Bush takes one more step toward outright fascism.

I criticize Bush plenty, but saying he is a dictator or wants to be is ridiculous.

jar, no you can't impeach him because it's not an impeachable offense under the standards the democrats established. That's pretty much it, and you guys fail to acknowledge your behaviour in backing all sorts of crimes committed by dems, stonewalling there, etc,.....has established a pattern whereby presidents can take on more power than perhaps the Constitution allows.Deal with it.

What you are failing to realize is that the only recourse for dealing with a president that abuses his powers is to impeach him, and impeachment, as the dems established, is largely a political event, and there is no way the dems will get away with trying to impeach a Republican after they stonewalled for Clinton.The consequences of backing Clinton in the 90s is that any president can pretty much do whatever the heck he wants as long as his party stands with him. That's why Clinton is relevant.It's just a good thing Bush doesn't really want to be a dictator, or has more sinister motives, as a president has very, very few real checks and balances, except covert checks and balances from stronger political forces and agencies, such as perhaps the NSA and intelligence agencies themselves.

You do know that the Constitution is the law, whereas any patterns that Clinton may have established are not, right?Speaking of whom, I hope that Clinton thread gets promoted, so Randman can expand on this "stonewalling there, etc." I hear Gore visited a Buddhist temple... that alone should provide mountains of evidence.

---

"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

Conservatives with integrity - where? I don't see them. There are some conservatives that I thought had integrity. But it seems that they lack a spine.

not interested in your thread.....the title of this thread deals with one more step towards fascism. My point is the cheerleaders for the previous steps towards facsism have no right to act all outraged (selective outrage) over smaller steps towards fascism.You really care about governmental abuse of power? if you did, you would care about Clinton's abuse of power just as much, and in fact more so, and the reason is presidents rely as much on past interpretation of presidential power under the Constitution as they do the letter of the Constitution. That's reality.You ever hear of Executive Orders? the phrase by Begala, "stroke of a pen" to make into law, which he called "pretty cool"?Get back to me when you care about what your party does wrong.

The one where I ask for evidence and elaboration?What a surprise.

---

"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

You mean the one where you try to divert from your shameless partisanship, don't you?

I like how asking you to actually give us specifics, backed up by evidence, about all the terrible things Clinton has done is somehow an attempt to divert.Oh, well. At least I have all this business about how there was apparently lots of sworn testimony. From whom? About what? Doesn't matter. There was sworn testimony.Edited by Dan Carroll, : to improve snarkiness

---

"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

I gave specifics here. Did you read them?The simple fact is all the Bush-bashing from the Left isn't going to do squat because you guys defend the same behaviour from democrats.Now, I critized Reagan and Bush's Dad over their Central America activities. I criticized GW for massive spending, adopting liberal policies like expanding federal educational programs, and for lacking a workable plan in Iraq, but his use of the NSA and wiretaps, etc,...is really nothing new. If this is the first time you guys have heard about things like Carnivore and Echelon, then you are just out to lunch on what has been standard MO for a long time.The dems and libs are just bashing Bush for doing the same things they do, and yea, it's bad. The government does not follow the Constitution and hasn't for a very long time, but if you want to oppose gov abuse and expansion of power, you have to be willing to be truthful about it, and look at the longstanding patterns. This stuff goes way back, which is why I brought up Wilson and Palmer.

In post 38, you point out that Reno appointed independent counsels to some cases, and not others.In post 46, you quote a wikipedia article which states, quite explicitly, that there is no evidence to support the accusations made. Although there does seem to be some business about the CEO of a company doing something bad.Your source (one which, I might add, can be completely changed by any of us within the next twenty seconds if we feel like it,) then goes on to tell us that Clinton had coffee with a guy. The conclusion to this earth-shattering scandal? "The reasons for the meetings were never learned."Finally, in post 52, you point out that there is sworn testimony, multitudes of convictions, and videotapes of people conducting illegal fundraising.Who was convicted? Who was videotaped? What were they convicted of, or videotaped doing? Well, that remains a mystery.In other words, you have given vague accusations, with nothing to back them up. Reagan and Bush's Dad are also irrelevant to the subject of this thread. Which you continue to avoid.

---

"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

the wika link details all of that, which can be crosschecked with the NYTs or the Washington Post, or if you prefer WorldNetDaily, etc,...the facts are in plain sight.

Oh, okay. The facts about how you're wrong are in plain sight, too.Gosh, that's fun!

---

"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

The topic is not what should be done about Bush. YOU brought that up and I offered my opinion. This topic is not about the failings of the various political agendas of the past or present. YOU brought that up.YOU brought all that up because you have failed to and continue to fail to address the CURRENT actions of THIS president and the ramifications thereof.So far there is only one conclusion to be made about Bush's actions. They are that of or equivalent of an elected dicatatoriship. There is no balance of power under his reign by his own actions. Even if other people are responsible for setting a precident, THIS president CHOOSE to continue it and further his own fascist agenda.You HAVE NOT addressed that point at all and it is completely telling of how weak and desperate your defense has been.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This morning I listened to an NPR segment that included a high level DoJ official from the Reagan administration. He was livid about Bush's signing statements, and explicitly stated that the practice abandoned core conservative values, most specifically (aside from plain matters of constitutionality), the recognition that however right one feels one's partisan cause, one cannot expect one's own angels to always occupy the office one now holds.The imperfectiblity of human nature is bedrock to conservative political philosophy: Do Republicans really want an Imperial Hillary? The streaming audio (program: Day to Day) is probably available at npr.org, or will be tomorrow.He stated plainly that Bush & Co. have betrayed the most fundamental tenets of both Constitutional law and conservative political philosphy. I have seen a handful of opinion pieces in the NY Times (and elsewhere) from stalwart conservatives making the same point.Further, those among my friends who consider themselves to be conservatives (and, boy, are they!), have become uneasy about an administration that promotes its own power over the national interest and the principles of our Republic.Take heart, nwr--the tide is turning. You can fool some of the people all the time, and you can fool all the people some of the time, but...