education isn't enough, and what a grand job they've done with both of those by the way. We need to give the government control of our health care too. We must do that because, ya know, the government controlling everything in our private lives is a sure way to avoid fascism.

We need leaders like Hilary Clinton, who said, "We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." Or Bill Clinton who said, "If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."

Ah yes, the Clinton years. No suppression of anything or power trips in the 90s, right? Nothing underhanded going on at all. Those 500 FBI files accidently made their way into the oval office, just like that cigar accidently made it's way into Monica Lewinsky. Yes, the days were good when we had a president who took full responsibility for being the victim of a vast conspiracy and never hid anything except illegal campaign contributions, terrorist attacks like the one at Khobar Towers, and, of course, that cigar in Monica.

How can we return to those days? Maybe someone like Bully can dig into that steaming pile of cow dung that serves as his brain and come up with an idea. There certainly aren't any facts in his way. Or maybe the way back to those days ended up in Sandy Berger's pants.

:bye1:

Might I condense what Jimmy succinctly said...and in a rather interesting "tongue and cheek" way. :) Actually it won't be condensed if you know my way of replying. :)

The moniker Fascist or the system of governing called Fascism is brandied about in such loose terms nowadays.

Jimmy hit it right on, in my opinion. Anytime some groups/persons feel constricted by some move or non move of a governmental entity, "Fascism" or "Fascist" or even "Nazi" National Socialism) is used to describe a person or a condition of authoritative rule, under-which one thinks they are living or enduring.

The GWB administration has been able to bring about some laws or governmental organizations that exercise oversight or alleged protective measure for it's citizens. Those who have not endeared themselves to GWB or his party, have monikered these moves by this executive, as "fascist" or "fascism". They have indeed used the term liberally or loosely, as Jimmy did indeed explain in a very interestingly written way, what fascism is.

We are not even close to fascism in this country. There are so many checks and balances to our system of government that it would take a total revolution and over-throw of all of our documented rights/laws insured through the U.S. Constitution to bring this about.

Much of what I hear are scare mongering posts. Many are conspiratorial with no merit, but just engendered with hate or distaste for the current executive branch.

Congress: Well it's approval ratings are no better than our current executive.

Personally, I have a lot of critiques within my thoughts about GWB's handling of things. I am an arm chair quarterback like the rest of us. I don't agree with his immigration policies, I believe that he is a little too much "corporate" guided, and not enough, "The little man guided" in some of his policies. I think that the Iraq war needed a little more foresight in the area of delegating internal policies via an Iraq that had possibly three states within one country. Namely a Kurdish state, a Southern Shiite state and a Sunni dominated state. This would need to be subserviante to a central government, but the three states would have some of their own individual laws that would have to exemplify or not contradict a central/federal Iraqi constitution.

Maybe this is still in the future, and is still just too advanced for the present situations.

War deaths of civilians and our military have been increasingly dropping. Sadly the news media gives little mention of this.

They do however give much mention of GWB's popularity ratings..........that's assured! I think that this indicates some bias. I'm sure that those who abhor GWB would disagree.

Does anyone remember that at the height of the Vietnam war, how powerful the LBJ executive was? Basically there was a vociferous crowd of folks that were a minority that were screaming "hell no I won't go", or "Make love not war", but LBJ didn't have to heed these folks, as he had a majority in the Congress, and could pretty much do Carte Blanc', what he felt was right. I'm not here to critique LBJ's legacy or decisions during that time, but we were losing GI's at a much greater pace than what is currently or in the past has happened since our most current conflct or war in Iraq.

Sadly, so many of those that are very vociferous in government nowadays, are part of the "hell no, I won't go" generation, and embracers of that philosophy.

Vietnam has still left our country with a "snake bit" sentiment. I think we have to try to rise above this sentiment, and really try hard to look objectively at what is going on in our world nowadays. Is Vietnam and Iraq the same or are we using the earlier conflict as a hammer against what we don't philosophically agree with in the present.

We currently are not in the throws of an extreme cold war scenario, but that could happen as China continues it's quest of military might. Now we have a war that is covert, and not overt. We are still dealing with one idealism versus another, but it's of a different nature. It's a type of religious fanaticism, that see's it's philosophical ideas as the norm and all others as abhorrent. That's dangerous, if this religious element has great numbers of followers.

Were they created or fomented into action because of us, the U.S.A.? History says that this element has been around since roughly 600 A.D.. Thats when Islam was born.

Islam aggressively moved Northward from Africa and conquered part of Catholic/Southern Europe. Hence the great Moorish influence in Spanish architecture to this day.

Was it a benevolent conquering? By no means. Was the reciprocating Crusades benevolent? By no means.

Lets look at Christianity and Islam today. One system of belief has adapted culturewise, to the times. It still holds it's tenents of belief, and is relatively at peace with it's neighbors of other belief systems. Never the less this first belief system still desires the world to accept it's gospel. The other system of belief is still living in the age of proselyzation via violence, intimidation, with a total lack of benevolence. It culturally is still stuck at 600 A.D, yet it is also following it's scriptural tenants.

What should we do? How should we respond? Some say, that dialogue is the answer, and war is not.

Has dialogue worked? Has dialogue been give and take, or one-sided.Not really.....i.e. "convert or infidel, die". That's the Koran, not me (eightball) speaking.

Some have tried to equate a visit at their door from some religious group ( Christians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses) as the signs of religious persecution thrust upon us. Now, lets see that in the "light" of what Christians, Buddists, Hindus, and others endure in other parts of the world when confronted with increasing numbers of Islamists? It is again, "Infidel, convert or die".

Benevolent Islam is unscriptural folks! Even GWB seems to be hoodwinked! Benevolent Christianity is scriptural, as revealed in the person of Christ, the founder of Christianity. Benevolent Islam is an untruth if you put it against the life and writings of it's founder Mohammed.

Islam, at it's very tenants, must convert the world or eliminate or subjugate all who will not bend a knee to Allah.

Christianity, says, bring the good news of forgiveness, but leave the judgement to God in His second coming, and a prophetic future. The bible places in man's responsibility the gospel of reconciliation. Reconciliation doesn't involve violence or forced conversions. It leaves the decision to mans free will, not man's forced will upon another man.

Crusades were not indicative of true scriptural Christianity. It was however a response to Islamic conquering of and aggressioon against a people of another faith. I will say, it was also an overreacton and very unscriptural in so many ways. God will establish His kingdom His way.
*******
Our we approaching Fascism under GWB's watch. Hardly.

You might look back at the time of our great civil war, and see that our country has been placed under much greater authoratarian controls/rules than anything we endure now.

We had the great New York Draft riots. We had war profiteering both in the union and confederacy that makes these complaints about U.S. contractors in Iraq seem so miniscule. We are overly fault finding, and overy hypersensitive folks, that I'm afraid have been coddled too much in our childhoods by parents that refrained from exacting the kind of love in our young lives that instilled in us a self reliance, yet an endearing reverence for our Creator. We are such a self-absorbed generation of whiners. We are impatient, we want answers now, changes now, and we want our way, with little or no dialogue.

We have the accusations of our country having a conspiratorial motive to this current war, that involves oil, oil, oil. Yet, the U.S. has profited so little from Iraq's current oil exports compared to other countrys of the world.

It's healthy to look for inconsistencys, but it's very unhealthy to become a habitual skeptic, unless you can lay claim to be unpartisan in your skepticism, and very few on this forum can, Sadly.

The most refreshing post's I've heard of late, has been the actual concern about RSR's having surgery. People that have debated him actually expressed concern. That was beautiful!

I'm so tired of folks personally calling each other derogatory names, and descriptions. It's so immature, and childish. This is where real dialogue breaks down.

Even marriage counselors say that 99% of problems in marriages is a lack of communications. We talk, but we really don't listen. We want to be heard or understood so badly that we don't bother to really listen to alternative views. We also lack empathy. If someone disagrees with us, we immediately lower our estimate of them as a person. We pick at the splinters in other's eys and ignore the redwood log in our own eye.

Disagreement is healthy, but personally tearing down other's integrity with disrespectful words are just stinging missles with poison tips. They don't heal, they don't bring reason or resolve to mutually disagree yet hold respect, one for another.

[actsnoblemartin]

when bush controls the media, then we can talk about fascism

[bullypulpit]

Jimmy, old son, you didn't prove anything. Pre WW II Germany and Italy had free presses, independent legislatures and independent judiciaries right up until the time the fascsist took power. Now, if you'd been paying attention, you'd have noticed that I never said that Bush and Co had established a fascist state. They are, however, laying the foundations for one.

As for Clinton, he used the power of the "imperial presidency" established under Reagan, much to the dismay of the GOP.

Nice try, try again.

[JimmyAteWorld]

Jimmy, old son, you didn't prove anything. Pre WW II Germany and Italy had free presses, independent legislatures and independent judiciaries right up until the time the fascsist took power. Now, if you'd been paying attention, you'd have noticed that I never said that Bush and Co had established a fascist state. They are, however, laying the foundations for one.

As for Clinton, he used the power of the "imperial presidency" established under Reagan, much to the dismay of the GOP.

Nice try, try again.

And if you pull your head out of your ass you'll see I didn't say anything about a fascist state already being established either. It comes as no surprise that you missed the point.

[bullypulpit]

And if you pull your head out of your ass you'll see I didn't say anything about a fascist state already being established either. It comes as no surprise that you missed the point.

Nope...Picked up on that one stright away. Your statements, however, implied that a fascicist state had to be in existence for fascism to take hold.

Oh, and provide some supporting links...Or are you just going to keep spouting the same unsubstantiated GOP talking point of the last 14 years or so?

[JimmyAteWorld]

Nope...Picked up on that one stright away. Your statements, however, implied that a fascicist state had to be in existence for fascism to take hold.

Oh, and provide some supporting links...Or are you just going to keep spouting the same unsubstantiated GOP talking point of the last 14 years or so?

Of course. The incredibly weak argument that has always been good to the left, "you implied it". Not only unoriginal, but very weak and very wrong, Bullyshit.

See Bully, in order for those of us here on planet Earth to take the first steps toward something and "proving wrong" there has to be some semblance of a valid point. Reading and reacting to the crap you spout out is like watching a Superman cartoon, then having someone say "Prove people can't fly". Anybody with a lick of common sense doesn't need anything proven to them because they know the cartoon isn't based on any sense of reality. Nobody needs someone to explain to them that people can't fly, it's common knowledge.

What I posted was off the top of my head. I put very little into it, really. No, Bully, I provided no links because replying to you doesn't deserve that kind of effort. You say nothing new and everything you've spouted out before has already been proven wrong at least once over the last few years. No matter what someone says in response to your ignorant rants, you just take the same crap, repackage it, and vomit it back out in another thread after a few weeks.

Now, seriously, I'm really busy these days and this little venture back through the message boards was meant to be a pit stop. I really don't have time to play with you anymore, so send as many messages as you like, ironically accusing me of the exact things you do, they'll just have to sit there.

[typomaniac]

Now, seriously, I'm really busy these days and this little venture back through the message boards was meant to be a pit stop. I really don't have time to play with you anymore...

In other words, you've lost. :lol:

[JackDaniels]

Can you name ONE post that does not reflect those beliefs, or are you lying again?


RSR, you have failed to back up your idiotic statement. Please cite one post of me reflecting big government beliefs or you need to admit you are a fucking moron.

Well, RSR? Ready to admit you are a liar?

[typomaniac]

Well, RSR? Ready to admit you are a liar?

There's a difference between someone lying and someone honestly believing the horseshit they espouse. :laugh:

[JackDaniels]

There's a difference between someone lying and someone honestly believing the horseshit they espouse. :laugh:

in this case he is a flat out liar.

[eighballsidepocket]

Whether we are ignorant, illiterate, wise, smart, dumb, stubborn, etc..

A "Kind Word" goes a long way........ :)


The book of Proverbs speaks often of the tongue's power to hurt or to heal. For example: "A wholesome tongue is a tree of life, but perverseness in it breaks the spirit. . . . A man has joy by the answer of his mouth, and a word spoken in due season, how good it is!" (Proverbs 15:4,23).

[JackDaniels]

Whether we are ignorant, illiterate, wise, smart, dumb, stubborn, etc..

A "Kind Word" goes a long way........ :)

You're talking to the wrong guy with that BS :)

[typomaniac]

Whether we are ignorant, illiterate, wise, smart, dumb, stubborn, etc..

A "Kind Word" goes a long way........ :)

And one of my favorite quotes is:


Al Capone
You can get more of what you want with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word.

:laugh: :flameth:

[typomaniac]

in this case he is a flat out liar.

I'm not sure he's smart enough to lie that consistently. :coffee: