Off Topic Messages

No More Kings

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:23 pm

Please feel free to read this terrific column without rancor or comment.

It certainly represents the feeling of a majority of people in the US right now.

Where we go from here is anyone's guess, but I never thought I'd pine for the days of Presidents Eisenhower or Reagan. But I do!

DJC

------------------------------------------------------------------------
JON CARROLL
Wednesday, April 12, 2006


Let us review. According to several sources, most notably Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, the president has the right to arrest and hold anyone he chooses, without charge, for as long as he wants, without access to a lawyer and without any kind of public judicial proceeding -- or, in a pinch, without even a private judicial proceeding. He has the right to tap the telephone, read the e-mail and examine the financial records of anyone he chooses.

It now appears that he also has the right to selectively declassify intelligence documents to obtain political goals, even if (or perhaps particularly if) the intelligence in question is suspect. He has the right to lie to the American people in order to enter into a war of unknown intensity and duration.

The president does not yet have an ermine robe and a gold crown, but no one can say for sure that plans to obtain such trappings of state are not already under way. Heck, no one can say for sure anything at all because the quality of information is so degraded that it's hard to know what's going to happen until it happens, and sometimes not even then. We can say this: No one ever went broke not trusting George W. Bush.

None of this is news. The question, really, is not "Why has the president's approval rating dipped to 36 percent?" but "Why hasn't it dipped lower?" Why do people continue to support him? He has taken unto himself vast amounts of power not ever granted in the Constitution. Surely people treasure democracy, love the system of checks and balances, are afraid of tyrants.

History suggests otherwise. History suggests that, in times of trouble, people like a strong leader. People are willing to give up their autonomy in order to strengthen their leader. Democracy is a messy and confusing business. Maybe it's OK some of the time, but when malign enemies are roaming the streets, when our very way of life is threatened by shadowy figures of menace -- we want Daddy. Most of the world is run by Daddy, one way or the other.

Political society tends to devolve back to dictatorship. The standard pattern seems to be war followed by confusion followed by a coalition government followed by Daddy. Of course this is not inevitable, but it happens often enough that the basic urge should not be surprising.

The Founders understood that. They debated, they pondered, and they came up with a firm rule: no more kings. That idea is all over the Constitution. Presidents almost immediately began trying to find ways to circumvent the Constitution. It's so hard to get things done. I have a dream -- I want neither a check nor a balance.

Most people would rather cede control than exercise it. Responsibility is hard and shopping is easy. Most people are sheep -- heck, most sheep are sheep. Sheepiness is the default mammalian mode. I wish I didn't think that was true, but look at the evidence; it's hard to be optimistic. We should keep our ideals, but we should realize that the reason we call them "ideals" is that they're not very real.

One thing Daddy has to convince his subjects about: He is just like them. He believes what they believe. He will fight for whatever it is they would also fight for. If that's true, then what does it matter how much power we give him -- he's going to use it just the way we would. He's going to uphold our values and smite our enemies. That's why George Bush got elected. I doubt that any of his supporters thought he was competent; they just thought he was unwavering in his beliefs. And he is. He has done what he was elected to do.

The delusion is circular and complete: When he says he's going to tap telephones, he doesn't mean your telephone, he means other people's phones. He's not going to throw you in jail for ever and ever; it's not you he's after. When the people who are in jail say, "I was just like you, trying to lead my life in America," you can say, "You're not like me -- you're in jail."

I was 18 when I first heard the famous quote from Martin Niemoeller. I was gobsmacked. There are several versions; this one's from Bartlett's: "In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page E - 8
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... GUF3I1.DTL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
©2006 San Francisco Chronicle

Re: No More Kings

Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:20 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:Please feel free to read this terrific column without rancor or comment.

It certainly represents the feeling of a majority of people in the US right now.

Where we go from here is anyone's guess, but I never thought I'd pine for the days of Presidents Eisenhower or Reagan. But I do!

DJC

Well, no rancor my friend......but you certainly didn't think such clueless and revisionist drivel could go without comment?? :lol: :wink:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
JON CARROLL
Wednesday, April 12, 2006


Let us review. According to several sources, most notably Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, the president has the right to arrest and hold anyone he chooses, without charge, for as long as he wants, without access to a lawyer and without any kind of public judicial proceeding -- or, in a pinch, without even a private judicial proceeding. He has the right to tap the telephone, read the e-mail and examine the financial records of anyone he chooses.

Let's review........Washington did it. Lincoln did it. FDR did it. It's called The War Powers Act. Perhaps this dope is unaware of it. Or history. Or where his ass is even with both hands to search for it. :wink:

It now appears that he also has the right to selectively declassify intelligence documents to obtain political goals, even if (or perhaps particularly if) the intelligence in question is suspect. He has the right to lie to the American people in order to enter into a war of unknown intensity and duration.

Ummmmmmm......it is impossible for a sitting President to leak. Had this imbecile been able to read, he might have noted that unanimous conclusion from every Constitutional scholar who addressed this non-issue no matter what their political stripe.

I suppose it was better to simply let the mass media misinformation campaign to go on unchallenged?? Of course it was.....


The president does not yet have an ermine robe and a gold crown, but no one can say for sure that plans to obtain such trappings of state are not already under way. Heck, no one can say for sure anything at all because the quality of information is so degraded that it's hard to know what's going to happen until it happens, and sometimes not even then. We can say this: No one ever went broke not trusting George W. Bush.

And this tool will never go broke trying to obtain accurate information......because that's obviously not his aim.

None of this is news. The question, really, is not "Why has the president's approval rating dipped to 36 percent?" but "Why hasn't it dipped lower?" Why do people continue to support him? He has taken unto himself vast amounts of power not ever granted in the Constitution. Surely people treasure democracy, love the system of checks and balances, are afraid of tyrants.

I can find all these Constitutionally ignorant arguments against (again) Washington, Lincoln, FDR.......hell even that inveterate tapper and spyer JFK. Does his ignorance of law and history know no bounds??

History suggests otherwise. History suggests that, in times of trouble, people like a strong leader. People are willing to give up their autonomy in order to strengthen their leader. Democracy is a messy and confusing business. Maybe it's OK some of the time, but when malign enemies are roaming the streets, when our very way of life is threatened by shadowy figures of menace -- we want Daddy. Most of the world is run by Daddy, one way or the other.

Get him his pacifier. I think he shat himself.
:wink:
Political society tends to devolve back to dictatorship. The standard pattern seems to be war followed by confusion followed by a coalition government followed by Daddy. Of course this is not inevitable, but it happens often enough that the basic urge should not be surprising.

The Founders understood that. They debated, they pondered, and they came up with a firm rule: no more kings. That idea is all over the Constitution. Presidents almost immediately began trying to find ways to circumvent the Constitution. It's so hard to get things done. I have a dream -- I want neither a check nor a balance.

Again........the Founders instituted the powers being used, and used them themselves.

Most people would rather cede control than exercise it. Responsibility is hard and shopping is easy. Most people are sheep -- heck, most sheep are sheep. Sheepiness is the default mammalian mode. I wish I didn't think that was true, but look at the evidence; it's hard to be optimistic. We should keep our ideals, but we should realize that the reason we call them "ideals" is that they're not very real.

Sheep are the most stupid of animals........and considering his appalling failure to grasp the elementary concepts he addresses.......BAAAAAA!!

One thing Daddy has to convince his subjects about: He is just like them. He believes what they believe. He will fight for whatever it is they would also fight for. If that's true, then what does it matter how much power we give him -- he's going to use it just the way we would. He's going to uphold our values and smite our enemies. That's why George Bush got elected. I doubt that any of his supporters thought he was competent; they just thought he was unwavering in his beliefs. And he is. He has done what he was elected to do.

The delusion is circular and complete: When he says he's going to tap telephones, he doesn't mean your telephone, he means other people's phones. He's not going to throw you in jail for ever and ever; it's not you he's after. When the people who are in jail say, "I was just like you, trying to lead my life in America," you can say, "You're not like me -- you're in jail."

Ah yes.......and here should follow all the examples of the Patriot Act violations that prove his assinine assertions. Insert crickets here.

Kennedy can't find them. Boxer can't find them. Pelosi?? Nope. ACLU?? Zilch. Mainstream Lib media??? Nada.

In fact, for the last 4 years there has been a concerted effort to find the violations this dope claims. If they were there, these partisan hacks would have found them. Their silence is deafening.

But all is not lost..........Dan Rather is at large and forgery is always an option :lol:


I was 18 when I first heard the famous quote from Martin Niemoeller. I was gobsmacked. There are several versions; this one's from Bartlett's: "In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Here I must admit that I finally see his point...........I wish someone had come for him before he displayed his abject stupidity and spilled it onto paper. He lowers the IQ median of whatever room he stumbles into, and whatever news outlet accepts his drool drenched prose. :lol:

Like taking candy from a.........baby :D


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page E - 8
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... GUF3I1.DTL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
©2006 San Francisco Chronicle

Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:26 am

The War Powers act actually contains no text that would give the president such power. In all actuality, the law limits presidential power and was made in response to both Nixon and Johnson's use of troops in Viet Nam without congressional approval. It gives the president NO extra powers.

The president is the commander in chief of the US military not the US people as a whole. The entire Bill of Rights is specifically designed to contradict the kind of abuses that Bush has been taking as his right.

I very heartedly disagree with anyone calling the public sheep but you do have to wonder what it takes to get through to the Bush crowd. Really even 36 percent indicates an alarming lack of either intelligence of devotion to the ideals of this country.

This man is absolute abomination to the office. Had Clinton commited near the abuses that this man has done, they would have gotten the two thirds. So much legislation tied to lobbying and business interests. Leading the nation into war on false and reckless circumstances. To deny Bush's culpability in this at this late date is like saying OJ was innocent. The admitted spying without a warrant despite a very lax that allows him to get a warrant up to 72 hours !!!!! after a wiretap. Under these circumstances why would you not get a warrant unless you're abusing the power and fear scrutiny? The right likes to throw around terms like treason. What could be more treasonous than the Valerie Plame case? Outing a CIA operative out of political spite. The president's defenders like to hop on the fact that she was not an active agent at that time. What that does that do to Plame's ability to travel and the contacts that she has made over the years? What does it to say to potential future operatives? This is of course only the tip of the iceberg. Yesterday a piece hit the papers about a Republican group interfering in 2002 elections in New York and their contact with the White House. You can blame it on the media and dismiss anything you hear as liberal propaganda but one day you're going to deal with the fact that you (we've) elected a man without scruples and without a hint of concern about the American people.

What's worse you not only have to deal with dishonesty but you have incompetence as well. What about Dubai? He was willing to waste a veto on an issue he learned about through the media. What about the September 11 freeze? What about Katrina? Some of his stuff has just been off the charts. I never, ever would have imagined in 2005 a president of the United States threatening to veto a ban on torture. This is what the United States stands for.

Dishonesty and incompetence it's just a deadly combination.

Seymour Hersh recently broke a story about the President and Vice President's refusal to take a nuclear weapons attack on Iran off the table despite the military's disapproval. I pray he's just talking tough because a nuclear exchange would just redefine the rules in ways that are too terrifying to contemplates. We've gone 60 years since one was used (of considerably less power than today's weapons) let's keep it off the table.

Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:36 am

UMMMMMM.....the War Powers act was indeed intended to curb abuse. And nothing Bush has done has violated the restrictions.NOTHING.......and this dope's assertions are therefore without merit.

A demagogue dope.

Lincoln and Washington were well before the Act however........and their actions mirror much more closely the ones Bush has taken. Except Bush never has even approached suspending the famous Writ, or closed down newspapers as Lincoln did, or exiled inflammatory Congressional leaders to the South..
That was the point, though in my haste I may not have stated it clearly.

The article, and much of the arguments, are simply not well thought out or researched. Much of the pablum the Left drools over falls into that category.

Now, I'm going to another thread to read about Cheetah.........perhaps he lcontributed to the article in discussion here. I doubt he could have done worse :lol: :wink:

Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:42 am

And the difference between Bush and a dictator is.....?

Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:48 pm

KiwiAlan wrote:And the difference between Bush and a dictator is.....?


Hey, I'm sure I replied to this........................

Did it get spiked ?

Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:09 pm

no more queens.


as in "drag"


:lol:

Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:32 am

Wasn't it you Scatter that pointed out that the war powers act, designed to keep the president in check, actually gave him the power to abuse the constitution- wiretap anyboyd he wants?