Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:23 pm
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!
Well, no rancor my friend......but you certainly didn't think such clueless and revisionist drivel could go without comment??
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.
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.
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
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.
Like taking candy from a.........baby
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
Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:36 am
Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:42 am
Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:48 pm
KiwiAlan wrote:And the difference between Bush and a dictator is.....?
Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:09 pm
Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:32 am
Hosted by ElviCities