|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 49 (9217 total) |
| |
chasebuchanan | |
Total: 920,717 Year: 1,039/6,935 Month: 320/719 Week: 108/204 Day: 0/28 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4234 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bush takes one more step toward outright fascism. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
deerbrah, the point is that government behaviour in the areas of not following the Constitution is an on-going, bipartisan issue. If all you do is point to when one party does it, you are never going to see anything change.
Where were all the Bush-bashers when Clinton was selling secrets to China, one of his constituents it seems? The fact is many of us have blasted this type of stuff for decades, but we never hear from most of you on the Left until a Republican is in office. You guys seem to have no problem when democrats break the law, but then act all surprised when a Republican follows suit and does the same sorts of things. Heck, Clinton only got in there when a substantial portion of GOP-leaning voters voted for Perot, and one reason for doing that, was that many did not like all the secrecy and New World Order stuff (nor high spending and taxes). But what happened was someone took office for the dems that many of us felt was even worse. Echelon and Carnivore really got established well in the 90s under Clinton, right? Although they predated Clinton. The fact is the government has run amok for decades. Bush's involvement is fairly minor when you consider that the government already records and researches every single electronic communications of all Americans and all people everywhere. Bush just wants to research this on-going spy operation to look for terrorists. If you want to get to the heart of the matter, you need to question whether the NSA and the CIA are Constitutionally legit or not, and what they are Constitutionally allowed to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 3215 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
WWI was a declared war. If the Palmer Raids had anything to do with that (which I don't actually think they did - I think it was more about perceived threats from anarchists and socialists) one could certainly make the case that the CIC provisions would be more applicable than for Iraq. However, I think your point is quite off the point anyway as WWI was not the impetus for the Palmer Raids. Not sure what Mexico and Russia have to do with rounding up U.S. citizens either. You are all over the place here.
I was arguing that the Bush tactics have gone far beyond rounding up individual citizens. He literally has set up the infrastructure to be able to spy on every person in the country. The fact that he says he hasn't/won't do that - well when has any such infrastructure NOT eventually been used - either accidentially or on purpose? Whether or not Bush himself is a fascist - I don't happen to think he is - he has no understanding of the potential harm that could result from actions he has taken to advance the power of the executive over all other branches and over all citizens, all with the compliance of a rubber stamp Congress and quiescent courts. Bush authorized nothing new? The Patriot Act is not new? Widespread circumvention of the FISA is not new? Gitmo as a detention center for enemy combatents is not new? Setting aside the Geneva Conventions and use of coercive interrogation is not new? Then why did the Bush administration try to change the Army Field Manual to authorize those techniques? Sure some of these things may have occured before, but Bush is the first president to officially authorize them on a wide scale.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 3215 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
I think you are way off topic so I will not respond here.
Why don't you start a thread on Clinton if you want to talk about Clinton? Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The Palmer raids were due to a Red Scare and also to round up anarchists. Our invasion of Russia was also based on anti-communism.
Bush has become an interventionist president very similar in a lot of ways to Wilson.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Sure some of these things may have occured before, but Bush is the first president to officially authorize them on a wide scale. I guess that depends on what you mean by officially authorize. Who officially authorized MK-Ultra? At least Bush's stuff presumably targets terrorist suspects and not innocent American civilians such as with the MK-Utra and related programs, spanning several presidents and decades and both parties. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
There was considerable evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the White House. Enjoy. Now. Anything to say about the subject of this thread? "We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1789 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Clinton solicited and accepted bribes from communist China, and in return signed executive orders, appointed a Chinese spy to sensitive posts (highest he could without Congressional oversight), transferred missile technology from Defense to Commerce (where he appointed the spy), and took actions that all appear to show he appreciated the campaign donations the government of China funnelled to the DNC. Your source for these allegations? You'll pardon me my skepticism. I'm no Clinton partisan - I never voted for the guy - but its quite amazing, the fiction dreamed up in the right-wing fever swamps about the Clinton presidency.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
fiction?
LOL Google China-gate....several people went to prison despite all the bigwigs in it being let-off scot-free or with fines. The fact you never heard of this is very telling... Edit to add you might need to add "Clinton" as now chinagate refers to some Chinese promotional stuff as well. wika's take
President Clinton's FBI Director Louis Freeh wrote in a 22-page memorandum to then Attorney General Janet Reno in November 1997 that "It is difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for appointing an independent counsel."[57] In July 1998, the Justice Department's campaign finance task force head, Charles La Bella, sent a report to Janet Reno also recommending she seek an independent counsel to investigate alleged fund-raising abuses by Democratic party officials.[58] The media reported that LaBella believed there was clearly an appearance of a conflict of interest by Reno.[59] In his report to Reno he wrote: " [A] pattern [of events] suggests a level of knowledge within the White House”including the President's and First Lady's offices”concerning the injection of foreign funds into the reelection effort."[60] Additionally, La Bella stated: "If these allegations involved anyone other than the president, vice president, senior White House or DNC and Clinton-Gore '96 officials, an appropriate investigation would have commenced months ago without hesitation."[61] Robert Conrad, Jr., who later became head of the task force, called on Reno in Spring 2000 to appoint an independent counsel to look into the fund-raising practices of Vice President Gore.[62] Janet Reno rejected all of these requests: I try to do one thing: what's right. I am trying to follow the independent counsel statute as it has been framed by Congress. If you had a lower threshold, then any time somebody said 'boo' about a covered person, you'd trigger the independent counsel statute ” Janet Reno, December 4, 1997.[63] Six weeks after this statement, Attorney General Reno agreed to Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr's request to look into allegations that President Clinton had committed perjury and obstruction of justice relating to the sexual harassment lawsuit brought against him by Paula Jones (a former Arkansas state employee during Clinton's governorship there).[64] Critics such as columnists Charles Krauthammer and Morton Kondracke, as well as a number of FBI agents, suggested that the investigations into the improper fund-raising allegations were impeded as part of a cover-up.[65][66][67] 1996 United States campaign finance controversy - Wikipedia Edited by randman, : No reason given. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1666 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
...is the new bush!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 4234 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
It is extrodinarily telling that the only defense one can muster for Bush is to continually point at the wrongdoings of Clinton among another presidents.
What other presidents did or did not do does not change the facts of what this president is doing now. What he is doing is halting all investigation into his illegal activities. That makes him a dictator. Do any Bush advocates actually want to defend this charlatan? Please, someone try to defend this action. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
How many signing statements has Bush made during his presidency, rand?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
So you guys think Bush is a dictator? LOL
So what are you going to do about it? Take up arms? Impeach him? The reason Clinton is relevant is after the dems stonewalled in defending his and his administrations crimes, it pretty darn well-established the presidency above the law as long as his party stands with him. Sorry but you guys created this bed. Now lie in it and quit complaining. Hopefully, a true monster won't come along that actually does want to become a dictator or do things like start killing political opponents, etc,....there's little checks and balances left if that is the case after Clinton and the dems paved the way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I don't know. How many executive orders did he sign transferring military secrets to foreign donors to his campaign?
Personally, I think we should be glad Bush isn't as bad a guy as you folks claim. After the dems backed all of Clinton's misdeeds, they established the presidency as above the law. The Supreme court tried though when they ruled unanimously that Clinton as president could be sued. They knew of the lawlessness, but it didn't really matter. Get your AG behind you and your party, and you can do anything you want as president and unless God does something, that's not much anyone can do anymore.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I'll tell you. He has made over 750 constitutional challenges in 130 presidential signing statements. That means that he has declared himself exempt from over 750 laws that congress has passed. Seven hundred and fifty! From the wiki:
The first president to issue a signing statement was James Monroe.[3] Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton made 247 signing statements between them. As of 2006, George W. Bush has issued over 130 signing statements containing more than 750 constitutional challenges. From the Boston Globe:
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research. Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional. Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1789 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That doesn't substantiate your claim, I'm afriad. Moreover, your own source continues:
quote: I don't see anything in there about the sale of military secrets.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025