The Internet is amazing, have a discussion about U.S. presidential powers vs privacy rights, give it 5 pages and WHAM! we're talking about relative penis sizes between Gorillas and Humans.
To gently steer back on track...
What do you all think about past Presidential transgressions such as that made by FDR, Lincoln etc... ? That's one of the things that I've always been fascinated by with our government. I mean FDR was virtually a dictator in office, suspended all civil rights of Japanese Americans, changed the size and makeup of the supreme court to suit his needs etc... but we always have returned.
way Way WAY Over The Line!
way Way WAY Over The Line!
"Apes and humans aren't too far apart. But apes don't have the highly developed social systems that we have, probably because they don't need them. I assume they're territorial but the most territorial, the most aggressive, the most dangerous of the apes is us. "
++++++++++++++ ONLY because we have more powerful tools, Diuretic. And the most powerful of all is speech!
Instead of getting a gang of young males together and patrolling the edge of our territory...we can use the power of speech to generate territorial disputes with people half-way around the world.
++++++++++++++ ONLY because we have more powerful tools, Diuretic. And the most powerful of all is speech!
Instead of getting a gang of young males together and patrolling the edge of our territory...we can use the power of speech to generate territorial disputes with people half-way around the world.
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
way Way WAY Over The Line!
Stanley Kubrick (sp?) expressed it eloquently and without words in "2001"...when the ape threw up a bone which morphed into a space shuttle!
Under the skin....we're the same critter, but we can speak and build better tools.
Perhaps that's what the Bushies fear, which leads them to want to snoop in our mail?
(How's THAT for a return trip to Accountable's original thought?) :wah:
Under the skin....we're the same critter, but we can speak and build better tools.
Perhaps that's what the Bushies fear, which leads them to want to snoop in our mail?
(How's THAT for a return trip to Accountable's original thought?) :wah:
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
way Way WAY Over The Line!
Shawn - it's called discourse. It happens. Bite the bullet my friend. Now linking the two topics and gettng back on board can be fun. Let me give it a try.
No problem, I thought that the segue was very humorous, no bullet to be bitten. I did forget the smilies, so here they are
You mentioned FDR's wartime powers. A good example. But tell me - because I don't know, I'm not laying a sneaky trap here - did FDR do that with the express approval of Congress - ie using legislative measures - or did he do it assuming powers to himself that apparently don't appear in the legislation (eg the extended use of so-called "signing statements") and indeed in the face of legislation, ie refusing to get warrants even as the legislation required. Did FDR do that? Did Lincoln do that? Or did they persuade the legislature that those things needed to be done?
He did that by executive order that was further approved by the supreme court, which held that he could constitutionally remove the civil rights of racial groups if there was a pressing public need. no legislation involved. the supreme court thing was more convoluted, and he eventually lost. He was frustrated by continual rebuttals from the supreme court for his New Deal, and decided that his presidential powers included the right to appoint extra members of the supreme court, essentially taking a nine member body, and making it 14 so that he could be sure to succeed with his ideas. His own party essentially turned on him for that one, and it did not go through, although coincidentally the justices that caused him the most trouble died/retired shortly and he was able to stack the court justices in the traditional manner, which lead to decisions like the above.
It is to be noted that after his presidency, great steps were taken, including term limits. to make sure that no one had that level of power again. The thing is FDR was extremely popular and if he didn't have the heavy hand that he did, we likely would have never managed to get through the Depression and WWII. People trusted him, and he was an extremely astute leader and public speaker. We could use that sort of thing today.
The Bush team isn't kidding when they say that this sort of thing is not new. it's not, it's just usually applied by a competant administration.
No problem, I thought that the segue was very humorous, no bullet to be bitten. I did forget the smilies, so here they are
You mentioned FDR's wartime powers. A good example. But tell me - because I don't know, I'm not laying a sneaky trap here - did FDR do that with the express approval of Congress - ie using legislative measures - or did he do it assuming powers to himself that apparently don't appear in the legislation (eg the extended use of so-called "signing statements") and indeed in the face of legislation, ie refusing to get warrants even as the legislation required. Did FDR do that? Did Lincoln do that? Or did they persuade the legislature that those things needed to be done?
He did that by executive order that was further approved by the supreme court, which held that he could constitutionally remove the civil rights of racial groups if there was a pressing public need. no legislation involved. the supreme court thing was more convoluted, and he eventually lost. He was frustrated by continual rebuttals from the supreme court for his New Deal, and decided that his presidential powers included the right to appoint extra members of the supreme court, essentially taking a nine member body, and making it 14 so that he could be sure to succeed with his ideas. His own party essentially turned on him for that one, and it did not go through, although coincidentally the justices that caused him the most trouble died/retired shortly and he was able to stack the court justices in the traditional manner, which lead to decisions like the above.
It is to be noted that after his presidency, great steps were taken, including term limits. to make sure that no one had that level of power again. The thing is FDR was extremely popular and if he didn't have the heavy hand that he did, we likely would have never managed to get through the Depression and WWII. People trusted him, and he was an extremely astute leader and public speaker. We could use that sort of thing today.
The Bush team isn't kidding when they say that this sort of thing is not new. it's not, it's just usually applied by a competant administration.
way Way WAY Over The Line!
Anyway, I suppose my question is this - has Bush taken a different approachto exercising the great power of the executive from that taken by FDR? And another question. Given that the US (and the Allies in general of course) was involved in a World war rather than a limited invasion and occupation, did FDR have more moral authority than Bush has at the moment?
FDR had the moral authority because he owned the public discourse. He had weekly radio "fireside chats" with the American people, and he was able to project himself as amiable and competant, thus he was loved, and people didn't know or care much about the details, as long as they had a future, which at that time was pretty bleak. FDR was also able to keep things from the public, such as his own disability (from polio) The press was nowhere near as pervasive as it is now, and FDR's was the strongest voice.
Bush lacks moral authority for almost too many reasons to be named, and while a lot of this is his fault, some of it isn't. Let's see: Bad public speaker, won in a dodgy election, very secretive, no foriegn policy experience, inherited a bad situation, press hates him, vocal opposition, he's a conservative when the world is getting more liberal, Cheney shooting that guy in the face, France etc...
FDR had the moral authority because he owned the public discourse. He had weekly radio "fireside chats" with the American people, and he was able to project himself as amiable and competant, thus he was loved, and people didn't know or care much about the details, as long as they had a future, which at that time was pretty bleak. FDR was also able to keep things from the public, such as his own disability (from polio) The press was nowhere near as pervasive as it is now, and FDR's was the strongest voice.
Bush lacks moral authority for almost too many reasons to be named, and while a lot of this is his fault, some of it isn't. Let's see: Bad public speaker, won in a dodgy election, very secretive, no foriegn policy experience, inherited a bad situation, press hates him, vocal opposition, he's a conservative when the world is getting more liberal, Cheney shooting that guy in the face, France etc...
way Way WAY Over The Line!
Add in a capability FDR never had--the ability to use technology to snoop into public/private business while unobserved, coupled with the insecurity of a man who has proven the "Peter Principle." He is dangerous!
(FDR is an interesting example. Could he have been elected today--with a physical handicap and a mistress?)
(FDR is an interesting example. Could he have been elected today--with a physical handicap and a mistress?)
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
way Way WAY Over The Line!
Add in a capability FDR never had--the ability to use technology to snoop into public/private business while unobserved, coupled with the insecurity of a man who has proven the "Peter Principle." He is dangerous!
(FDR is an interesting example. Could he have been elected today--with a physical handicap and a mistress?)
I read somewhere that FDR's government listened to every international call made during that time, granted that's maybe eight calls but still... (this may be BS, I don't have a link, but it makes sense, and I remember reading it from a good source) Bush was elected in 2000 to perform a job, maintaining prosperity in a stable environment, that took a very hard left turn shortly thereafter. he was forced to confront things he was not good at. there's a lesson in that somewhere: elect competant people, you never know what's going to happen. also the choice in 2000 was particularly bleak, I'm not sure that Gore would have been much better.
But Bush's presidency doesn't make me angry, it makes me sad. The USA is too great a nation when we want to be to have this be our recent legacy.
(FDR is an interesting example. Could he have been elected today--with a physical handicap and a mistress?)
I read somewhere that FDR's government listened to every international call made during that time, granted that's maybe eight calls but still... (this may be BS, I don't have a link, but it makes sense, and I remember reading it from a good source) Bush was elected in 2000 to perform a job, maintaining prosperity in a stable environment, that took a very hard left turn shortly thereafter. he was forced to confront things he was not good at. there's a lesson in that somewhere: elect competant people, you never know what's going to happen. also the choice in 2000 was particularly bleak, I'm not sure that Gore would have been much better.
But Bush's presidency doesn't make me angry, it makes me sad. The USA is too great a nation when we want to be to have this be our recent legacy.
way Way WAY Over The Line!
Yes...it IS sad. It's sad because so many people actually voted for this man, without recognizing his only "qualification" was a name they recognized. And we musn't forget that, had every qualified voter actually submitted a ballot, things might have been very different.
It's like the Reagan presidency...people voted for "flash" rather than substance...and got just what they deserved.
It's like the Reagan presidency...people voted for "flash" rather than substance...and got just what they deserved.
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
way Way WAY Over The Line!
Lulu2;509692 wrote: Yes...it IS sad. It's sad because so many people actually voted for this man, without recognizing his only "qualification" was a name they recognized. And we musn't forget that, had every qualified voter actually submitted a ballot, things might have been very different.
To be fair, he was elected and reelected as TX governor. Very popular I'm told, though I didn't live here at the time. I think he would have been competent to run the nation had 9/11 not happened. Equate it to driving down a straight road, I guess.
Too bad we hit that heller pot hole, veered off the pavement and went careening down the mountain. But the US is a tough ol' Jeep. We'll be just fine once we get another behind the wheel.
Might I just take this opportunity to tell you, Shawn that I enjoy reading your posts. Anybody that knows when to use 'maybe' and 'may be' may be worth reading. :yh_clap
To be fair, he was elected and reelected as TX governor. Very popular I'm told, though I didn't live here at the time. I think he would have been competent to run the nation had 9/11 not happened. Equate it to driving down a straight road, I guess.
Too bad we hit that heller pot hole, veered off the pavement and went careening down the mountain. But the US is a tough ol' Jeep. We'll be just fine once we get another behind the wheel.
Might I just take this opportunity to tell you, Shawn that I enjoy reading your posts. Anybody that knows when to use 'maybe' and 'may be' may be worth reading. :yh_clap
way Way WAY Over The Line!
Lulu2;509692 wrote: Yes...it IS sad. It's sad because so many people actually voted for this man, without recognizing his only "qualification" was a name they recognized. And we musn't forget that, had every qualified voter actually submitted a ballot, things might have been very different.
It's like the Reagan presidency...people voted for "flash" rather than substance...and got just what they deserved.
In 2000 I voted for him, there wasn't a good choice. If he hadn't been elected we would have had a bad Dem for a president instead. Not a real fan of enforced voting either, and it likely wouldn't have changed the result. So far I'm fairly hopeful for 2008, McCain, Obama, lets hope those two make it through.
And D, we're not broken, we just need to get up.
It's like the Reagan presidency...people voted for "flash" rather than substance...and got just what they deserved.
In 2000 I voted for him, there wasn't a good choice. If he hadn't been elected we would have had a bad Dem for a president instead. Not a real fan of enforced voting either, and it likely wouldn't have changed the result. So far I'm fairly hopeful for 2008, McCain, Obama, lets hope those two make it through.
And D, we're not broken, we just need to get up.
way Way WAY Over The Line!
I should've mentioned the conservative Christian backing of Bush. I'm quite sure it helped...him and his "family values."
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
way Way WAY Over The Line!
Diuretic;509953 wrote: July 1996 - damn hot in Austin, Tx. I was staying in an apartment block right opposite that lovely granite Capitol building there. Friend of mine (lives outside of Austin) picked me up one morning to give me the grand tour. We drove past the Governor's Mansion. There was a brief discussion regarding the then occupant and it wasn't complimentary. To be fair my friend is a Democratic and had worked for Ann Richards but I remember even back then his words of caution..
Acc - time to stop the truck, I'll give you a hand to put the spare wheel on and then off to Pep Boys to get things fixed.
Call them Democrat, please. They're no more democratic than the Republicans.
Acc - time to stop the truck, I'll give you a hand to put the spare wheel on and then off to Pep Boys to get things fixed.
Call them Democrat, please. They're no more democratic than the Republicans.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
way Way WAY Over The Line!
I would have sworn that the official name was the Democrat Party, or that they'd only recently changed their name, but they claim the name "Democratic" from the party's inception. Sad really, that a group can pick any old name, regardless of how poorly it fits. 
way Way WAY Over The Line!
Diuretic;511192 wrote: I read that people like Limbaugh deliberately refer to them as the "Democrat" Party because apparently it rankles. I have no idea. But then I'm still trying to get my head around Dixie Democrats and Blue Dog Democrats, Yellow Dog Democrats and whatever other flavours they come in. Quite amazing really. And I thought the party I vote for here was complex!
Dixiecrats largely no longer exist, most of them became republicans. (Strom Thurmond) They were famous for opposing things like the New Deal, and supporting segregation. Blue Dog democrats are the New England JFK types, and I have no Idea on the Yellow dog variety. The democratic party is more fractured than the republicans, since they are essentially a coalition, so you have a lot of different caucuses, and factions within the party, The Union types don't get along with the ultra left, the california Dems are quite different from the Clintonian types etc... It is usually said that the Democrats don't know what they believe, it's true: they don't even really know who they are. They normall go out of their way to nominate the blandest democrat they can find for president, Bill Clinton is the exception.
Dixiecrats largely no longer exist, most of them became republicans. (Strom Thurmond) They were famous for opposing things like the New Deal, and supporting segregation. Blue Dog democrats are the New England JFK types, and I have no Idea on the Yellow dog variety. The democratic party is more fractured than the republicans, since they are essentially a coalition, so you have a lot of different caucuses, and factions within the party, The Union types don't get along with the ultra left, the california Dems are quite different from the Clintonian types etc... It is usually said that the Democrats don't know what they believe, it's true: they don't even really know who they are. They normall go out of their way to nominate the blandest democrat they can find for president, Bill Clinton is the exception.
way Way WAY Over The Line!
" It is usually said that the Democrats don't know what they believe, it's true: they don't even really know who they are. They normall go out of their way to nominate the blandest democrat they can find for president, Bill Clinton is the exception."
+++++++++++ Do you really think so, Shawn? Partisanship aside, I find politics in this country suffering from a lack of anyone willing to take a firm stand. They're all so busy catering to various interest groups that it's impossible to know what they really believe. Blandness rules on all sides.
Perhaps the real future of politics lies in people like AHNOLD (don'taskmetospellhislastnameandIlivehereandshouldknow,too!) I believe him when he says he wants to move away from extreme party positions and move toward a central point of agreement on what's the BEST thing to actually DO!
I'm weary of groups trying to impose their religion on the rest of us and of the politicians who cater to them, in order to get votes. I'm weary of groups trying to impose their ethnic agendas and their "screw the environment" agendas. etc.
+++++++++++ Do you really think so, Shawn? Partisanship aside, I find politics in this country suffering from a lack of anyone willing to take a firm stand. They're all so busy catering to various interest groups that it's impossible to know what they really believe. Blandness rules on all sides.
Perhaps the real future of politics lies in people like AHNOLD (don'taskmetospellhislastnameandIlivehereandshouldknow,too!) I believe him when he says he wants to move away from extreme party positions and move toward a central point of agreement on what's the BEST thing to actually DO!
I'm weary of groups trying to impose their religion on the rest of us and of the politicians who cater to them, in order to get votes. I'm weary of groups trying to impose their ethnic agendas and their "screw the environment" agendas. etc.
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
way Way WAY Over The Line!
I think to get away from the personalities because although bush is not a great president, he is not the antichrist either. I think whats important to consider (and this goes for all western societies, not just the US), is that the increasing sophistication of tehnology can provide our very powerful governments with the temptation to have too much say in our day to day lives, its happening here in Europe, and more also in the US. Of course the "war on terror" has created a climate of fear, particularly in the US, and the government are on the one hand trying to work out how to genuinly tackle what is a dangerous threat from extremists who are utterly ruthless, have access to modern technology, and also to some nasty weapons (thats the problem with technology, its an enabler, for good or ill, and its why this sort of problem was not so accute in 1907 as opposed to now).
However, also, as always, some cynical politicans also see this as a huge and "once in a lifetime" opportunity to increase their ability to control society through the same technology, and that has to be resisted at all costs, because as always there are always enemies of liberty and freedom of expression both at home and abroad. Its an interesting challenge that we face in the west, and just because we are aware of these dangers by no means means that we shall avoid them. As ever, vigilence and keeping ones nerve in dangerous times are what are important.
However, also, as always, some cynical politicans also see this as a huge and "once in a lifetime" opportunity to increase their ability to control society through the same technology, and that has to be resisted at all costs, because as always there are always enemies of liberty and freedom of expression both at home and abroad. Its an interesting challenge that we face in the west, and just because we are aware of these dangers by no means means that we shall avoid them. As ever, vigilence and keeping ones nerve in dangerous times are what are important.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
way Way WAY Over The Line!
+++++++++++ Do you really think so, Shawn? Partisanship aside, I find politics in this country suffering from a lack of anyone willing to take a firm stand. They're all so busy catering to various interest groups that it's impossible to know what they really believe. Blandness rules on all sides.
Yes I really think so. Thats not to say that the republicans are in lock step, but their various groups are more cohesive than the democrats. And for what it's worth we do have president willing to take a firm stand! And I'm not partisan, I'm very independant.
Perhaps the real future of politics lies in people like AHNOLD (don'taskmetospellhislastnameandIlivehereandshould know,too!) I believe him when he says he wants to move away from extreme party positions and move toward a central point of agreement on what's the BEST thing to actually DO!
I agree completely, Competance over ideology!
I'm weary of groups trying to impose their religion on the rest of us and of the politicians who cater to them, in order to get votes. I'm weary of groups trying to impose their ethnic agendas and their "screw the environment" agendas. etc.
And here's where we differ. that's a partisan statement. Who is trying to impose their religion on you? Who has flown the "screw the environment" banner? On the reverse, are you trying to "take their guns away"? are you "against family values" are you for "murdering fetuses"? In order to get to point #2 above, we have to drop the poisonous and paranoid rhetoric, and if we as the population can't do it, how can we expect our politicians to? I've often said that we are all entitled to our own opinions but we're not entitled to our own facts we need a more careful filter, when we hear a politician talking about what the evil "other side" is doing. that statement is meant to make you act a certain way, question it, question everything, even your own side.
Yes I really think so. Thats not to say that the republicans are in lock step, but their various groups are more cohesive than the democrats. And for what it's worth we do have president willing to take a firm stand! And I'm not partisan, I'm very independant.
Perhaps the real future of politics lies in people like AHNOLD (don'taskmetospellhislastnameandIlivehereandshould know,too!) I believe him when he says he wants to move away from extreme party positions and move toward a central point of agreement on what's the BEST thing to actually DO!
I agree completely, Competance over ideology!
I'm weary of groups trying to impose their religion on the rest of us and of the politicians who cater to them, in order to get votes. I'm weary of groups trying to impose their ethnic agendas and their "screw the environment" agendas. etc.
And here's where we differ. that's a partisan statement. Who is trying to impose their religion on you? Who has flown the "screw the environment" banner? On the reverse, are you trying to "take their guns away"? are you "against family values" are you for "murdering fetuses"? In order to get to point #2 above, we have to drop the poisonous and paranoid rhetoric, and if we as the population can't do it, how can we expect our politicians to? I've often said that we are all entitled to our own opinions but we're not entitled to our own facts we need a more careful filter, when we hear a politician talking about what the evil "other side" is doing. that statement is meant to make you act a certain way, question it, question everything, even your own side.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
way Way WAY Over The Line!
Diuretic;511708 wrote: ... that kind of thing is meat and drink to me.
You're a really cheap date, then.
You're a really cheap date, then.
way Way WAY Over The Line!
one by one
little by little
keep your bananas peeled people
little by little
keep your bananas peeled people
I AM AWESOME MAN
way Way WAY Over The Line!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diuretic
... that kind of thing is meat and drink to me.
You're a really cheap date, then.
(Accountable)
:wah: :wah: :wah:
Originally Posted by Diuretic
... that kind of thing is meat and drink to me.
You're a really cheap date, then.
(Accountable)
:wah: :wah: :wah:
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
way Way WAY Over The Line!
They're 39 cents a pound here. What a path this thread has wound.
way Way WAY Over The Line!
Gbh?
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
way Way WAY Over The Line!
Oh...thanks, Hammy!Love,
Cindy Clueless
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay