|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| W.T.Carl wrote: |
Let's see-- the 1944 election- no problem- FDR re-elected
. |
Although that WAS his third re-election (to put things into perspective)  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| W.T.Carl wrote: |
Let's see-- the 1944 election- no problem- FDR re-elected
. |
Although that WAS his third re-election (to put things into perspective) |
The two term limit is a fairly recent change, no? There had been a tradition that no president would seek a third term but in the middle of a war you can bend tradition. Bending the constitution is a whole other matter.
Didn't Teddy get in a bit of trouble with his own party when he tried to seek a third term? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| keane wrote: |
| contrarian wrote: |
| Bush ceases to be President and Cheney ceases to be Vice President in January 2008. Period. End of story. |
You are putting yourself on record now stating there will be no state of emergency declared between now and the next inauguration, I take it? |
I am. The American people can be led like lambs to many slaughters but a president hanging on to power even in a real crisis would not be one of them.
...I would really think the American people, no matter the crisis, would rather err on the side of the expressed will of the people. |
But they have not been for six+ years. We have seen the most egregious power grab by any president in history, yet where are the mass demonstrations? I hope you are right, but fear you are wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Seconded.
I will go on record and say this: I think it 99.9% improbable that the President will declare the kind of state-of-emergency BLT alleges he will here.
And I am 110% certain that, even if he did, he will retire from the Oval Office in Jan. 2009.
You can bank on that. End of issue. |
Now back it with something more than you opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
The most egregious power grab in US history was Franklin D, Roosevetl.
He tried to pack the Supreme Court by appointed more than the 9 judges.
By exective fiat he moved thousands of Japanese Americans to concentration camps. He seized their property as a side issue.
He auhorized the development of the Atomic Bomb in such secret circumstances that even the Vice President was unaware of the bomb until he was briefed in FDR's death.
Disedents with important secret material were incarcerated in mental hospitals and kep sedated for the war. No hearing, no trial they were held until the end of the war,
That is just a start. Compared to him Bush is a beginner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
Seconded.
I will go on record and say this: I think it 99.9% improbable that the President will declare the kind of state-of-emergency BLT alleges he will here.
And I am 110% certain that, even if he did, he will retire from the Oval Office in Jan. 2009.
You can bank on that. End of issue. |
Now back it with something more than you opinion. |
Dude, you're hypothesizing an American president try something no president in 200 years has tried. I think the onus is on you to make your case. Merely laying out a slippery slope ain't really doin' it for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| keane wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
Seconded.
I will go on record and say this: I think it 99.9% improbable that the President will declare the kind of state-of-emergency BLT alleges he will here.
And I am 110% certain that, even if he did, he will retire from the Oval Office in Jan. 2009.
You can bank on that. End of issue. |
Now back it with something more than you opinion. |
Dude, you're hypothesizing an American president try something no president in 200 years has tried. I think the onus is on you to make your case. Merely laying out a slippery slope ain't really doin' it for me. |
No shit. How is someone supposed to provide more than opinion for a future event? Look at the likeliness of it by comparing it to the past.
Keane, you might be right in the end, but you actually have to wait for it. Personally, I rather suspect it will be like EFLTrainer's November surprise prediction back in 2006, when a carrier group was moved to Iran but did not attack. A whole lot of hot air. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
| The most egregious power grab in US history was Franklin D, Roosevetl. |
An argument can be made for this, but only if you think targeted actions that do not limit the rights of citizens in general are more dangerous than broad sweep actions that put every citizen at risk. I always consider those risks that are a danger to the underlying structure of a thing to be most dangerous. The Bush administration has gutted basic rights for all citizens, and even persons not even in the US. Not only are Americans at risk, but anyone on the planet.
Don't you think there is just a teeeensy difference in scale here? What you seem to be doing is giving more weight to what was done and assuming that because the Administration has not done mass arrests, declared an emergency (it actually has, which makes the situation more dangerous), or used the new laws to target large groups (they have abused the laws, just not on a scale - yet - that seems to bother you and others).
See the thread on the artist being charged under the PA for artistic displays.
| Quote: |
| He tried to pack the Supreme Court by appointed more than the 9 judges. |
This is as normal as night and day. Every president does. Bush is a perfect example. He has successfully flipped the court.
| Quote: |
By exective fiat he moved thousands of Japanese Americans to concentration camps. He seized their property as a side issue.
|
Certainly. But the situation was specific, limited to one group, and occurred during a real, declared war against a real enemy that really had attacked us. This is not a justification. The choices made were wrong and unconstitutional. But your argument is that that was worse than the current administration literally targeting anyone it wants to based on nothing but fantasy. Understand this: it's not just Arabs, Muslims, terrorists Bush has targeted: you and I are equal targets.
| Quote: |
| He auhorized the development of the Atomic Bomb in such secret circumstances that even the Vice President was unaware of the bomb until he was briefed in FDR's death. |
I have no problem with military technology being kept under wraps, but feel strongly that military action - at the level of policy, not action - must be managed by the civilian government. At the very least, we must have complete openness between Congress and the Executive.
Bush has kept everything in secret and has already been proven beyond a doubt to have broken multiple laws and acted outside the constitutional authority he has. Even talks with oil companies about managing oil fields in Iraq are top secret? Ridiculous.
| Quote: |
| Disedents with important secret material were incarcerated in mental hospitals and kep sedated for the war. No hearing, no trial they were held until the end of the war, |
This is the first I have heard of this. You'll have to provide links. Do you think Bush has not? As with your claim above, we wouldn't know till afterwards.
| Quote: |
| That is just a start. Compared to him Bush is a beginner. |
I find this naive. To repeat, your point rests on the assumption that the power usurped by Bush will never be used... just because. The powers usurped so far far outstrip anything you have described above. Were Bush to act, he would have powers that, literally, no president has ever held and that this nation has not seen since we overthrew the crown.
I very much appreciate the lack of personal attacks in your post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
No *beep*. How is someone supposed to provide more than opinion for a future event? Look at the likeliness of it by comparing it to the past.
Keane, you might be right in the end, but you actually have to wait for it. |
Not sure why you are stating the obvious. While in practice we cannot prove what the future holds, thus your point is correct, if you wait till a state of emergency is declared, it is already too late. Your point does not hold when placed under the strain of practical reality.
As for Iran, if you read on that subject and that period of time you should know that the public outcry is credited with playing a role in changing the political climate enough to cause Bush to rethink, which goes against your opinion stated above. You do not prevent tyranny by waiting for it, friend. A bit further: what makes you think it's over?
Former CIA officer: US to attack Iran within 6 months
| Quote: |
Fox News asked former CIA field officer Bob Baer on Tuesday whether the US is "gearing up for a military strike on Iran." Baer has written a column for Time indicating that Washington officials expect an attack within the next six months.
"I've taken an informal poll inside the government," Baer told Fox. "The feeling is we will hit the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps." |
Is the administration not now preparing to declare the IRGC a terrorist organization? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| ...if you wait till a state of emergency is declared, it is already too late. Your point does not hold when placed under the strain of practical reality. |
You are, at the end of the day, no different from W. Bush. He goes to the far right; you to the far left. And without him to define yourself, you might even get lost.
So, here you are, arguing a case for preemptive strike based on lies and uninformed worst-case-scenario speculation...ROFL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
As for Iran, if you read on that subject and that period of time you should know that the public outcry is credited with playing a role in changing the political climate enough to cause Bush to rethink, which goes against your opinion stated above. |
The public outcry? I remember generals speaking out against a possible move against Iran, but a public outcry?
You're going to have to summon more than a disgruntled ex-CIA agent who is taking an unofficial poll of government officials to demonstrate the efficacy of a bunch of blowhards on the internet crying 'conspiracy!'
| Quote: |
| Is the administration not now preparing to declare the IRGC a terrorist organization? |
And? I'm waiting for you to explain to me how this is an act of aggression. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
keanu
The judges of the USSC inconvenienlty refused to die for FDR. So he decided to appoint three brand new judges, raising the number from 9 to 12. Are you too stupid to get that concept? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| So, here you are, arguing a case for preemptive strike based on lies and uninformed worst-case-scenario speculation...ROFL. |
Hahahahahahahahahahaha... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| The two term limit is a fairly recent change, no? |
Correct. Post-FDR. FDR, in serving more than two terms, at the time, remained entirely within the Constitution. He tried "to pack" the Court and his enemies fried him for it. And he dropped the matter.
There was, in any case, no "bending" of the Constitution.
Several Constitutional crises have occurred and passed in America. And we are better for it. Still, BLT-style hysteria notwithstanding, and as I am sure you agree, we are not there yet with this President. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| The two term limit is a fairly recent change, no? |
Correct. Post-FDR. FDR, in serving more than two terms, at the time, remained entirely within the Constitution. He tried "to pack" the Court and his enemies fried him for it. And he dropped the matter.
There was, in any case, no "bending" of the Constitution.
Several Constitutional crises have occurred and passed in America. And we are better for it. Still, BLT-style hysteria notwithstanding, and as I am sure you agree, we are not there yet with this President. |
Pendulums always swing. No pendulum in American history has swung off its pin. And it's clear the pendulum is swinging back. Bushism isn't much working. To claim Bush will seize power in a way no president in history has done, in full defiance of the constitution and a 25% approval rating, you're serious in tin foil hat wearing territory. How long before EFL starts claiming Bush is a shape shifting space lizard?
Granted Americans tend to rally around their president during such a crisis but I would think a guy who has proven himself incapable of handling two wars he's currently involved in and great accomplishments like Katrina on his resume, most Americans will conclude "thanks Bush for keeping a beat in this new Iran thing in your final days, but we've picked the guy already to clean up your other two messes... I think we'll go with him to handle the third." Deal with this, Americans are already picking a candidate they think will handle two current wars and whatever Iran throws at them.
(Mod edit: thread amputated to remove the not-playing-nice posts.
Play the ball not the player.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
