Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: WhiteHawk on February 10, 2007, 12:19:49 PM
-
Lets say, Obama becomes president. Lets say, he has total access to the powers of the patriot act, warrentless spying and indefinate incarcaration without representation, and all the other goodies Bush has deemed necessary to run a free country. Everybody comfortable with this? Or is this why our founding fathers made the rules that they made?
-
allow me to acquaint with the power of executive order. the president at his discreation can order just about anything he so pleases. that would include suspension of the writ of habeus corpus as well as the indefinite internment of American citizens. both of these act have precedent.
-
Obama said he will unite the country just like Lincoln did. Looks like a long civil war coming.
-
Originally posted by storch
allow me to acquaint with the power of executive order. the president at his discreation can order just about anything he so pleases. that would include suspension of the writ of habeus corpus as well as the indefinite internment of American citizens. both of these act have precedent.
And this is a good because?
-
who said it was good? but I sure am glad we have a second amendment.
-
Originally posted by storch
who said it was good? but I sure am glad we have a second amendment.
And that's excactly why the second is there. Went to the local gun show today and exercised my right by purchasing a new weapon. Bushmaster M4A3, 7 spare 30rd mags, tactical sling and carry case, ACOG sight, and a nifty little mount for my SureFire flashlight.
Also picked up a new replacement barrel for my Taurus PT99 9mm pistol. I've put so many rounds through that one the rifling was starting to look a little beat up so for $80 I figured why not replace it. Have to take it to the range on Monday and make sure the headspace is correct but I don't forsee any problems. Seems to fit like a champ.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Lets say, Obama becomes president. Lets say, he has total access to the powers of the patriot act, warrentless spying and indefinate incarcaration without representation, and all the other goodies Bush has deemed necessary to run a free country. Everybody comfortable with this? Or is this why our founding fathers made the rules that they made?
1) I fear nothing in the PATRIOT Act regardless of who is at the helm.
2) We never needed a warrant for spying on a foreign power. Still don't.
3) As a US Citizen not involved in hostilities against the US, the chances of me or anyone like me being "incarcerated without representation" are nil.
4) These are not "Bush goodies" as you like to call them. PATRIOT was written into law by the congress. The rest are, to my understanding, powers given to the executive by the founders as written into the constitution.
So, what is your beef with Obama?
-
The story of a U.S. citizen wrongly detained in Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/world/middleeast/18justice.html?ex=1324098000&en=e8d1cabad3afa06b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)
The detainee was Donald Vance, a 29-year-old Navy veteran from Chicago who went to Iraq as a security contractor. He wound up as a whistle-blower, passing information to the F.B.I. about suspicious activities at the Iraqi security firm where he worked, including what he said was possible illegal weapons trading.
But when American soldiers raided the company at his urging, Mr. Vance and another American who worked there were detained as suspects by the military, which was unaware that Mr. Vance was an informer, according to officials and military documents.
No beef with Obama here. He seems intelligent and reasonable.
-
If Obama gets to be president he'll screw up everything the president's before him did, just like every US President has done with the exception of George Washington.
The only reason George Washington didn't screw up what teh president before him did is that there was no president before him, otherwise he'd have screwed it up.
Therefore I fear nothing Obama could do as president, the Patriot act doesn't even apply to most of us anyway, so stop worrying about it.
-
Better Obama than Hillary. That ***** is just plain evil. She will get votes from the just plain stupid. She will use her power in a nasty negative way, just as she behaved out of the public eye during the embarrassing Clinton years.
-
Originally posted by john9001
Obama said he will unite the country just like Lincoln did. Looks like a long civil war coming.
Oh its been comming anyway.
All thats really needed is a proper triggering mechanism
-
Originally posted by dmf
Therefore I fear nothing Obama could do as president, the Patriot act doesn't even apply to most of us anyway, so stop worrying about it.
Obama is neither here nor there to me.
I do however object to the Patriot act.
We never needed it to begin with.
All they really needed to do in the first place was enforce laws already in place.
The problem with "it doesnt apply to us anyway" is these things once enacted tend to expand .
That is. Well if we can use it for this. Then why not include that. And the general public. being the sheep they are. Just go along with it. That is. Until it is applied to them.
But by then its too late.
(and yes we are mere sheep or we wouldnt just keep voting for the same two looser groups into office)
Remember the oath to defend against all enemies both foreign and "DOMESTIC"
Domestic is us.
About the only thing I can agree with in post 9/11 is the linking of agencies to better be able to communicate with each other to share legally obtained information.
Which is something that should have been happening all along anyway.
Beyond that. I am dead set against the Patriot act. And see it as something hastily passed in a fit of paranoia.
What is needed is a president who would overturn the patriot act and replace it with something more in line with the Consitution.
As it stands now. We are borderline on the brink of McCarthyism
-
whitehawk.. I don't know about osama bama or the patriot act but you have hit on something that I agree with...
No matter how great you think your guy is and how just he is and can be trusted with your freedom... you end up giving that power to the enemy.
and yes... I believe the country now is at odds with two sides... osama bama belongs to the enemy side. His visions of lincoln are not that far off... lincoln did the most to destroy states rights... lincoln was the inventor orf the carpet bagger and the father of jim crow laws. I believe that osama bama is every bit as capable of the destruction and grief lincoln caused...
lazs
-
Originally posted by Dago
Better Obama than Hillary. That ***** is just plain evil. She will get votes from the just plain stupid. She will use her power in a nasty negative way, just as she behaved out of the public eye during the embarrassing Clinton years.
I would tend to agree.
I think Hillary would be every bit as bad for the country as a whole as Bush has been.
But like I said. the people are mere sheep.
Classic example.
I have two friends. One is a die hard Republican. One is a diehard Democrat.
I tried a little experiment
First I asked the Democrat friend
"Ok you claim your not brain dead. Then answer me this.
Name 3 Democratic Presidents that were bad. and 3 Republican presidents that were good?"
I posed the same question. the same way to my republican friend only vise verse.
Neither could do it.
Like I said.."Sheep"
Bahhhhhh
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
What is needed is a president who would overturn the patriot act and replace it with something more in line with the Consitution.
I've mentioned this before but noone seemed to notice. anyhoo, Ron Paul is running. He's an R, but I'll vote for him if he makes it past the primary. Ron Paul ("Dr. No" to some, 'cause he votes "no" so often) would undo a lot of damage, IMHO. He's got principles (the Constitution is #1 concern to him) and he stands by them, which is a quality sorely lacking in Washington these days...
http://www.house.gov/paul/index.shtml
http://ronpaulforcongress.com/ (still in "exploratory phase" for POTUS in'08)
-
Originally posted by Dago
Better Obama than Hillary. That ***** is just plain evil. She will get votes from the just plain stupid. She will use her power in a nasty negative way, just as she behaved out of the public eye during the embarrassing Clinton years.
Not to worry, just as our current President is not able to abuse his power due to checks and balances, Hillary will not be able to either.
shamus
-
Originally posted by dmf
If Obama gets to be president he'll screw up everything the president's before him did, just like every US President has done with the exception of George Washington.
The only reason George Washington didn't screw up what teh president before him did is that there was no president before him, otherwise he'd have screwed it up.
Therefore I fear nothing Obama could do as president, the Patriot act doesn't even apply to most of us anyway, so stop worrying about it.
Will if you think about it this way, America's first Amendment is the freedom of speech and press. So everyone gets to talk about on how they feel about the government and they can manipulate others into believing them like the press, or a father. Say theres a poll on how do you rate each president of the U.S. A)Great B)Okay C)Could have had better) or D)Worst. This poll would practice the first amendment.
Now lets take the USSR. There the people had few rights. They had no freedom of speech or press. There the people were told that the leader or the government was great but the people knew it wasn't. They didn't have the right to say, We don't like you Stalin. When they were around government officals or some where public they had to say Oh we love you Stalin. Say they took the same poll in the U.S but used Russian leaders. All of the answers on that poll for each Russian leader would be A.
Here in the U.S people have different opinions on each president. Some think Bush is the devil, other thinks he okay. Some think Hillary is great others think she would suck. Some think Obama would rock others think he would suck. DMF you have the right to think that every president has messed up due to the president before them. I don't. I think all presidents make there own mistakes not from the president before them.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
As it stands now. We are borderline on the brink of McCarthyism
You do of course realize that McCarthy was actually right about agents of the USSR operating within the US?
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
You do of course realize that McCarthy was actually right about agents of the USSR operating within the US?
Reality doesn't intrude in some minds.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
You do of course realize that McCarthy was actually right about agents of the USSR operating within the US?
you do, of course, realize that wasn't his point. DRED didn't say that there weren't any commie agents in the US during that time period. He mentioned that we were "on the brink of McCarthyism", implying that would be a Bad Thing(tm).
In case you missed that day in class: "Since the time of McCarthy, the word "McCarthyism" has entered American speech as a general term for a variety of distasteful practices: aggressively questioning a person's patriotism, making poorly supported accusations, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to adhere to conformist politics or to discredit an opponent, subverting civil rights in the name of national security and the use of demagoguery are all often referred to as McCarthyism."
that sound good to you, Mace?
-
I can say this god about Hillary that will make me vote for her.
.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
you do, of course, realize that wasn't his point. DRED didn't say that there weren't any commie agents in the US during that time period. He mentioned that we were "on the brink of McCarthyism", implying that would be a Bad Thing(tm).
In case you missed that day in class: "Since the time of McCarthy, the word "McCarthyism" has entered American speech as a general term for a variety of distasteful practices: aggressively questioning a person's patriotism, making poorly supported accusations, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to adhere to conformist politics or to discredit an opponent, subverting civil rights in the name of national security and the use of demagoguery are all often referred to as McCarthyism."
that sound good to you, Mace?
Yeah, sort of like Gate is appended to anything that liberals or the press want to assign pre-judged negative connotations to in an effort to win in the court of public opinion before any actual facts come out. Instead of actually looking at the facts just run around screaming McCarthyism or XXXXgate, or Nazi and don't worry about having to have an actual intelligent discussion. There's lots of this sort of "shorthand" we could use. Why don't we use "Leahyism" to denote the leaking of classified documents by members of Congress or "Clintonism" to denote taking advantage of young interns or "Jessie Jacksonism" to denote race baiting and extortion? Sounds like they might want to add some more class days.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
You do of course realize that McCarthy was actually right about agents of the USSR operating within the US?
Did you know that not one of those that he accused or had in front of his panel were agents of the Soviets? Did you also know that he represented the Nazi SS men that were responsible for the massacre at Malmedy that led to the principle SS men responsible for the massacre having their death sentances over turned and they only had to serve short prison sentances? Yeah, what a great American McCarthy was.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Yeah, sort of like Gate is appended to anything that liberals or the press want to assign pre-judged negative connotations to in an effort to win in the court of public opinion before any actual facts come out. Instead of actually looking at the facts just run around screaming McCarthyism or XXXXgate, or Nazi and don't worry about having to have an actual intelligent discussion. There's lots of this sort of "shorthand" we could use. Why don't we use "Leahyism" to denote the leaking of classified documents by members of Congress or "Clintonism" to denote taking advantage of young interns or "Jessie Jacksonism" to denote race baiting and extortion? Sounds like they might want to add some more class days.
still havin' trouble getting the point, eh?
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Yeah, sort of like Gate is appended to anything that liberals or the press want to assign pre-judged negative connotations to in an effort to win in the court of public opinion before any actual facts come out. Instead of actually looking at the facts just run around screaming McCarthyism or XXXXgate, or Nazi and don't worry about having to have an actual intelligent discussion. There's lots of this sort of "shorthand" we could use. Why don't we use "Leahyism" to denote the leaking of classified documents by members of Congress or "Clintonism" to denote taking advantage of young interns or "Jessie Jacksonism" to denote race baiting and extortion? Sounds like they might want to add some more class days.
you forgot NEO.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Not to worry, just as our current President is not able to abuse his power due to checks and balances, Hillary will not be able to either.
shamus
Cept for that executive order thingie
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
You do of course realize that McCarthy was actually right about agents of the USSR operating within the US?
yea and we had agents operating in the USSR as well. So what?
This should come as a surprise to anyone?
But it seems alot of innocent people were also accused in the process
"Joseph Raymond McCarthy (November 14, 1908 – May 2, 1957) was a Republican U.S. Senator from the state of Wisconsin Between 1950 and 1954, McCarthy became noted for unsubstantiated claims that there were Communist and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government.
Beginning in the late 1940s, as the Cold War escalated between the United States, the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, the United States went through a period of intense anti-communist tensions and suspicion. Many thousands of individuals were suspected of being Soviet spies, Communists, or communist sympathizers . Although the American Communist Party was never illegal under Federal law, membership in the party or support of its goals were regarded by many as tantamount to treason. Beginning in 1950, McCarthy became the most visible public face of this era of anti-communism. The term McCarthyism was coined that same year to describe and condemn the senator's methods, which were widely seen as demagogic and based on reckless, unsubstantiated accusations. Later the term was applied more generally to the anti-communism of the late 1940s through the late 1950s; today, it is often used even more broadly, to describe public attacks made on persons' character and/or patriotism that involve the sort of tactics associated with McCarthy.[1]
From 1950 onward, McCarthy continued to press his accusations that the government was failing to deal with Communism within its ranks. These accusations received wide publicity, increased his approval rating and gained him a powerful national following.
McCarthy's methods also brought on the disapproval and opposition of many. Barely a month after McCarthy's Wheeling speech, the term "McCarthyism" was coined by Washington Post cartoonist Herbert Block. Block and others used the word as a synonym for demagoguery, baseless defamation and mudslinging. Later, it would be embraced by McCarthy and some of his supporters. "McCarthyism is Americanism with its sleeves rolled," McCarthy said in a 1952 speech, and later that year he published a book entitled McCarthyism: The Fight for America.
McCarthy has been accused of attempting to discredit his critics and political opponents by accusing them of being Communists or communist sympathizers. . In the 1950 Maryland Senate election, McCarthy campaigned for John M. Butler in his race against four-term incumbent Millard Tydings, with whom McCarthy had been in conflict during the Tydings Committee hearings. In speeches supporting Butler, McCarthy accused Tydings of "protecting Communists" and "shielding traitors." McCarthy's staff was heavily involved in the campaign, and collaborated in the production of a campaign tabloid that contained a composite photograph doctored to make it appear that Tydings was in intimate conversation with Communist leader Earl Browder. A Senate subcommittee later investigated this election and referred to it as "a despicable, back-street type of campaign," as well as recommending that the use of defamatory literature in a campaign be made grounds for expulsion from the Senate.
In addition to the Tydings-Butler race, McCarthy campaigned for several other Republicans in the 1950 elections, including that of Everett Dirksen against Democratic incumbent and Senate Majority Leader Scott W. Lucas. Dirksen, and indeed all the candidates McCarthy supported won their elections, and those he opposed lost. The elections, including many that McCarthy wasn't involved in, were an overall Republican sweep, but still McCarthy was credited as a key Republican campaigner. He was now regarded as one of the most powerful men in the Senate and was treated with new-found deference by his colleagues.[17]
McCarthy was physically violent toward his critics on at least one occasion. In 1950 he assaulted journalist Drew Pearson in the cloakroom of a Washington club, reportedly kneeing him in the groin. McCarthy, who admitted the assault, claimed he merely "slapped" Pearson.
"
-
There was considerable enmity between McCarthy and President Truman throughout the time they were both in office. McCarthy sought to characterize President Truman and the Democratic party as soft on or even in league with the Communists, referring to "twenty years of treason" on the part of the Democrats. Truman, in turn, once referred to McCarthy as "the best asset the Kremlin has," and said his attempts to "sabotage the foreign policy of the United States" in a cold war was comparable to shooting American soldiers in the back in a hot war.[20]
It was the Truman Administration's State Department that McCarthy accused of harboring 205 (or 57 or 81) "known Communists," and Truman's Secretary of Defense George Marshall who was the target of some of McCarthy's most colorful and memorable rhetoric. Marshall was also Truman's former Secretary of State and had been Army Chief of Staff during World War II. Marshall was a highly respected statesman and general, best remembered today as the architect of the Marshall Plan for post-war reconstruction of Europe, for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953. McCarthy authored a book titled America's retreat from victory; the story of George Catlett Marshall, accused Marshall of treason, of "aid(ing) the Communist drive for world domination," said "if Marshall was merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that part of his decisions would serve America's interests," and most famously, accused him of being part of "a conspiracy so immense and an infamy so black as to dwarf any previous venture in the history of man."[21]
After Truman dismissed General Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War, McCarthy, charged that Truman and his advisors must have planned the dismissal during late-night sessions when "they've had time to get the President cheerful" on Bourbon and Benedictine, and said "The son of a ***** should be impeached
With the beginning of his second term as Senator in 1953, McCarthy was made chairman of the Senate Committee on Government Operations. According to some reports, Republican leaders were growing wary of McCarthy's methods and gave him this relatively mundane panel rather than the Internal Security Subcommittee--the committee normally involved with investigating Communists--thus putting McCarthy "where he can't do any harm," in the words of Senate Majority Leader Robert Taft. However, the Committee on Government Operations included the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and the mandate of this subcommittee was sufficiently flexible to allow McCarthy to use it for his own investigations of Communists in the government. McCarthy appointed Roy Cohn as chief counsel and Robert Kennedy as an assistant counsel to the subcommittee.
This subcommittee would be the scene of some of McCarthy's most publicized exploits. When the records of the closed executive sessions of the subcommittee under McCarthy's chairmanship were made public in 2003-2004,[31] Senators Susan Collins and Carl Levin wrote the following in their preface to the documents:
“Senator McCarthy’s zeal to uncover subversion and espionage led to disturbing excesses. His browbeating tactics destroyed careers of people who were not involved in the infiltration of our government. His freewheeling style caused both the Senate and the Subcommittee to revise the rules governing future investigations, and prompted the courts to act to protect the Constitutional rights of witnesses at Congressional hearings. These hearings are a part of our national past that we can neither afford to forget nor permit to reoccur.[32]
The subcommittee first investigated allegations of Communist influence in the Voice of America (VOA), at that time administered by the State Department's United States Information Agency. Many VOA personnel were questioned in front of television cameras and a packed press gallery, with McCarthy lacing his questions with hostile innuendo and false accusations. A few VOA employees alleged Communist influence on the content of broadcasts, but none of the charges were substantiated
The subcommittee then turned to the overseas library program of the International Information Agency. Cohn toured Europe examining the card catalogs of the State Department libraries looking for works by authors he deemed inappropriate. McCarthy then recited the list of supposedly pro-communist authors before his subcommittee and the press. The State Department bowed to McCarthy and ordered its overseas librarians to remove from their shelves "material by any controversial persons, Communists, fellow travelers, etc." Some libraries actually burned the newly-forbidden books. Shortly after this, in one of his carefully oblique public criticisms of McCarthy, President Eisenhower urged Americans: "Don't join the book burners. […] Don't be afraid to go in your library and read every book."
I could go on
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
you do, of course, realize that wasn't his point. DRED didn't say that there weren't any commie agents in the US during that time period. He mentioned that we were "on the brink of McCarthyism", implying that would be a Bad Thing(tm).
In case you missed that day in class: "Since the time of McCarthy, the word "McCarthyism" has entered American speech as a general term for a variety of distasteful practices: aggressively questioning a person's patriotism, making poorly supported accusations, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to adhere to conformist politics or to discredit an opponent, subverting civil rights in the name of national security and the use of demagoguery are all often referred to as McCarthyism."
that sound good to you, Mace?
thank you.
Perhaps I should hav used the term "Salem with hunt" instead ;)
-
relax, there are no communists in america, there never have been , now go back to sleep comrade and everything will be ok.
-
Perhaps it's you guys that should read a little closer. Nowhere did I defend what McCarthy said or did. I merely pointed out that, while this may be an inconvienient fact, he was in fact correct about communist sympathisers and spies working within the US and the US government. That's not really a point you can dispute.
What I did explain, and quite clearly I believe, is that McCarthy is nothing now but a "boogyman" meant to scare the uninformed and ignorant. The same thing is being done when people claim GW is Hitler or politicians claim that a certain other party wants to throw old people out on the street or force them to eat dog food. Say what you will regarding McCarthy, he was actually more right than those making either of these other two claims.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Yeah, sort of like Gate is appended to anything that liberals or the press want to assign pre-judged negative connotations to in an effort to win in the court of public opinion before any actual facts come out. Instead of actually looking at the facts just run around screaming McCarthyism or XXXXgate, or Nazi and don't worry about having to have an actual intelligent discussion. There's lots of this sort of "shorthand" we could use. Why don't we use "Leahyism" to denote the leaking of classified documents by members of Congress or "Clintonism" to denote taking advantage of young interns or "Jessie Jacksonism" to denote race baiting and extortion? Sounds like they might want to add some more class days.
Ba,a,a,a,aa
Become actually intelligent and I'll be happy to have that type of discussion with you;)
Based on your whines of shorthand exclusions Its a pretty safe bet your upset because Im picking on a republican:rolleyes:
Before you go down that road. I have always maintained I remain loyal to nor do I have any party affiliation.
If you follow my posts you will see I have agreed with disagreed with,and infuriated each side of the isle depending on subject matter.
See I am not a party sheep willing to mindlessly follow whatever line of crap any party gives me.
I've picked on both sides of the isle and will continue to do so. So long as they are primarily made up of robots, sheep and brain dead idiots.
I chose McCarthyism because it most accurately describes what we are potentially looking at.
when and if the subject matter most closely represents any of the shorthand you describe. I assure I you I will have no problem applying it regardless of whatever party it is applied to
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I chose McCarthyism because it most accurately describes what we are potentially looking at.
Not really. But it IS one way to put it.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Perhaps it's you guys that should read a little closer. Nowhere did I defend what McCarthy said or did. I merely pointed out that, while this may be an inconvienient fact, he was in fact correct about communist sympathisers and spies working within the US and the US government.
The problem lies in a lack of discrimination.
Spies working at government jobs (or any spies I suppose) would be guilty of treason.
One who Sympathizes with communists would be guility of . . . well nothing.
Of course, my ingnorance of Cold War history may be lacking there. I'm unaware that being a Red was against the law of our land.
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by Hap
The problem lies in a lack of discrimination.
Spies working at government jobs (or any spies I suppose) would be guilty of treason.
One who Sympathizes with communists would be guility of . . . well nothing.
Of course, my ingnorance of Cold War history may be lacking there. I'm unaware that being a Red was against the law of our land.
Regards,
hap
So, again where is my statement wrong or incorrect?
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
I've mentioned this before but noone seemed to notice. anyhoo, Ron Paul is running. He's an R, but I'll vote for him if he makes it past the primary. Ron Paul ("Dr. No" to some, 'cause he votes "no" so often) would undo a lot of damage, IMHO. He's got principles (the Constitution is #1 concern to him) and he stands by them, which is a quality sorely lacking in Washington these days...
http://www.house.gov/paul/index.shtml
http://ronpaulforcongress.com/ (still in "exploratory phase" for POTUS in'08)
YEP!
Been reading stuff this guy writes for a long time now.
Sadly, the public vote could put him in by a landslide! But I doubt that the politicians would agree.
But if he makes it he HAS MY VOTE!
-
Originally posted by E25280
1) I fear nothing in the PATRIOT Act regardless of who is at the helm.
2) We never needed a warrant for spying on a foreign power. Still don't.
3) As a US Citizen not involved in hostilities against the US, the chances of me or anyone like me being "incarcerated without representation" are nil.
4) These are not "Bush goodies" as you like to call them. PATRIOT was written into law by the congress. The rest are, to my understanding, powers given to the executive by the founders as written into the constitution.
So, what is your beef with Obama?
I'm thinkin someone hasn't actually read the Patriot Act.
Item 1,
"Dangerous laws created by well intentioned people today can be used by dangerous people with evil intentions tomorrow." - Alan Eppers
Item 2,
“There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are ‘just’ because the law makes them so.” —Frederic Bastiat
Item 3,
you really believe that??????????????????????
"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse." -- Edmund Burke,
political philosopher (1729-1797)
"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." -- Plato, Greek philosopher (427-_347 BC
Item 4,
I agree! Klinton wanted that act passed while he was pres. Rep screamed about Rights then when Boosh got in they passed it.
IMHO...........
“the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." Hermann Goering in his cell on the evening of 18 April 1946
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." —Daniel Webster
and to finish off..........
We lost many of our rights when we asked government to control
our neighbors for our benefit -- or simply looked the other way when others did
so.
What government can do to our neighbor, it can -- and will -- do to us. Freedom is something that we must give to others if we wish it for ourselves.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
So, again where is my statement wrong or incorrect?
your comment wasn't factually incorrect, it was irrelevant.
-
Originally posted by dmf
The only reason George Washington didn't screw up what teh president before him did is that there was no president before him, otherwise he'd have screwed it up.
John Hanson, first US President:
George Washington was really the 8th President of the United States! The only question is who the other seven were.
George Washington was not the first President of the United States. In fact, the first President of the United States was one John Hanson.john hanson was the first president of the article of confederation and that document was made before the constitution and George washington was the first president of the constitution.
The new country was actually formed on March 1, 1781 with the adoption of The Articles of Confederation. This document was actually proposed on June 11, 1776, but not agreed upon by Congress until November 15, 1777. Maryland refused to sign this document until Virginia and New York ceded their western lands (Maryland was afraid that these states would gain too much power in the new government from such large amounts of land).
Once the signing took place in 1781, a President was needed to run the country. John Hanson was chosen unanimously by Congress (which included George Washington). In fact, all the other potential candidates refused to run against him, as he was a major player in the revolution and an extremely influential member of Congress.
As the first President, Hanson had quite the shoes to fill. No one had ever been President and the role was poorly defined. His actions in office would set precedent for all future Presidents.
He took office just as the Revolutionary War ended. Almost immediately, the troops demanded to be paid. As would be expected after any long war, there were no funds to meet the salaries. As a result, the soldiers threatened to overthrow the new government and put Washington on the throne as a monarch.
All the members of Congress ran for their lives, leaving Hanson as the only guy left running the government. He somehow managed to calm the troops down and hold the country together. If he had failed, the government would have fallen almost immediately and everyone would have been bowing to King Washington. In fact, Hanson sent 800 pounds of sterling siliver by his brother Samuel Hanson to George Washington to provide the troops with shoes.
Hanson, as President, ordered all foreign troops off American soil, as well as the removal of all foreign flags. This was quite the feat, considering the fact that so many European countries had a stake in the United States since the days following Columbus.
Hanson established the Great Seal of the United States, which all Presidents have since been required to use on all official documents.
President Hanson also established the first Treasury Department, the first Secretary of War, and the first Foreign Affairs Department.
Lastly, he declared that the fourth Thursday of every November was to be Thanksgiving Day, which is still true today.
The Articles of Confederation only allowed a President to serve a one year term during any three year period, so Hanson actually accomplished quite a bit in such little time.
Six other presidents were elected after him - Elias Boudinot (1783), Thomas Mifflin (1784), Richard Henry Lee (1785), Nathan Gorman (1786), Arthur St. Clair (1787), and Cyrus Griffin (1788) - all prior to Washington taking office.
So what happened?
Why don't we ever hear about the first seven Presidents of the United States?
It's quite simple - The Articles of Confederation didn't work well. The individual states had too much power and nothing could be agreed upon.
A new doctrine needed to be written - something we know as the Constitution.
And that leads us to the end of our story.
George Washington was definitely not the first President of the United States. He was the first President of the United States under the Constitution we follow today.
And the first seven Presidents are forgotten in history.
-
Originally posted by wrag
I'm thinkin someone hasn't actually read the Patriot Act.
Wrag,
I'm schocked :O
Do you mean to say there's people who will post on this O'Club board without attempting to become well versed on a topic and who have nothing substantive to offer????
Horrors!!!
All the Best,
hap
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
your comment wasn't factually incorrect, it was irrelevant.
And your response is?
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
And your response is?
how old are you, 12? You're like a little kid, saying "I know you are, but what am I?"
sorry, but I won't be able to hear your witty reply, you're now ignored. go troll someone else.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
how old are you, 12? You're like a little kid, saying "I know you are, but what am I?"
sorry, but I won't be able to hear your witty reply, you're now ignored. go troll someone else.
Didn't think you'd have a decent answer.
Need to learn to control that anger a bit sport.
-
Face it all we in this country need is a good old fashioned witch hunt, lets just pick somebody call him guilty and get it over with.
-
Originally posted by wrag
I'm thinkin someone hasn't actually read the Patriot Act.
and to finish off..........
We lost many of our rights when we asked government to control
our neighbors for our benefit -- or simply looked the other way when others did
so.
What government can do to our neighbor, it can -- and will -- do to us. Freedom is something that we must give to others if we wish it for ourselves.
While all the quotes I edited out sound good and are interesting and all, they told me nothing about the USA PATRIOT Act, or why you think it is so dangerous.
What Whitehawk seemed to be saying in his original post is something akin to "you guys only like it because a Republican is in the white house, you wouldn't like it so much if a Democrat were there." Perhaps that is inaccurate, but it was about the same type of conversation I had just had with my dad about a different matter, so that was my understanding.
And my basic point, to which you have not offered any real refutation, is that it doesn't matter who is in charge. No President is more or less likely to abuse any given law. No law is "good" under one party and "bad" under another, IMO.
If you say the USA PATRIOT Act is bad law, fine. I fully admit I have not read it. But the people complaining about it are by and large those who I intrinsically distrust. The parts they complain about ("oh, no, you might find out someone downloaded pr0n at the library!" "oh, no, you can't listen to Al Quaeda operatives in Pakistan if they are calling someone in the USA! You need a warrant for that!" etc. ) just seem silly.
Maybe it is ground well tread for you, but as an infrequent visitor to the O'club, the paranoia displayed here is beyond my puny powers of comprehension. So, please, feel free to educate me about all the bad things in the law. I am always willing to learn. But you haven't helped so far.
-
Originally posted by dmf
Face it all we in this country need is a good old fashioned witch hunt, lets just pick somebody call him guilty and get it over with.
I think you mean her
-
Originally posted by E25280
While all the quotes I edited out sound good and are interesting and all, they told me nothing about the USA PATRIOT Act, or why you think it is so dangerous.
What Whitehawk seemed to be saying in his original post is something akin to "you guys only like it because a Republican is in the white house, you wouldn't like it so much if a Democrat were there." Perhaps that is inaccurate, but it was about the same type of conversation I had just had with my dad about a different matter, so that was my understanding.
And my basic point, to which you have not offered any real refutation, is that it doesn't matter who is in charge. No President is more or less likely to abuse any given law. No law is "good" under one party and "bad" under another, IMO.
If you say the USA PATRIOT Act is bad law, fine. I fully admit I have not read it. But the people complaining about it are by and large those who I intrinsically distrust. The parts they complain about ("oh, no, you might find out someone downloaded pr0n at the library!" "oh, no, you can't listen to Al Quaeda operatives in Pakistan if they are calling someone in the USA! You need a warrant for that!" etc. ) just seem silly.
Maybe it is ground well tread for you, but as an infrequent visitor to the O'club, the paranoia displayed here is beyond my puny powers of comprehension. So, please, feel free to educate me about all the bad things in the law. I am always willing to learn. But you haven't helped so far.
How about you do a lookup of the Patriot Act yourself?
Do some looking around and you will find the Patriot Act has already been used by local law enforcement on Americans.
Read what they can do to you now! It basically suspends the Bill of Rights.
YOU can be declared a terroist, all they have to do is say you are a terroist, and you become one.
How about this. They can now come into your home. Without you knowledge or permission. Take something without telling you. AND if you report to the law what looks to you like a theft they can, should they so chose, arrest you for enterfering with their investigation. ALL without a WARRENT!
Don't take my word for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Go read it!
-
There were and are commies working in the U.S., it's called the ACLU.
-
spelling aside wrag is 100% correct
-
Originally posted by VooWho
I think you mean her
Her? She hasn't even been nominated by her party yet. She's just in the running like the rest of them.
-
Originally posted by wrag
How about you do a lookup of the Patriot Act yourself?
Do some looking around and you will find the Patriot Act has already been used by local law enforcement on Americans.
Read what they can do to you now! It basically suspends the Bill of Rights.
YOU can be declared a terroist, all they have to do is say you are a terroist, and you become one.
How about this. They can now come into your home. Without you knowledge or permission. Take something without telling you. AND if you report to the law what looks to you like a theft they can, should they so chose, arrest you for enterfering with their investigation. ALL without a WARRENT!
Don't take my word for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Go read it!
So basically If I say thou art a terrorist, then thou art a terrorist?
I guess I don't need to instigate a good old fashioned with hunt then
-
Originally posted by wrag
How about you do a lookup of the Patriot Act yourself?
Do some looking around and you will find the Patriot Act has already been used by local law enforcement on Americans.
Read what they can do to you now! It basically suspends the Bill of Rights.
YOU can be declared a terroist, all they have to do is say you are a terroist, and you become one.
How about this. They can now come into your home. Without you knowledge or permission. Take something without telling you. AND if you report to the law what looks to you like a theft they can, should they so chose, arrest you for enterfering with their investigation. ALL without a WARRENT!
Don't take my word for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Go read it!
thus my comparison to McCarthyism.
Actually it more resembles the activities of the Gestapo or the KGB
-
Originally posted by dmf
So basically If I say thou art a terrorist, then thou art a terrorist?
I guess I don't need to instigate a good old fashioned with hunt then
I think YOU have to be the Governement to do it DMF????
Or in some government department that is allowed to...
-
Originally posted by dmf
So basically If I say thou art a terrorist, then thou art a terrorist?
nope, but if George Bush says you're a terrorist, then you're a terrorist...
-
Originally posted by dmf
Her? She hasn't even been nominated by her party yet. She's just in the running like the rest of them.
I think he was referring to the fact that a witch hunt typically resulted in women being hunted, in that witches are female.
I find it amusing that as soon as someone mentioned "her" , referring to witches, you went straight to Hillary.
:rofl
-
Well Have you ever really looked at her eyes? I bet if Bill really ever made her mad he'd wake up the next day eating flies and saying rib bit.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
nope, but if George Bush says you're a terrorist, then you're a terrorist...
If George Bush says I'm a terrorist I'll tel him to go see Earnest Angley and get healed.
-
Originally posted by wrag
I think YOU have to be the Governement to do it DMF????
Or in some government department that is allowed to...
thats all we need the people that we're scared of with yet another power.
-
Originally posted by dmf
Well Have you ever really looked at her eyes? I bet if Bill really ever made her mad he'd wake up the next day eating flies and saying rib bit.
Bah. there is nothing wrong with Hillary I couldnt fix in a hallf hour with a Cat of Nine Tails :D
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Bah. there is nothing wrong with Hillary I couldnt fix in a hallf hour with a Cat of Nine Tails :D
your gona let her whip you with a cat o nine tails? she would like that, but i don't think it would change her.
-
Originally posted by john9001
your gona let her whip you with a cat o nine tails? she would like that, but i don't think it would change her.
I wouldn't let her near enough to me for that
-
to say that America is not ready to vote for a negro or a woman is like saying that the negro population is not ready to vote for a republican..
both may be true but not for the reasons implied. Not the person but the politics of the people.
lazs
-
Meatwad is a terrorist! He'll hit anything!:O
-
Those that don't think the patriot act can not be abused need to look at one of the if not the very first case it was use on.
They used the Patriot Act against the very well known online payment processor "PayPal" because they were accepting payments for online gambling.
So one of the first things that bill was used for had totally nothing to do with terrorism.