We've Lost Our Liberties

[Starkist]

I've been somewhat supportive of the Bush Administration these past seven years. When people have said that they are tearing up the Constitution, I have disagreed. When people have said we are losing our rights, I have asked for examples. When people say that we should be outraged, I have said that they were over the top.

Well now I am outraged. Now I see that our Constitutional rights are being destroyed.

A senior administration official has said that certain publications may be restricted or banned if they are critical of the current war. "There is a limit," he said. That limit is crossed when a publication "begins to say that this government got in the war wrong, that it is in it for the wrong purposes, or anything that will impugn the motives of the government for going to war." He goes on to say that saying the government is at war for the benefit of the market or the defense contractors is also a reason for censorship.

This is fascism, folks. This is the government trying to stifle dissent. This is unity through suppression. We shouldn't stand for this type of thing.

[Beldaran]

Hi, welcome to the cloud of authoritarian stink we've all been smelling ever since we invaded a country for 27 different reasons that changed on a weekly basis.

[phattonez]

It's still much better than the Adams presidency, the Civil War, World War I, and the Cold War. But hey, who needs history right?

Of course I'm against this measure, but it's nothing new.

[Icey]

"Much better" still doesn't mean "not terrible".

Do you have a citation, Starkist? A link or something to where these comments were reported? If that was actually said... I'll agree with both you - it is a severe breach of our liberties - and Phattonez - it isn't exactly unexpected. =\

[DarkDragoonX]

We've Lost Our Liberties

Did you check behind the couch? (Ba-dum-ksssh!)

On a more serious note, I find this development to be largely unsurprising. Really just par for the course so far.

[AtmaWeapon]

Yeah Bush has been a big disappointment to me; way back when I had a lot of support for him and figured the mistakes were bad decisions made off of bad information. Now I'm curious who is the one that pulls his strings because I'm one of those paranoid types and I'm almost certain one man can't perform so poorly by himself.

[Starkist]

Do you have a citation, Starkist? A link or something to where these comments were reported? If that was actually said...

It was actually said. I wanted to get some reactions before I cited it, and as usual, the depth of naiveté and historical ignorance in our society is always present.

That statement was made by Postmaster General Albert Burleson in 1917, in reference to President Woodrow Wilson's Espionage Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act) during World War I. Yes, Wilson the Democrat. Wilson the progressive hero. That Wilson.

As you can see, nothing the Bush Administration has done in the past seven years measures up to what the progressive heroes have done in America's past. Nobody goes to jail these days for criticizing the president or the government.

[Icey]

Yes, this is the reason I asked. It sounded familiar and I assumed that it was probably from a different administration. However, I wasn't 100% sure, so I added that "if" comment so it didn't just seem like I was calling you out.

Yes, censorship is an egregious act during any time, and especially during war. Sure, the Bush Administration hasn't gone that far, but I stand by my comment that it wouldn't be at all unexpected. And just because this administration hasn't gone to the farthest extremes, it certainly has had some murky policy these last 5 years (despite your own opinions on it, I don't really hold wiretapping in high regard). Of course, with Bush is in the waning days of his term, I highly doubt he would decide now to try to do something so far-reaching.

[Beldaran]

Your "They aren't as evil as other evil guys" argument is such utter shit. Fuck that argument.


Now I'm curious who is the one that pulls his strings

http://www.utilitarianism.com/jesus-christ.jpg

[Starkist]

Your "They aren't as evil as other evil guys" argument is such utter shit. Fuck that argument.

I salute you sir, for your depth of logic! You are a paragon of rationality. The world needs more erudite statesmen such as yourself. Bravo!

[Beldaran]

I haven't shared my logic with you, so you can eat your sarcasm.

[Starkist]

Is there a proverb that says "One cannot share what one does not have" ? If not, there should be.

[rock_nog]

Okay, an analogy here - Bush goes to a party and gets wasted. On the way home, he hits several mailboxes, a cat, and put the car in a ditch. Then, you go and defend the incident saying "Yeah, Bush was drunk, but relatively speaking, he didn't cause much damage, so I support his decision to drive drunk."

[Starkist]

I know logic is hard, but try this: I am not defending anything President Bush has (allegedly) done. I am merely attempting to offer some historical perspective - something that is severely lacking these days.

[rock_nog]

And what I'm saying is, I get the whole "historical perspective" thing. It doesn't make his actions any more right, though, so I don't get the point of bringing it up. Relatively speaking, yes, he wasn't such a bad president, but that doesn't change the fact that he made a lot of bad decisions.

[phattonez]

Woohoo for me and not overreacting!

[Beldaran]

Is there a proverb that says "One cannot share what one does not have" ? If not, there should be.

There's another proverb that says "One who believes his best friend is an invisible magic carpenter from ancient Rome with magical powers that lives in another dimension with his father who created the universe and expects people of his favorite race to cut off parts of their penises to prove their loyalty should shut the fuck up about the need for logic."




I am merely attempting to offer some historical perspective - something that is severely lacking these days.

I am going to use your logic now.

Stalin killed more people than Hitler and ruled for a lot longer. Because Hitler was slightly less evil than Stalin, our criticism of Hitler is uncalled for.

Ergo,

President Jackass was a lot more corrupt and stupid than George W. Bush. Because George W. Bush was slightly less corrupt and stupid than President Jackass, our criticism of Bush is uncalled for.

Godwin loves me.



I know logic is hard

It's easy. You just aren't good at it.

[Starkist]

Again, never in this thread have I defended anything President Bush has been accused of doing. I mean, I guess I should not expect logic when you can't even handle reading comprehension.

President Bush overwhelmingly won the poll I presented asking people to name the worst president ever. I have contended that much of the criticism of the president stems not necessarily from his actions but from historical ignorance and a desire to criticize anyone with an R beside their name.

President Wilson and President Roosevelt were extremely oppressive. They silenced political opponents, they operating enormous propaganda machines, and they both led us into wars against enemies that did not attack us. Yet Democrats and others on the Left revere Wilson and Roosevelt, whilst denouncing Bush.

I'm not trying to defend Bush. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and historical ignorance of those who think they know what they are talking about when they call Bush the "Worst president ever."

[rock_nog]

My complaint here is that you seem to lump everybody who criticizes Bush into one category. I never personally said that he's the worst president ever, and I can point you to specific policies of his that are the basis of my criticisms. I mean, you haven't outright said it, but it just seems that you're brushing aside anyone who criticizes Bush and suggesting that they don't know anything about either history or Bush's policies. Maybe I'm reading you wrong, it's just that that's the impression I'm getting here.

[Starkist]

That's not my intent. My main focus is those who suggest that the policies of the Bush Administration are somehow "unprecedented" or those who call him the "worst president ever."

[AtmaWeapon]

Where's the source? I'm disturbed by the statement and honestly I'm not having troubles understanding it, but I can't use "It sounds like something they'd say" as an answer to "Who said it?"

Keep in mind part of the reason we're in Iraq is because someone we trusted made statements that had no proof, citing national security as the reason he could present no proof. We believed them because it seemed like something that was probably true, and we trusted the person telling us that it was. I don't feel like falling for that logic again.

[rock_nog]

Where's the source? I'm disturbed by the statement and honestly I'm not having troubles understanding it, but I can't use "It sounds like something they'd say" as an answer to "Who said it?"

Keep in mind part of the reason we're in Iraq is because someone we trusted made statements that had no proof, citing national security as the reason he could present no proof. We believed them because it seemed like something that was probably true, and we trusted the person telling us that it was. I don't feel like falling for that logic again.
Funny you should mention that, as I think part of the reason people are so upset with Bush is that people aren't used to having the president outright deceive the American people. Make bad decisions, yes, stupid decisions, sure, irresponsible decisions, of course, but we were basically tricked into the whole Iraq war. The whole thing was pretty brazen, even for a politician.

[Beldaran]

you can't even handle reading comprehension.

Now it's I who am impressed with your skills of debate! Clearly, you have overpowered me by claiming I can't read.

[The Desperado]

Uggg....
Who cares about historical context? You can go through history and always find some example that will support your interpretation of modern situations.

Bush sucks. He may not be the "worst" president ever, but he sucks and everyone knows it. Otherwise people wouldn't be going through history books and saying "well look what this guy did" instead of defending Bushs actions. It's playground politics.

[AlphaDawg]

"People's historical perspective starts with the day they're born."

- Rush Limbaugh

I love it when Sean Hannity does essentially what you did starting this thread, Starkist. Throw out a bunch of statements ostensibly made by Republicans and have liberals exclaim their outrage. Then politely remind them those statements were in fact made by members of their precious Democrat Party.

That said, in all honesty I'm not too happy with President Bush right now. Were I polled today on whether I approve or disapprove of Bush's job performance, I'd say "disapprove." It doesn't mean I'm voting for Democrats in November. With the rare exception of the speech he gave the other day in Israel, Bush seems to have it in cruise control right now. I'd like him to keep after the appeasers in the Democrat Party. (Even though he was not referring specifically to Obama in that speech IMO, I love how the Democrat Party establishment automatically assumed he was. Guilty conscience, perhaps?) Not to play armchair general here, but I'd like him to take the gloves off in Iraq, loosen up the rules of engagement, and WIN this stnkin' war! I'd like him to get that stinkin' border fence built, with trenches on either side.

[rock_nog]

Firstly, why do you and Starkist have to make everything so damn partisan? My hatred of Dubbya has nothing to do with partisan crap, and and yet at every turn, you have to make it out to be Democrats vs. Republicans. Do you honestly, truly believe that I'm so ignorant that the little label means crap to me? I know it makes you feel better to imagine that everyone who disagrees with you is an ignorant, mindless sheep who only disagrees because he was told to, but the world doesn't work like that.

[phattonez]

Why does it all have to be about you? America in general is obsessed with party politics, so in some ways it makes sense to talk about left vs. right.

[rock_nog]

I didn't mean to make it about me, specifically - I was just trying to personalize it because I'm getting sick of these overly broad generalizations. Specific people here have specific complaints about President Bush, and Starkist and Alphadawg just want to write it all off by saying "LOL, liberals!" Sure, neither of them are defending Bush, but they're still using it as an opportunity to just make everyone who disagrees with them seem foolish.

[AlphaDawg]

"Bashing liberals is like shooting fish in a barrel. It's easy, and fun!"

- Me

Seriously, what I would like to know is why you, or anybody suffering from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) say you HATE the president, rather than merely disagree with his policies? Do you personally know him? Did he stick you with his bar tab back in his college days?

And yes, before anybody asks, I acknowledge the existence of CDS (Clinton Derangement Syndrome, either Bill or Hillary) as well.

[rock_nog]

He started a war. I think that deserves just a little hate, don't you?

EDIT: Sorry, specifically, he started a war with no real justification.

[Starkist]

You are foolish, rock_nog. Tell me, do you think Kennedy was a good president? He started a war without justification also - a war that claimed almost 60,000 American lives. For the mathematically challenged, that is fifteen times as many troops that have died in five years of the Iraq War.

If you say that you think Kennedy was a bad president, worthy of your hate even, then perhaps you do have the ability to be consistent. If you try to say it was somehow different, or find some way to continue the veneration our media gives to President Kennedy, then you are a hypocrite.

My problem is not with people who disagree with our current administration. It is with the hypocrites. If President Obama sends troops to the Sudan to stop the Darfur genocide, and it ends up taking five years and four thousand lives, will you support him or turn on him?

[rock_nog]

Did I say Kennedy was a good president? What would make you assume that? I have said nothing to suggest that I think Kennedy was a good president. With regards to the Vietnam War, he was, quite frankly, a monster. And if Obama invaded the Sudan, I would have a problem with it. What makes you think I wouldn't?

Starkist, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You just make these wild, baseless assumptions, and then you call me foolish based on these assumptions. Why? I don't even know how you come up with this stuff. How does one make the leap from "Well, he said he hated Bush," to "That must mean that he loved Kennedy!" Do you see the problem there? It just doesn't even make sense. There is no reason to assume that one who hates Bush loves Kennedy.

[Starkist]

Another poster who needs a class in remedial reading. Sigh. Seriously, read my post. I made no assumptions about you. I asked questions.

[rock_nog]

Please, those questions were so damn loaded... It was pretty clear what your true intentions were. I mean my God... I figured you were gonna pull this crap - it's the old "Imply something without actually saying it, so that if someone calls you on it, you can always claim you didn't actually say it" trick. Congratulations, you got me. I should've ignored your baiting, obviously, but I was hoping against hope that you weren't just looking for a childish and immature way to put me down.

Seriously... What is up with all these mind games? I don't understand why you're so obsessed with just putting everybody down rather than, say, actually discussing Bush's presidency. I mean, you're the one who brought the whole thing up, and I figured you actually wanted to discuss it, but apparently not.

[Starkist]

Start a new topic if you want to discuss the president's policies. Just check the hysteria at the door and be prepared to use facts and logic.

[The Desperado]

One would recommend that you do the same.

[AtmaWeapon]

Starkist politics threads are the new Beldaran religion threads.

Starkist: Outrageous statement.
AGN: Knee-jerk reaction
AtmaWeapon: Hey guys this is a not cited statement perhaps we should ask the kind OP to provide a source before we raid city hall?
AGN: Knee-jerk reaction

[EatinCake]

Abraham Lincoln did the same thing during the civil war. People who complain about the Bush Administrations policies on censorship and disapproval of protesters need to wake up and realize that this type of thing is nothing new. Despite knowing inside that the constitution bans these types of laws seemingly obviously, they've been getting passed here and there as early as the Adams Presidency (Alien and Sedition Acts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts)). In their defense however, most of these presidents passed them due to far greater threats against the government (at least in their eyes) than are around today.

[phattonez]

There were no good reasons for the Alien and Sedition Acts.

[slothman]

I, in fact, don't like Lincoln or Kennedy.
Inf fact Lincoln might even be worse that Bush II.
Nor do I like the sedition acts of various presidents.

[AtmaWeapon]

Abraham Lincoln did the same thing during the civil war. People who complain about the Bush Administrations policies on censorship and disapproval of protesters need to wake up and realize that this type of thing is nothing new. Despite knowing inside that the constitution bans these types of laws seemingly obviously, they've been getting passed here and there as early as the Adams Presidency (Alien and Sedition Acts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts)). In their defense however, most of these presidents passed them due to far greater threats against the government (at least in their eyes) than are around today.Since when does "It has happened in the past" make things right? We may be the first to complain, but so too were the founding fathers the first to fight back against the British Empire. Should we follow their example, or the example of the people that accepted boots to the face?

The message DON'T TREAD ON ME was very clear, very simple, and embodies the spirit the American people should have. We have every right to be angry regardless of whether past presidents have misbehaved. We cannot allow our freedoms to slack.

[Beldaran]

The message DON'T TREAD ON ME was very clear, very simple, and embodies the spirit the American people should have. We have every right to be angry regardless of whether past presidents have misbehaved. We cannot allow our freedoms to slack.

Don't say this kind of thing. Starkist will expertly argue you into a corner by adroitly pointing out that you don't know how to read, or that you are unable to use logic. He will provide no examples of this, but you know he will be right because god agrees with him on everything. He knows this because god communicates with him telepathically and fills him with a romantic feeling of platonic superlove. You can't argue with that!

[Starkist]

On the contrary, Beldaran. I totally agree with him. It's not for nothing I hang a copy of the Declaration of Independence in my living room. Are you ready to take up arms against the oppression you see? Or are you just a weenie, complaining on the Internet?

Again, my only point with this thread was to shut up those historical idiots who suggest that President Bush's alleged infringements on our freedoms are somehow worse than past administrations (they are not) or are unprecedented in American history (they are definitely not.) It really stemmed from that poll I posted where President Bush was voted "Worst President Ever" by the members of this message board.

[EatinCake]

It doesn't, I'm just reinforcing his original point that we've already been through far worse treads on free speech. Of course I don't agree with the practice, but for various reasons it pops up here and there. The hard part is preventing ourselves from forgetting these things, and not letting our emotions lead us into electing officials who will pass shit like this.

[Starkist]

It doesn't, I'm just reinforcing his original point that we've already been through far worse treads on free speech. Of course I don't agree with the practice, but for various reasons it pops up here and there. The hard part is preventing ourselves from forgetting these things, and not letting our emotions lead us into electing officials who will pass shit like this.

The problem is, there is no one who can possibly be elected president who genuinely respects the Constitution. For all his quirks, Ron Paul is probably the closest there is.

[Beldaran]

Which, of course, is why I voted for Ron Paul in the primary and will vote for him in the general election as well, via write-in.

What are Ron Paul's "quirks" by the way? He seems perfectly reasonable to me, except for the fact that he believes in god.

[rock_nog]

I dunno, the fact that he doesn't represent mainstream voters at all? Not that I'm saying that as an insult or anything. Really, don't take that as a personal judgment or anything. I'm just trying to explain why he didn't get much support - his views are not really in line at all with either mainstream Democrat or mainstream Republican views.

[Beldaran]

I'm just pointing out the insanity of upholding the constitution being viewed as a "quirk".

[AtmaWeapon]

The only real "quirk" of Ron Paul I saw is when I finally decided to google him against my better judgement all I saw was a bunch of platform promises that are great ideas but infeasible in the current political environment. Were America to be completely destroyed, then rebuilt and seeking a new political system I think there's a slight chance he could implement his stuff.

Otherwise it reminded me of that episode of Doug where he promised free sodas for everyone if he was elected then he realized he was up the unsanitary tributary because he couldn't do it. I don't remember what I read but I do remember thinking to myself it was standard politician promises; the same kind of thing is printed on the back of crappy software and uses prases like "synergizes business processes" that no one understands or can define.

[Beldaran]

So basically you're too pessimistic to vote for someone who advocates freedom because you don't think they can deliver, so you'll just vote for someone who is obsessed with war because you know they can deliver.

[Toolie]

President Wilson and President Roosevelt were extremely oppressive. They silenced political opponents, they operating enormous propaganda machines, and they both led us into wars against enemies that did not attack us. Yet Democrats and others on the Left revere Wilson and Roosevelt, whilst denouncing Bush.

Except for this attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor)?


And nice touch with the "Democrat" Party schtick, AlphaDawg. Does Rush have to manually rewind you each time like cassette or can he just set you on record and repeat?

[AlphaDawg]

And nice touch with the "Democrat" Party schtick, AlphaDawg. Does Rush have to manually rewind you each time like cassette or can he just set you on record and repeat?Welcome back, my brother from another mother! Sit down and stay for a while, we could use the entertainment.

I don't need El Rushbo to tell me how to think or talk, thank you very much. I just find it funny that Democratics get their panties in a bunch over something so insignificant.

Also, according to the esteemed Wikipedia, El Rushbo is hardly the first one to use that term: Democrat Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_party)

[Icey]

Aside from the fact that "Democrat Party" sounds kind of stupid, I don't get why using that phrase is so offensive. I am actually rather suprised that there's an entire wikipedia article on it. It seems like a huge overreaction.

Edit: What I mean to say is, it seems the only reason people get offended by it is because they know it's supposed to be offensive. Whereas I would just laugh if I heard that because it makes the person saying it sound retarded.

[AtmaWeapon]

So basically you're too pessimistic to vote for someone who advocates freedom because you don't think they can deliver, so you'll just vote for someone who is obsessed with war because you know they can deliver.Actually I haven't decided who to vote for (and as I pointed out, I'm not even completely sure I'm registered -- I filled out some online form but never got any feedback, thanks government!) but that sounds like a pretty good plan. Military tech is pretty awesome. I just wish we'd pick a fight with someone that has a navy; battleships are pretty much the most natural extension of our righteous might on the planet and I love those pictures of the full broadsides that make the ocean cave in.

That aside, I highly doubt anyone with hopes of being elected is going to have "bring us into new wars" on their platform. Basically my voting flowchart follows what I predict the rest of the country will do: vote Democrat unless the Republican candidate puts a gun to my head. My only modification is I'm not sure I want to vote for Hillary; she's shown a spirit that I don't think is proper. If it comes down to Republicans vs. Hillary I'll probably let other Americans -- I mean, the electoral college delegates decide for me.