[Cymro]

I'm European, so I've always hated Bush. I don't think men like that should ever be in power.

[Jason Vines]

Cymro, on Dec 18 2005, 06:00 PM, said:

I'm European, so I've always hated Bush. I don't think men like that should ever be in power.

Indeed.

I don't think Bush possesses malevolence. The presidency just requires intelligence Bush lacks. He hasn't the brains for subtle maneuvering, so he attacks every problem with oafish bluntness that gets him--and the country--into trouble.

Unfortunately, the country identifies with such "take charge" men who don't contemplate what they're doing.

[-January-]

Coming from Manchester and growing up here in the states i have had a chance to see both worlds. And i know the feelings i once had and the awareness i have gained as i grew up. And for the first time ever aside form being a bit older in a violent world, i am very scared for the first time of what the world is becoming, the enviorment (i care very much and notice and study this part of the wiccan lifestyle) and people as well as the man who fakes knowing what he is doing and is to arogant to accept help from others while he duels out what is right for them. I am just sad. I hope whatever is right happens soon.

[Jason Vines]

Star*Crossed, on Dec 19 2005, 11:56 PM, said:

the man who fakes knowing what he is doing and is to arogant to accept help from others while he duels out what is right for them.

I know. Within the Bush administration, diversity of ideas is not encouraged, as in the FDR or Eisenhower administrations, but considered a sign of disloyalty. That's why an honorable man like Colin Powell, who nevertheless disagreed with some of Bush's policies, no longer serves as Secretary of State. He was no longer welcome in the executive branch. So Bush, surrounded by yes men, lives in a White House severed from reality.

[Cymro]

Quote

I don't think Bush possesses malevolence. The presidency just requires intelligence Bush lacks. He hasn't the brains for subtle maneuvering, so he attacks every problem with oafish bluntness that gets him--and the country--into trouble.

Unfortunately, the country identifies with such "take charge" men who don't contemplate what they're doing.

I agree. I think that in one way we're lucky over here, as democracy isn't considerd one of the great things about living in Britain, unlike over there where it's how your nation identifies itself. It means that the less thoughtful types over here don't value their right to vote, and don't care who's in power. But another thing we have to our advantage is we don't take slogans seriously, which was why the Conservatives failed so utterly with their "Save the Pound" strategy in 2001.

[Joshua]

Personally, I beleive that Bush should be tried, impeached, and locked up for treason.

You would think americans would have learned from the mistakes made during the era of McCarthyism.

I think Bush is the worst thing to happen to America since the Civil War. He's divided our nation, while uniting muslim nations against America. He's traded in the liberties and freedoms of every american for security against the very monster he set upon us. He gave a huge tax break to the rich, while poor working families received as little as $3 in tax releif. And then he lead America into 2 wars, draining our economy to the breaking point. To pay for his pet wars, he's cut education and science budgets to the lowest they've been since the great depression, and that's not even accounting for inflation since then. Right now, the NIH is in such poor condition due to Bush's actions that even Nobel Prize winners can't get adequate grant funding.

I would go on, but I don't have all day to talk about how badly Bush has harmed America. To be quite honest, I'd need at least 5 days to adequately address the topic.

[Sim]

I'm sure most Europeans will be relieves once Bush is out of office. Our alliance with the USA is founded on common values: On both sides of the Atlantic, we value democracy, freedom, human rights and the strength of law. Bush is just too willing to give up all of that, so there is nothing left what we have in common.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for you American friends that Bush will be out of office even before 2008.

This post has been edited by Sim: 21 December 2005 - 01:12 AM

[Mephistox]

I agree that some of the stuff Bush has done was wrong, but i see nothing wrong with this.

Tapping into less then 100 people's call is much better then a possible terrorist attack which could have resulted from the negligence of information.
Yes a terrorist attack might be unlikely, but I can also say the same of people's privacy being greatly endangered.
These taps weren't approved without thought - some ideas must have gone in - and so, though some unrelated people may have been tapped, the threats have also been tapped, and can be controlled.

As for the constitutionality (a real word?) of his actions, i believe a 1982 court case allowed the NSA to conduct taps of american citizens contacting overseas people. This is allowable, but of course, dirty (like when he used that rule/law to appoint that guy - I know you wrote a screed on it, i just don't remember the specifics) - but still allowable.




Personally, I do think Bush is willing to give up certain rights, but for a future cause. Yes, torture is bad, yes violating human rights is bad. But if it takes us closer to our goal, then we should procede with it (but with caution). - And the goal would be squashing terrorism, or getting as close to it as we can (the latter being more likely)

[Sim]

Mephistox, on Dec 23 2005, 05:49 AM, said:

I agree that some of the stuff Bush has done was wrong, but i see nothing wrong with this.

That's a contradictory sentence.

Quote

Tapping into less then 100 people's call is much better then a possible terrorist attack which could have resulted from the negligence of information.

Right. But where does it stop? The terrorism-"argument" is a sledgehammer, it will never lead you to an end.

Bush blatantly violated the Constitution to do so. Violating the Constitution is better than a terrorist attack that could kill thousands -- so let's throw the Constitution into a trash can.

Respect for human and civil rights increases the danger of a terrorist attack, because it prevents the police from doing their work efficiently. If they could just imprison or even execute all suspects without a trial, the chance of terrorist attacks occuring would be minimal -- so why don't we skip trials alltogether?

You see, the terrorist sledgehammer won't stop ever smashing on the basic principles our free societies are founded on. "I for once admire Adolf Hitler, because under his rule, crime was near zero -- the police could finally get their work done." Many old Germans still claim that. You are doing the very same thing by proposing we should sell our most vital freedoms for the sake of fighting terrorism.

Quote

Yes a terrorist attack might be unlikely, but I can also say the same of people's privacy being greatly endangered.

The NSA illegally spied on political opponents of Bush, like religious pacifist groups (Quakers), as well as on Greenpeace. This was covered in the media. The Bush regime openly advocates torture (ok, they refuse to call it that way) and kidnappings of innocents, and the indefinate arrest of suspects, many of which are most likely innocent -- destroying these peoples' lifes.

What has to happen before you open your eyes and realize that Bush's regime uses methods of a fascist police state? Does he actually have to abandon free elections before you wake up?

Bush is by far a greater threat for the "Western way of life" than any islamofascist terrorist could ever be -- simply because he has a thousand times more power than them.

Quote

These taps weren't approved without thought - some ideas must have gone in - and so, though some unrelated people may have been tapped, the threats have also been tapped, and can be controlled.

Don't you see that it's a problem when there is no control of such kind of actions?! Do you really want to TRUST these people who wiretap you? Even when these people are the same people who will arrest you without having acces to lawyer or fair trial, who will waterboard and torture you?

Sorry, but then you don't have even the slightest clue what a constitutional state is and what freedom is.

When there are no checks and balances to keep the use of power under control and in transparency, IT WILL be abused, sooner or later. That's why the Founding Fathers thought a Constitution is necessary in the first place -- otherwise, you could just have blind trust in the king. "Some ideas must have gone in", you say, so let's approve of absolutist rule.

Quote

As for the constitutionality (a real word?) of his actions, i believe a 1982 court case allowed the NSA to conduct taps of american citizens contacting overseas people. This is allowable, but of course, dirty (like when he used that rule/law to appoint that guy - I know you wrote a screed on it, i just don't remember the specifics) - but still allowable.

As far as I know, Bush circumvented the legal procedures for wiretappings, in direct violation of the Constitution.

Quote

Personally, I do think Bush is willing to give up certain rights, but for a future cause. Yes, torture is bad, yes violating human rights is bad. But if it takes us closer to our goal, then we should procede with it (but with caution). - And the goal would be squashing terrorism, or getting as close to it as we can (the latter being more likely)

The German people thought the same when communist terrorists set the German parliament on fire on 2/27/1933. You can't efficiently fight that terrorist threat when Constitution and freedom are in the way of cracking down on these communist traitors -- so let's skip it.

You would have been among the first to applaud Hitler for his "Enabling Act", that turned the parliamentary democracy into a fascist dictatorship. See this thread for details.


I'm deeply frightened by the utter blindness of many Americans, and their easy-handedness when it comes to giving up the most basic values your country claims to stand for -- just because the right-wing media hyped you into a totally disproportionate fear of terrorism. Wake up, these terrorists have hardly the power to hurt you. Unlike the Nazis or Soviets, they don't even have an army, let alone an army that could be a danger for the world superpower #1. It's a small bunch of criminals, that's all.


Wanna know my opinion?
When fighting terrorism, we have to respect the process of the constitutional state strictly. We have to respect civil and human rights, and the basic principles the Western civilization is founded on.

The moment we give up even the slightest bit of these freedoms, we have damaged our country and our way of life much more than any terrorist ever could.

[Mephistox]

Quote

Quote

I agree that some of the stuff Bush has done was wrong, but i see nothing wrong with this.

That's a contradictory sentence.

so it is.... so it is...

Quote

Quote

Tapping into less then 100 people's call is much better then a possible terrorist attack which could have resulted from the negligence of information.

Right. But where does it stop? The terrorism-"argument" is a sledgehammer, it will never lead you to an end.

It stops there.
The more we work on our efforts of hunting terrorists, the more efficient we will be.
It is ignorant to say that we will not get a few innocents at first - that has to happen, its trial and error at the beginning.
But now, since we have more experience in the matter, we can expect less, if not zero innocents to be caught in the future.

Quote

Bush blatantly violated the Constitution to do so. Violating the Constitution is better than a terrorist attack that could kill thousands -- so let's throw the Constitution into a trash can.

No way!
He didn't violate the constitution, if you see what I wrote after, in accordance with a 1982 court decision, tapping people calling overseas is allowable.

Quote

Respect for human and civil rights increases the danger of a terrorist attack, because it prevents the police from doing their work efficiently. If they could just imprison or even execute all suspects without a trial, the chance of terrorist attacks occuring would be minimal -- so why don't we skip trials alltogether?

In a world where we had all the information we needed, this would definately be very good. We'd know who terrorists were, where they were located, and we could take them all out.
But this is not the case.
In today's world, and probably far into he future, any kind of extreme rights suspension would probably result in more harm then good.

Keep in mind though, that 100 rights suspended is better then all whole nation's rights suspended.

Quote

You see, the terrorist sledgehammer won't stop ever smashing on the basic principles our free societies are founded on. "I for once admire Adolf Hitler, because under his rule, crime was near zero -- the police could finally get their work done." Many old Germans still claim that. You are doing the very same thing by proposing we should sell our most vital freedoms for the sake of fighting terrorism.

I'm not selling our vital freedoms.
All that I'm saying is that the rights of 100 is nothing compared to the rights of our nation, and perhaps the world - anyone that is effected by terrorism.

And hey, constitutionally speaking, we have three main rights. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
I don't see privacy in there. I know its still a right, but its not as important as these three.
So can't you see, maybe a little bit, that sacrificing a tiny bit of privacy to prevent terrorism is better then sacrificing tons of life in a terrorist attack?

I don't know. I just think losing a right like privacy to a select few is better then a bunch of people being killed. I'm sure any person that has a friend/family member lost in the attacks on the world trade center will tell you that.




Here's the second part... for some reason I can't have a certain amount of quotes. =/

Quote

Quote

Yes a terrorist attack might be unlikely, but I can also say the same of people's privacy being greatly endangered.

The NSA illegally spied on political opponents of Bush, like religious pacifist groups (Quakers), as well as on Greenpeace. This was covered in the media. The Bush regime openly advocates torture (ok, they refuse to call it that way) and kidnappings of innocents, and the indefinate arrest of suspects, many of which are most likely innocent -- destroying these peoples' lifes.

I don't see how the NSA spying on bush's opponents destroys their lives, but it definately is bad. That does need to be checked.
Myself, I am ok with the use of torture, but only as a last option. We can't be all "will-nilly" with torturing, but in a last-chance scenario, I do think we need the option open.

Put yourself in the president's place (any president). There is a bomb that will go off in 1 hour. You have one man that knows where it is and what the code to shut it off is. Are you telling me that you would let all the people die (lets say its in Times Square - my state of NY seems to be a popular target), just to save one proven criminal?
Please, do not get me wrong. Torture is bad. But sometimes we jsut need to swallow our pride and do what needs to be done, even if it is dirty.
Sometimes you need to do something bad to achieve a greater good. And thats it.

Quote

What has to happen before you open your eyes and realize that Bush's regime uses methods of a fascist police state? Does he actually have to abandon free elections before you wake up?

I didn't vote for bush. I know he's a bad president. But he is our president and I owe loyalty - to him and to my country.
I think you are overstating what he does though. He "just" tapped phones. Theres no secret police, no mass genocide, and the market is just as free as it was before Bush came to office - probably more free.

Quote

Bush is by far a greater threat for the "Western way of life" than any islamofascist terrorist could ever be -- simply because he has a thousand times more power than them.

Last time I checked, Bush hasn't killed anyone. Last time I checked, Terrorists had bombed over 50 civilian areas in a month. A MONTH. Yes bush has the power of the last superpower, but he's not using it to kill anyone. Torture, yes. But not to kill innocent people.

Quote

Quote

These taps weren't approved without thought - some ideas must have gone in - and so, though some unrelated people may have been tapped, the threats have also been tapped, and can be controlled.

Don't you see that it's a problem when there is no control of such kind of actions?! Do you really want to TRUST these people who wiretap you? Even when these people are the same people who will arrest you without having acces to lawyer or fair trial, who will waterboard and torture you?

I believe that bush has no need to tap ordinary people. Bush isn't a tyrant like Hitler. What will bush gain from it? He can know that joe shmo has been cheating on his wife? Oh wow, thats a HUGE gain of power.
I know what you are saying, this unrestrained power can be very bad, but I know that Bush is not going to turn around and go Nazi on us.
And no one's arrested me. No one's tortured me. They do this to suspected terrorists. People got caught in with this "suspected" range before, but like I said, once we get past the first few initial mistakes, we get efficient. I doubt innocent people will ever get accidentally caught again after this.

Quote

Sorry, but then you don't have even the slightest clue what a constitutional state is and what freedom is.

Sorry. I do. Your contorted views just make it impossible to see so.

Quote

When there are no checks and balances to keep the use of power under control and in transparency, IT WILL be abused, sooner or later. That's why the Founding Fathers thought a Constitution is necessary in the first place -- otherwise, you could just have blind trust in the king. "Some ideas must have gone in", you say, so let's approve of absolutist rule.

ahahahahahahahaha!
no.

You keep using the slippery-slope. What ifs and When this.... there is no proof that this will happen in America. We have checks and balances that will protect us from greater harm.
You can go and impeach a president.
He could try and turn the army on us like Hitler and other Absolutists have, but I hardly think the US army is going to come out of Iraq and go shoot civilians in the street.
There are still checks and balances on the president, whether or not you choose to acknowledge them.

You are right. Unrestrained power will be abused. But not here. Everything is too free for that.
Lets look at Hitler.
He was elected in a time where the country was down-trodden. People rallied behind him because he showed them a way out of their missery. The inflation in post-WWI germany was so bad that people would burn wheelbarrels of money for heat. WHEELBARRELS.
So it was easy for someone with a ruling complex like him to turn the government to do his bidding.
But not here.
The economy is in good shape, the people hate bush, the army doesnt like him -- I don't see Bush turning us into the fourth reich anytime soon.
This would only happen if public support of a man was near 100%, and even still, he'd have to convince all of us that we need to sacrifice ourselves to kill all the muslims.

Your idea would work if we, say, were hit by 100 terrorist attacks destroying all major US cities.... then I could see us going absolutist. But since bush is trying to prevent that, all future presidents will try and prevent that, and I hardly think terrorists could do that, we're relatively safe.

Quote

Quote

As for the constitutionality (a real word?) of his actions, i believe a 1982 court case allowed the NSA to conduct taps of american citizens contacting overseas people. This is allowable, but of course, dirty (like when he used that rule/law to appoint that guy - I know you wrote a screed on it, i just don't remember the specifics) - but still allowable.

As far as I know, Bush circumvented the legal procedures for wiretappings, in direct violation of the Constitution.

Isn't a court case decision a mini-amendment to the constitution? If so, then he did not.



And the last part, since the forums won't let me make it one.

Quote

Quote

Personally, I do think Bush is willing to give up certain rights, but for a future cause. Yes, torture is bad, yes violating human rights is bad. But if it takes us closer to our goal, then we should procede with it (but with caution). - And the goal would be squashing terrorism, or getting as close to it as we can (the latter being more likely)

The German people thought the same when communist terrorists set the German parliament on fire on 2/27/1933. You can't efficiently fight that terrorist threat when Constitution and freedom are in the way of cracking down on these communist traitors -- so let's skip it.

I'm not saying we give up all our rights. If you read what I said, if certain rights of a few are given up, then we can all be safer in the long run.

But by no means would I ever approve of trashing the constitution. I'm not a Nazi here.

Quote

You would have been among the first to applaud Hitler for his "Enabling Act", that turned the parliamentary democracy into a fascist dictatorship. See this thread for details.

No I wouldn't approve of such a blatant disrespect of human rights.

You know, and please think about this from outside of your mentality, I think people such as yourself view human rights violations on any scale, as the same thing.
You seem to think that taking away privacy of a few is equal to taking away our constitution. And if I make a further inference, you seem to think that by approving a violation of 100 peoples' one right to privacy, I am a proponent for mass human rights violations
I don't agree with either, because thats not what is happening.
I keep repeating this - I just agree that taking away one right from a relatively TINY group of people is worth saving the masses from greater and more severe violations.

Quote

I'm deeply frightened by the utter blindness of many Americans, and their easy-handedness when it comes to giving up the most basic values your country claims to stand for -- just because the right-wing media hyped you into a totally disproportionate fear of terrorism. Wake up, these terrorists have hardly the power to hurt you. Unlike the Nazis or Soviets, they don't even have an army, let alone an army that could be a danger for the world superpower #1. It's a small bunch of criminals, that's all.

I agree with you. Some americans are afraid, coerced by the media to give up their own rights - and that is horrible.
At the same time, I'm sickened by the americans who hold on to every single one of their rights like they are the only things keeping you alive.
Both viewpoints of americans are wrong, we need to find a middle ground where we can give up a right or two when neccesary, but always keep the constitution right in our hearts and minds when making a decision to do so.

I'm not afraid of terrorism... well, Not to the effect that you say. Privacy isn't a basic value... thats Life, liberty, and happiness, and you can ask our founding fathers if you want.
And I'm in no way in support of giving those rights up. As I keep saying, taking away one right from a relatively TINY group of people is worth saving the masses from greater and more severe violations.

Wake up, these terrorists have hardly the power to hurt you..
Um... uh......
hmmmmmmmmm

Click this spoiler:

Spoiler

Yup.. You are TOTALLY right. Terrorists can't hurt us! they're just an illusion thrown up by the right-wing media! 9/11 never happened! The oklahoma bombing never happened!

Quote

Wanna know my opinion?

Well you just likened me to a friend of hitler, so not really, but I've been typing this for nearly two hours because of this damn forum's quote restrictions, so ok.

Quote

When fighting terrorism, we have to respect the process of the constitutional state strictly. We have to respect civil and human rights, and the basic principles the Western civilization is founded on.

We definately do. But we can't let that stop us from from getting a job done. Especially when it is only affecting terrorists, because, in many eyes, they aren't people.

Quote

The moment we give up even the slightest bit of these freedoms, we have damaged our country and our way of life much more than any terrorist ever could.

You know... I disagree. I hardly think taking away those tapped people's right to privacy, or torturing a person, is in anyway equal to the loss of a human life.
But you are entitled to your opinion


.end.

oh thats nifty... the forums merge repetetive posts...
please ignore the places where I dishonor the forums, then.

[Sim]

Mephistox, on Dec 25 2005, 04:52 AM, said:

It stops there.
The more we work on our efforts of hunting terrorists, the more efficient we will be.
It is ignorant to say that we will not get a few innocents at first - that has to happen, its trial and error at the beginning.
But now, since we have more experience in the matter, we can expect less, if not zero innocents to be caught in the future.

See, and that's what I have a problem with. I believe that there is a basic principle all Western constitutional states are based on: Innocent until guilt is proven!

The moment we skip this principle, even in one single case, we are not any better than a fascist dictatorship.

Imagine you were the one who gets innocently arrested, denied the right on a lawyer and fair trial, tortured (oh sorry -- Bush doesn't call it that way ... "harshly interrogated" it is then) until you sign a wrong confession ... I really don't see that such a fate is any better than directly or indirectly becoming victim of a terrorist attack. It is state terrorism.

It is my right as a citizen of a free country that the state will never do that to me. No matter how many terrorists are out there.

Quote

No way!
He didn't violate the constitution, if you see what I wrote after, in accordance with a 1982 court decision, tapping people calling overseas is allowable.

Check out this link

Quote

In a world where we had all the information we needed, this would definately be very good. We'd know who terrorists were, where they were located, and we could take them all out.
But this is not the case.
In today's world, and probably far into he future, any kind of extreme rights suspension would probably result in more harm then good.

Keep in mind though, that 100 rights suspended is better then all whole nation's rights suspended.

All I see is that by suspending vital rights, we increase the likelyhood of innocent people becoming victims; we exchange the chance of becoming victim of a terrorist attack with the chance of becoming victim of state terrorism.

I for once would rather appreciate it if counter-terrorist police and intelligence work would be intensiefied within the frame of Constitution and current laws -- when we abandon our principles, we simply exchange one evil against the other.

Quote

I'm not selling our vital freedoms.
All that I'm saying is that the rights of 100 is nothing compared to the rights of our nation, and perhaps the world - anyone that is effected by terrorism.

Either the state respects the rights of every single citizen, or it ceases to be a free state. Anything else would be arbitrary, despotic rule.

You cannot sacrifice the right of a minority for the sake of the well-being of a majority.

Again a historical example: The Nazis sacrificed the rights of Jews and handicapped for the profit of the majority of Germans. Was that justified, because most Germans never had trouble with the SS?

Quote

And hey, constitutionally speaking, we have three main rights. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
I don't see privacy in there. I know its still a right, but its not as important as these three.
So can't you see, maybe a little bit, that sacrificing a tiny bit of privacy to prevent terrorism is better then sacrificing tons of life in a terrorist attack?

I don't know. I just think losing a right like privacy to a select few is better then a bunch of people being killed. I'm sure any person that has a friend/family member lost in the attacks on the world trade center will tell you that.

Bush's policies regularly destroy the Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness of many innocent people: There is the prison in Guantanamo, as well as many secret CIA prisons in different places in the world. Innocent people are being held there for months and years, deprived of their liberty, their lifes being destroyed. They are denied the right on a fair trial, so we don't know if they are guilty of anything.

It is America's official policy to destroy the life of innocents.

At least one case is documented when a prisoner died when he was tortured by the CIA -- there are probably many more cases we just don't know of, because there is no public control for CIA prisons.

Quote

I don't see how the NSA spying on bush's opponents destroys their lives, but it definately is bad. That does need to be checked.
Myself, I am ok with the use of torture, but only as a last option. We can't be all "will-nilly" with torturing, but in a last-chance scenario, I do think we need the option open.

Put yourself in the president's place (any president). There is a bomb that will go off in 1 hour. You have one man that knows where it is and what the code to shut it off is. Are you telling me that you would let all the people die (lets say its in Times Square - my state of NY seems to be a popular target), just to save one proven criminal?
Please, do not get me wrong. Torture is bad. But sometimes we jsut need to swallow our pride and do what needs to be done, even if it is dirty.
Sometimes you need to do something bad to achieve a greater good. And thats it.

That "ticking bomb scenario" is absolute BS. There will never ever be a situation like that in reality. You simply never have a situation that clear.

When we allow toture even in a single case -- let alone on a regular base, on suspects that were not proven guilty by any trial, like the Bush administration does -- we cross a line to barbary. We will have become as evil as our enemies.

Besides, there are pragmatic arguments against torture: It simply does not work. People will tell you anything when tortured, just to make the pain stop. They'll flood the system with bad data. Also, they will sign wrong confessions, even when they are innocent.

Torture in every case is not only deeply immoral, it is also counterproductive.

Quote

I didn't vote for bush. I know he's a bad president. But he is our president and I owe loyalty - to him and to my country.

Why would you owe your President loyalty when he violates the basic principles your country was founded on and the Constitution? The moment you stop questioning the President, democracy is dead.

Quote

I think you are overstating what he does though. He "just" tapped phones. Theres no secret police, no mass genocide, and the market is just as free as it was before Bush came to office - probably more free.

Google for the words "Guantanamo", "al-Masri", "secret CIA prisons". You'll see that the CIA works as a secret police, not only in rough states, but also in democratic countries you are allied with, kidnaps their citizens, abducts them to secret prisons and tortures them. Innocent citizens, that is. Maybe the CIA doesn't do that within the US, but in Germany or Italy i.e., the CIA behaves like the Gestapo.

It is regular policy to detain suspects who have not found guilty by a court, and the same people who abduct them then torture these people -- or transport them into countries where torture is common. There is no public control at all. Innocents have no chance to escape from these gulags.

Quote

Last time I checked, Bush hasn't killed anyone. Last time I checked, Terrorists had bombed over 50 civilian areas in a month. A MONTH. Yes bush has the power of the last superpower, but he's not using it to kill anyone. Torture, yes. But not to kill innocent people.

Bush is responsible for the death of at least 30,000 civilians in Iraq, by starting the war. Some estimations even claim that were as much as 100,000 deaths -- but even the lower estimation is already ten times higher than the number of people who died on 9/11. And that's not even counting the deaths in Afghanistan.

When individuals commit an attack, you call it terrorism, but when a state does the same, you call it "war" and it suddenly becomes an honorable thing. Strange, huh?

Besides, we don't know how many people, let alone innocents, have died already in the CIA secret prisons. They are gulags without any public control. The CIA can do there whatever they want, torture, kill people -- we simply don't know. That lack of public control alone is just as bad as if it was actually proven that they did all these things.

Quote

I believe that bush has no need to tap ordinary people. Bush isn't a tyrant like Hitler. What will bush gain from it? He can know that joe shmo has been cheating on his wife? Oh wow, thats a HUGE gain of power.

He could get information on actions of his political opponents. And if that's just a potential candidate for presidency cheating on his wife -- since Clinton, we all know that the American public cares more for the sex life of their President, than for a violation of the Constitution, or the rape of the most basic principles of the Western World.

Quote

I know what you are saying, this unrestrained power can be very bad, but I know that Bush is not going to turn around and go Nazi on us.

Why? Because you trust him? You looked into his beautiful blue eyes, then you suddenly knew "this man is good"? Power always needs to be checked and balanced, or it will be abused. That's why there is a Constitution in the first place. If we just trusted in the President (or the King, for that matter), we wouldn't need it.

Quote

And no one's arrested me. No one's tortured me. They do this to suspected terrorists. People got caught in with this "suspected" range before, but like I said, once we get past the first few initial mistakes, we get efficient. I doubt innocent people will ever get accidentally caught again after this.

There is a German poem about Nazism:
"First they were after the Communists. I didn't care, because I wasn't one of them.
Then they were after the handicapped. But I didn't care, because I wasn't one of them.
Then they were after the Jews, but I didn't care, because I wasn't one of them.
When they finally were after me, there was nobody left to care."

When a single fellow citizen of your great republic is denied his most basic rights, it is a personal attack by the state on you as well, on the people in general.

It could be you who gets innocently caught as "suspected terrorist". Don't you think you should have the right on a fair trial that finds you guilty of the crimes you are accused of, before you can be abducted, detained and held for months or years in tiny little cages, harassed by your guards and regularly tortured?

And you don't get "more efficient" by time. That's nonesense. Either you apply a fair system and policy, or there will be no such thing as protection for the innocent. It's the system that matters.

Quote

You keep using the slippery-slope. What ifs and When this.... there is no proof that this will happen in America. We have checks and balances that will protect us from greater harm.
You can go and impeach a president.

Yeah, when he gets a blowjob. But as long as the public supports a President who violates the Constitution because they think it's necessary to fight terrorism, there will be no impeachment. Sorry for that wordplay, but how much is the American public willing to swallow? How much do they actually care for the ideals your country was founded on? Probably they are just misinformed, because they care more for FOX News "War on Christmas" than for some dirty foreigners stripped of all their human rights in CIA gulags.

Of course the media is another problem ... but it would be too off-topic to discuss it in this thread.

Quote

He could try and turn the army on us like Hitler and other Absolutists have, but I hardly think the US army is going to come out of Iraq and go shoot civilians in the street.
There are still checks and balances on the president, whether or not you choose to acknowledge them.

I didn't deny that, I just attacked your argumentation: You defended a suspension of public control with the argument "some thoughts have gone into it." I just claim this is not a valid argument.

Quote

You are right. Unrestrained power will be abused. But not here. Everything is too free for that.
Lets look at Hitler.
He was elected in a time where the country was down-trodden. People rallied behind him because he showed them a way out of their missery. The inflation in post-WWI germany was so bad that people would burn wheelbarrels of money for heat. WHEELBARRELS.
So it was easy for someone with a ruling complex like him to turn the government to do his bidding.
But not here.
The economy is in good shape, the people hate bush, the army doesnt like him -- I don't see Bush turning us into the fourth reich anytime soon.
This would only happen if public support of a man was near 100%, and even still, he'd have to convince all of us that we need to sacrifice ourselves to kill all the muslims.

You know, I agree, I don't think there will be a genuine fascism in America. Your democratic traditions are too strong for that.

What I do see, however, is a semi-fascist authoritarian rule with some "democratic" mob-rule elements: Fair trials and civil rights will be worth nothing, and your President will be an authoritarian demagogue on time. You will still have elections, but they will be mob rule: Two wolfes and a sheep vote what kind of dinner there should be. But this development will be sneaking, step by step, you will slowly slide into that state. Most people won't even realize that your freedom is lost.

Quote

Your idea would work if we, say, were hit by 100 terrorist attacks destroying all major US cities.... then I could see us going absolutist. But since bush is trying to prevent that, all future presidents will try and prevent that, and I hardly think terrorists could do that, we're relatively safe.

Bush is weak on terrorism. All he's doing is invading secular foreign countries which neither threaten you with WMD since they have none, nor have anything to do with islamist terrorism -- while on the other hand being best friend with islamofascist regimes such as Saudi-Arabia (where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from). Then he holds a speech on an aircraft carrier, makes some bold claims, and the public thinks he is "tough on terror".

The "war on terror" is not a military problem, it is much more an ideological problem and a police problem: Instead of invasions on countries most Americans have never heard of before, you need more police control, coordination and intelligence work within your country -- prevention, that is.

But do you even know how many ships harboring the US are being controled and checked for terrorists, or material that could be used in terrorist attacks? Not even 10%. Bush doesn't care for prevention, all he cares for is looking tough on TV.

On the other hand, it is necessary to win the majority of moderate Muslims for our cause -- or for every terrorist who gets killed, there will be 10 others willing to replace him. It is a struggle of ideologies, we have to win the majority of Muslims for our ideals. Bush has done absolutely nothing in these regards. On the contrary -- suspending our ideals will certainly not convince anybody that we are the good guys.

Quote

I'm not saying we give up all our rights. If you read what I said, if certain rights of a few are given up, then we can all be safer in the long run.

But by no means would I ever approve of trashing the constitution. I'm not a Nazi here.

But see, the way from a constitutional republic to an authoritarian state is very, very short. All it took Hitler were two little laws -- those were enough to turn Germany into a fascist dictatorship, all crimes committed later were based on these two laws. Most Germans had not realized in April 1933 that freedom was gone -- the Constitution was still valid, just "temporarily" overruled by Hitler's laws. Until 1945, the 1919 Constitution was never officially suspended.

And then, there must be no compromises when it comes to sacrificing human rights. There is no such thing as "a little respect for human rights" -- either a state is constitutional and respects the vital rights of every single citizen, or it is not. The line is drawn here.

Quote

No I wouldn't approve of such a blatant disrespect of human rights.

You know, and please think about this from outside of your mentality, I think people such as yourself view human rights violations on any scale, as the same thing.
You seem to think that taking away privacy of a few is equal to taking away our constitution. And if I make a further inference, you seem to think that by approving a violation of 100 peoples' one right to privacy, I am a proponent for mass human rights violations
I don't agree with either, because thats not what is happening.
I keep repeating this - I just agree that taking away one right from a relatively TINY group of people is worth saving the masses from greater and more severe violations.

I'm not talking about violating the privacy -- but of people who get abducted, denied a fair trial, held for months or years although no guilt was proven. And regularly tortured. The presumption of innocence is worth nothing in the eyes of Bush's regime.

Quote

I agree with you. Some americans are afraid, coerced by the media to give up their own rights - and that is horrible.
At the same time, I'm sickened by the americans who hold on to every single one of their rights like they are the only things keeping you alive.
Both viewpoints of americans are wrong, we need to find a middle ground where we can give up a right or two when neccesary, but always keep the constitution right in our hearts and minds when making a decision to do so.

You sound reasonable, but I'm not talking about the details of the right on privacy here. My problem with Bush is his blatant violation of the most basic principles of the constitutional state, such as the right on a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, and the right on freedom of the person.

We are talking here about innocent people who are kidnapped, detained into little cages and tortured, without any court having determined their guilt!

Quote

And I'm in no way in support of giving those rights up. As I keep saying, taking away one right from a relatively TINY group of people is worth saving the masses from greater and more severe violations.

Like I said -- will you still talk like that when it's you one day, who gets innocently arrested, held in little cages for months, waterboarded until you sign a wrong confession and name the names of your friends as accomplices in a terrorist plot?

I really don't see how this would be any better than being victim of a terrorist attack.

Quote

I don't want to say it, but I am.... You are a blind fool.[/spoiler]
[/spoiler]
Yup.. You are TOTALLY right. Terrorists can't hurt us! they're just an illusion thrown up by the right-wing media! 9/11 never happened! The oklahoma bombing never happened! I wish I was as smart as you!

Of course the attack on 9/11 was a horrible crime.

But your fear is totally out of proportion -- what you were dealing with were two dozen people with cutting knifes. Just intensify the sloppy security controls at the airports, and that particular problem is solved.

Let's not forget we're dealing with criminals here, it's a simple police problem. By inflating this terrorist problem to a major threat of national security that requires the use of military force, you are really giving these criminals more credit than they deserve.

Quote

Well you just likened me to a friend of hitler, so not really, but I've been typing this for nearly two hours because of this damn forum's quote restrictions, so ok.

You know, this was not meant as in insult.

See, more than 40% of the Germans voted for Hitler after the Reichstag fire, and certainly not all of them were racist madmen.

So when I compare you to one of them, it is not my intention to insult you or suggest you have sympathies for the Nazi ideology -- but I'm looking for the reasons why very common, decent people could voluntarily give up their freedom, all in best intentions.

If you had asked them why they supported Hitler, the two most common answers would have probably been:
#1: In this crisis, it is necessary to give up some freedoms for the sake of fighting comunist terrorism.
#2: In this crisis, we have to be loyal towards our Chancellor.

History has shown where this kind of mindset can lead us, in the worst case.

Quote

We definately do. But we can't let that stop us from from getting a job done. Especially when it is only affecting terrorists, because, in many eyes, they aren't people.

My problem is not a tough hand on actual terrorists. When there was a fair trial that found some people guilty of terrorist acts, do with them whatever you want.

My problem is with the suspension of fair trials and basic civil rights, which will inevitable cause the life of innocent people to be destroyed, all because of hysteria and the abuse of power.

This post has been edited by Sim: 26 December 2005 - 10:08 AM

[Jason Vines]

Joshua, on Dec 20 2005, 03:20 PM, said:

Personally, I beleive that Bush should be tried, impeached, and locked up for treason.

Treason is intentional assistance to an enemy power or effort to damage this country. No evidence has emerged implicating Bush of that.

Joshua said:

I think Bush is the worst thing to happen to America since the Civil War.

That's hyperbole. The Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War (including Vietnam), and Richard Nixon were all more calamitous for our nation than Bush has been. Bush's transgressions haven't imperiled our way of life, killed tens of thousands of American soldiers, or endangered our electoral process.

Joshua said:

He's divided our nation

Geopolitical forces at work for more than a century before Bush have divided our nation. (Diverging Parties by Jeffrey Stonecash, et. al., illuminates these forces.)

Joshua said:

He's traded in the liberties and freedoms of every american for security against the very monster he set upon us.

He has done nothing to "the liberties and freedom of every American." The whole point of impeaching and removing him would be to ensure neither he nor a future president would do so.

Also, accusing Bush of unleashing terrorism on us is crass political hackery. None of Bush's policies led to the attacks of 9/11. I shudder to give al Qaeda's grievances credibility by talking about them, but even if one were to accept them, they still result from American actions long before Bush came to office.

Joshua said:

He gave a huge tax break to the rich, while poor working families received as little as $3 in tax releif.

Poor people don't pay nearly as many taxes as the rich do. So they don't have as many taxes to cut as wealthier people do.

Joshua said:

draining our economy to the breaking point.

False. Pay attention to business news. Our economy is doing quite well now.

Joshua said:

he's cut education and science budgets to the lowest they've been since the great depression, and that's not even accounting for inflation since then.

That's patently incorrect, since the federal government had barely any education or science programs in the Great Depression, whereas now, it has many organizations in those fields, just two being the Department of Education and NASA. So by simple logic, your assertion can't be right.

[Joshua]

Quite frankly, I couldn't care less if it's hyperbole. It's my opinion.


Second, while previous geopolitical forces have been involved in the current national divide, saying that Bush had nothing to do with it is like saying that Truman didn't have anything to do with Hiroshima or Nagasaki... After all, it only happened under his presidency. And that article on diverging parties means little, because Bush is not in line with Republican values. The truth is, the divide between Americans in terms of political tolerance and beleifs has grown disproportionately large during his time as president, and these divides have for the most part revolved around descisions HIS administration has made. Just because he wasn't there a century ago doesn't mean he isn't responsible for the country he now controls.


So, you think that the PATRIOT act doesn't infringe on american's rights? Do you beleive that being able to arrest and detain american citizens without charges and without access to lawyers is acceptable? Do you think that spying on american citizens based upon suspicions instead of evidence is acceptable? Do you just dismiss the fact that such gross violations of our constitutional rights exist? When a president denies constitutional rights to ANY citizen, he threatens the rights of every citizen. Or do you think it's acceptable, so long as he just doesn't take away the rights of MOST citizens? And did you miss the fact that continued occupation in Iraq and Afganistan have resulted in more violent acts by insurgents? In fact, most of the insurgents in Iraq right now are there because of Bush's actions in the middle east. Do you think that 37,000 civilian casualties in Iraq alone has HELPED convince people america is right? Do you mean to tell me that support for Al Qaida has lessened since those 37,000 Iraqis became just another statistic? 9/11 has nothing to do with this. The overwhelming majority of anti-american insurgents fight now because of the actions of the Bush administration, not because of things done by america decades ago.


The fact that poor people don't pay as much taxes as rich people do is irrelevant. Obviously, they do not HAVE the money to pay the government. You simply cannot apply a standard tax cut to people with such vastly different incomes. In fact, the government would receive even more tax dollars if it integrated a system of exponential taxing. The poor are the ones that need the money. Saying it's fair to take 15% of a poor man's income and 15% of a billionaire's income is misguided. For a poor man, 15% of his income can mean whether or not he eats that week. For a billionaire, it means he might not be able to buy a third yacht. Expecting an equal amount from the people who don't have the resources is ridiculous.


There are vastly conflicting reports about the economy, and unemployment and the cost of living are disproportionately high. Social security is collapsing (not bush's fault, but that doesn't mean the economy is great), social services are underfunded, and many american companies are going bankrupt. Or are you telling me that american auto industries, airlines, and even WorldCom are doing great?


If you actually look at what I said, I stated that the budgets for for education and science are the lowest they've been since the great depression. I DID NOT say that GOVERNMENT spending on education and science was considerable during the great depression. Back then, there were other factors that took care of education and science budgets. However, in modern days, it is the government's responsibility to fund these areas, and because of the funding cuts Bush has set upon them they are now at record low funding.

Now, if you'd like to tell me why MY OPINIONS are wrong or lecture me on why I don't think what I actually do, please continue to do so.

I will bow out of this debate now, and hopefully in the future nobody will decide to pick and choose what facts are right and which are wrong and preach to me about what my opinions are.

This post has been edited by Joshua: 28 December 2005 - 10:41 PM

[Jason Vines]

Joshua, on Dec 28 2005, 09:40 PM, said:

I will bow out of this debate now, and hopefully in the future nobody will decide to pick and choose what facts are right and which are wrong and preach to me about what my opinions are.

I never told you what your opinions were. I simply denounced them as wrong. That is what happens on a debate site. If you can't handle people refusing to give you ideological fellatio, then you might like Democratic Underground more. There, deviation from the left's talking points isn't permitted.

Joshua said:

Quite frankly, I couldn't care less if it's hyperbole. It's my opinion.

Labeling your rants "opinion" doesn't give you license to abandon the truth or exempt your ideas from rational analysis. Again, Hypersyllogistic isn't the place for you if you can't handle disagreement with your beliefs.

Joshua said:

Second, while previous geopolitical forces have been involved in the current national divide, saying that Bush had nothing to do with it is like saying that Truman didn't have anything to do with Hiroshima or Nagasaki... After all, it only happened under his presidency.

Don't be too sure of that. Over the past decade, for example, Congress has been fairly evenly split. The Republicans have controlled Congress, true, but by razor-thin majorities. They haven't even been able to invoke cloture in the Senate.

Joshua said:

And that article on diverging parties means little

It's a book. Did you even click on the link?

Joshua said:

The truth is, the divide between Americans in terms of political tolerance and beleifs has grown disproportionately large during his time as president, and these divides have for the most part revolved around descisions HIS administration has made. Just because he wasn't there a century ago doesn't mean he isn't responsible for the country he now controls.

Why don't you read Diverging Parties, and then get back to me.

If you want to blame any individual politicians for the current ideological divide, blame Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater, the contest between whom in the 1964 presidential election drew the modern political fault lines. (Although they reacted to a process that was already happening for decades.)

Joshua said:

So, you think that the PATRIOT act doesn't infringe on american's rights? Do you beleive that being able to arrest and detain american citizens without charges and without access to lawyers is acceptable? Do you think that spying on american citizens based upon suspicions instead of evidence is acceptable? Do you just dismiss the fact that such gross violations of our constitutional rights exist? When a president denies constitutional rights to ANY citizen, he threatens the rights of every citizen. Or do you think it's acceptable, so long as he just doesn't take away the rights of MOST citizens?

Try reading what I've written on these forums and in my screeds before running at the mouth like that.

I suppose this country's decrepit political culture conditions people for those kind of responses, though. It encourages Americans to think in binary terms--either one thing or another thing--instead of embracing infinite diversity in infinite combinations. (Obligatory Star Trek reference. ) So, if I defend Bush on even a single charge, then I must be one of his lackeys who wants to strip Americans of their freedom.

"False dichotomy" is known as a logical fallacy for a reason...

Joshua said:

9/11 has nothing to do with this.

If you didn't want to talk about 9/11, you shouldn't have brought it up with this line: "He's traded in the liberties and freedoms of every american for security against the very monster he set upon us."

Joshua said:

The fact that poor people don't pay as much taxes as rich people do is irrelevant.

Au contraire, when you're complaining about poor people not getting as much of a tax cut as rich people, not realizing such a thing would be logistically impossible.

(Irrelevant spiel about the flat tax, I guess, snipped.)

Joshua said:

There are vastly conflicting reports about the economy, and unemployment and the cost of living are disproportionately high.

Networks paint Bush economy as bleak no matter what the facts really say.

As for unemployment, here's a chart of unemployment over the years I've obtained from Economagic:



As you can see, even the highest unemployment rates during the Bush administration look tiny compared to the rates of 20 years ago. Also, unemployment has been dropping over the past two years.

Joshua said:

Social security is collapsing (not bush's fault, but that doesn't mean the economy is great), social services are underfunded, and many american companies are going bankrupt. Or are you telling me that american auto industries, airlines, and even WorldCom are doing great?

Even during the best of economic times, problems exist. Expecting perfection is unreasonable.

Joshua said:

If you actually look at what I said, I stated that the budgets for for education and science are the lowest they've been since the great depression. I DID NOT say that GOVERNMENT spending on education and science was considerable during the great depression.

I didn't say you did. But, given that the budgets for education and science are considerable now, when they weren't during the Depression, saying the government's spending in those fields is the lowest since the Depression falsely describes how much the government is spending.

Anyhow, let's focus on education. The federal Department of Health, Education, and Welfare wasn't established until 1953, and Education didn't spin off into its own department until 1979. And now, in 2006, the federal budget allocates $56 billion to the Department of Education. Given that federal spending on education was zero until 1953, well after the Depression; it didn't even see fit to give education its own department until 25 years ago; and it's spending billions of dollars on the Department of Education now, your claim the government is allocating the fewest of its resources to education since the Depression is wrong.

Joshua said:

Now, if you'd like to tell me why MY OPINIONS are wrong or lecture me on why I don't think what I actually do, please continue to do so.

And when you are ready for an honest debate in which your beliefs are tested, then please feel free to return to this thread.

This post has been edited by Jason Vines: 29 December 2005 - 10:37 AM

[Cymro]

Wow, the unemployment on that chart rises really sharply.

[Jason Vines]

Even more reason to impeach and remove Bush:

Quote

Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?

John Yoo [presidential legal adviser]: No treaty

Cassel: Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo...

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

Members of the president's staff think nothing of torturing children. The legality of such an atrocity "depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that," according to one of Bush's lawyers.

This White House needs to be slammed hard.

This post has been edited by Jason Vines: 31 December 2005 - 01:59 AM

[Joshua]

I saw the reports of that. Truly disgusting. Somehow the administration has gotten it into their heads that 'security' is more important than morality or logic.

[I am Da Man]

wow. for a second i actually considered makking and strapping a bomb onto bush. :whisper:

[Yoda]

The relentless attack on our president continues. Perhaps we are being to hasty in judging the course of action that President George Bush has laid out for the country. Somewhere, sometime we must face the dark forces of radical Islamic terrorism. If not now, when? The terrorists have had a 20 -year head start. Only the passage of time can correctly assess the wisdom of that decision. Let's support our effort to free Iraq. Let's keep our debate honest and objective. We are in the middle of something that has overwhelmed us with fatigue, frustration and question. The question is: Do we quite or push on? Sadly our society buckles at the least resistance. But we have to win this one or we are fodder for every tyrannical cause and group that comes down the road. Support our president. Support our troops. Support freedom and democracy.