Indefinite Dictatorial Power

[KenH]

Column LINK

 

[carpro]

Your source starts with this sentence:

"This past Thursday, the New York Times exposed the most significant violation of federal surveillance law in the post-Watergate era."

Setting up his column with a lie doesn't lend credence to the rest of his opinion.

 

[KenH]

It is arguably a correct statement. I understand that those who are apologists for whatever actions - legal or not - that President Bush takes will not agree with the column.

Remember, I voted for George W. Bush twice so I am willing to cut him some slack but these acts of illegal surveillance are simply beyond the pale and in good conscience I cannot support these actions.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

They are not illegal acts...at least it has not been proven to be illegal yet.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Well, it seems pretty clear that the special court was not used. Even the retroactive manner of using the court was not used.

It reminds of that hideous provision in the (un)Patriot Act where the government can break into your house and not even tell you about it for 30 days, or not even tell you about it at all if it deems it fit not to tell you about it.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by KenH:
Well, it seems pretty clear that the special court was not used. Even the retroactive manner of using the court was not used.

It reminds of that hideous provision in the (un)Patriot Act where the government can break into your house and not even tell you about it for 30 days, or not even tell you about it at all if it deems it fit not to tell you about it.

No court has ever ruled that FISA strips the President of his constitutional or statutory powers.

Until they do, no one can establish that his actions are illegal.

BTW There is a statutory exception to FISA. Maybe we should get familiar with it.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by carpro:
No court has ever ruled that FISA strips the President of his constitutional or statutory powers.

And I see nothing in the federal constitution that makes the president into a king or a dictator.

Maybe a Democrat-controlled Congress come 2007 will put a constitutional leash on the power of the executive branch.

 

[poncho]

Maybe a Democrat-controlled Congress come 2007 will put a constitutional leash on the power of the executive branch.

Why would they want to do that?

 

[OldRegular]

BULL!

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

I am curious and have two honest questions to the usual cast of characters who support the Administration on every issue every time:

What would it take for you to criticize this President? What transgression would cross the line, in your minds?

Those are two honest questions. If you feel compelled to give a caustic answer of offer contumely, please feel free to ignore these questions.

Regards,
BiR

 

[NiteShift]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
I am curious and have two honest questions to the usual cast of characters who support the Administration on every issue every time:

What would it take for you to criticize this President? What transgression would cross the line, in your minds?
BiR

I would say that if the Bush-Haters, and there are many of them here, stopped pointing to every statement or event as evidence that Bush is either (choose one):
A Nazi
The Anti-Christ
A Fake Christian
A Liar
A Dictator
A Fascist

then we who support him would not feel compelled to circle the wagons, and could honestly debate President Bush's policies and actions. I don't expect to see that anytime soon.

 

[OldRegular]

A better question might be: When will Bush Haters stop posting the lies of the leftist democrats on this Forum?

 

[hillclimber]

This is just another example of the democrats tossing another accusation against the wall, hoping it'll stick. The Pres. is/was completely in the clear legally and they all know it. It is just business as usual.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by carpro:
No court has ever ruled that FISA strips the President of his constitutional or statutory powers.

And I see nothing in the federal constitution that makes the president into a king or a dictator.

</font>[/QUOTE]You're over reaching, Ken.

A king would not have informed Congress and the head if the FISA court at all. A king would not have consulted attorneys to get an opinion on the legality of his actions.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Originally posted by NiteShift:
I would say that if the Bush-Haters, and there are many of them here, stopped pointing to every statement or event as evidence that Bush is either (choose one):
A Nazi
The Anti-Christ
A Fake Christian
A Liar
A Dictator
A Fascist

then we who support him would not feel compelled to circle the wagons, and could honestly debate President Bush's policies and actions. I don't expect to see that anytime soon. [/QB]

Excellent post.

 

[Daisy]

NiteShift forgot
</font>

• A Moron</font>
• A Puppet</font>
• An Incompetent Thief</font>
• A Kitten-Eater & Puppy-Stomper</font>

but perhaps it's not the Bush-haters who imply that, merely the Bush-despisers.

When has anyone called Bush a Nazi? It's not A Dictator, but A Wannabe Dictator (he said his job would be easier then).

 

[poncho]

I don't think the man is a moron and puppet somehow doesn't fit either, a puppet is unable to give concent to being manipulated by the puppeteer. It's pretty apparent he is able to give his concent.

Bush isn't a nazi. Fascist?

What distinguishes Nazism from generic fascism is its obsession with racial theories of superiority, and some would say, its roots in the socialist theory of proletarian revolution.

Fascism and Nazism as ideologies involve, to varying degrees, some of the following hallmarks:

*** Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.

*** Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit.

*** Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others (fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence at different moments in their development).

*** Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate.

*** Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.

*** Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism.

*** Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission_often metaphysical and romanticized in character.

*** Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy_seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them.

*** The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.

*** Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society.

*** Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.

It is vitally important to understand that fascism and Nazism are not biologically or culturally determinant. Fascism does not attach to the gene structure of any specific group or nationality. Nazism was not the ultimate expression of the German people. Fascism did not end with World War II.

SOURCE

What was the question again?

 

[just-want-peace]

I would say that if the Bush-Haters, and there are many of them here, stopped pointing to every statement or event as evidence that Bush is either (choose one):
A Nazi
The Anti-Christ
A Fake Christian
A Liar
A Dictator
A Fascist

then we who support him would not feel compelled to circle the wagons, and could honestly debate President Bush's policies and actions. I don't expect to see that anytime soon.

Well stated, but as you can tell from this board, they aren't interested in facts, just demonization.

NiteShift forgot

* A Moron
* A Puppet
* An Incompetent Thief
* A Kitten-Eater & Puppy-Stomper

but perhaps it's not the Bush-haters who imply that, merely the Bush-despisers.

When has anyone called Bush a Nazi? It's not A Dictator, but A Wannabe Dictator (he said his job would be easier then).

See what I mean?

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by just-want-peace:
Well stated, but as you can tell from this board, they aren't interested in facts, just demonization.

See what I mean?

No, but I see that you can't tell humorous exaggeration when you read it.

Facts would be very nice if you would only use them instead of demonizing those who disagree with you. BIR (

) asked politely and, I believe, seriously what if anything would the president have to do to lose your support. Most the replies were nothing but demonizing the Democrats, no facts at all, just silly assertions.

 

[NiteShift]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:

Excellent post.


Thank you Bro Curtis. We all disagree with at least some of Pres Bush's policies or statements. But when the opposition gets so outrageous, well just gotta defend the old boy.