Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
glacier

Your paranoid political post du jour

Recommended Posts

Libertarian Cato Institute slams Bush's Constitutional record

 

From the summary:

Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power. In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush administration has advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad, a view that includes

 

* a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech—and restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election;

* a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror;

* a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as "enemy combatants," strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror— in other words, perhaps forever; and

* a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave.

 

President Bush's constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word "paranoid" carries a connotation of unjustified concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power. In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush administration has advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad, a view that includes

 

* a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech—and restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election;

We're talking campaign finance reform here guys. Don't be confused.

* a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror; any tactic? really?

* a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as "enemy combatants," strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror— in other words, perhaps forever; and agreed

* a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave. Oh Please any President since FDR has thought this.

 

President Bush's constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers. The Tubes! The Tubes!

 

By the way you guys are slow on the draw posting this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always held that the campaign finance reform laws were an insidious and unconstitutional intrusion into the political process. So we are in agreement with #1.

 

I do think Bush has been restrained by our constitution and laws. So we do disagree here.

 

Cato and PP agree on #3

 

I agree with #4 I just see it as business as usual and certainly better than if say any of the last two Dems had been elected President.

 

So Cato and I agree 75% of the time.

 

PP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the imposition of free speech zones related to campaign financing? The ban on showing American casualties in the media?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

matt -

 

I would be happy to discuss issues with you however you spray falsehoods and when corrected run away. (See the gas prices thread) Here you obliquely attack the President through "lawyerly” tricks. AKA Smear tactics. Certainly a clear and direct presentation of the facts would be more convincing and encurage a warm hearted response. Step up to the plate and swing!

 

Edit to add link: Gas price thread....or Bush let those %%$#@ Bin Ladens fly.

 

bigdrink.gif

Edited by Peter_Puget

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter -

I would be happy to discuss politics with you if you would like to follow up on a point directly instead of smearing and attacking me personally. I'm sorry I went climbing last weekend and didn't get back to you when you corrected my grievous error. Not only that, but I didn't check back in on Monday morning. Checking quickly on the Internet now, it looks as if at least one of the Saudi flights was one of the very first flights to leave the country after they started to reopen airspace, but probably did not occur during the actual closure and the "Bin Ladin family" flight was days later. That is if you believe the 911 commission ... and considering some of their other "findings," I'm not totally sure that I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter -

I would be happy to discuss politics with you if you would like to follow up on a point directly instead of smearing and attacking me personally. I'm sorry I went climbing last weekend and didn't get back to you when you corrected my grievous error. Not only that, but I didn't check back in on Monday morning. Checking quickly on the Internet, it looks as if at least one of the Saudi flights was one of the very first flights to leave the country after they started to reopen airspace, but probably did not occur during the actual closure. That is if you believe the 911 commission ... and considering some of their other "findings," I'm not totally sure that I do.

 

Even here you can't just come out and say that there is no evidence to support your assertion. Using the term "probably" in this case is absurd. Attcking you? Do you deny that you are using a manipulative poll? Does taking a quote out of context not lend itself to abuse? What if I took a Matt quote and wrote a similar poll with a well known pedophile as the other choice? Wouldn't that be smearing you via trickery? I would think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gads... this is good reading. I sure hope Ivan doesn't post a penis picture and spoil the fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really looking forward to the live fact-to-face political debate we're having at the picnic! boxing_smiley.gifbody blow! body blow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you saying here, Peter? Have not both presidents Nixon and Bush taken the most expansive view of their presidential powers of any president in memory? Would YOU know which of them said those words if you didn't google it to find out?

 

(And, by the way, let's not repeat the Plame thread -- let's discuss POLITICS.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same would be the topic of our various private messages and emails. It is only here in Spray that we like to make fools of ourselves this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is out of context no one can tell anything. But you do smear by association. I am certain both Bush and Nixon would be libertarians compared to FDR.

 

As a sidebar: Johnson declassified and leaked "secret" info to correct BS from a former governemnet official concerning the Vietnam war. Something as yet unproven concerning Mr & Mrs. Vanity Fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is all in context. FDR certainly expanded the role of the Federal government - and as far as I know his programs have generally been regarded as part of our recovery from the Great Depression though I realize that some people dislike the legacy of welfare and "big government," but did FDR actually argue that the president as a single individual should be given broad power that prior presidents had not enjoyed? I don't remember reading that in my history book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually FDR changed what was legal in the US by restructuring the supreme court. Much more of a change than pushing some boundries as Bush may have.

 

Many economists have thoguht that some of FDRs plans may have extended/deepened the GR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I remember reading about his "Packing" the Court and I am aware some (mostly fairly far right, I believe) still regard him as a terrible President. I believe the more "average" view of his Presidency is more postive, however. But what does this have to do with how Bush is expanding the powers of the President today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be off here, but I recall something about him trying to increase the number of supreme court judges. He would then be responsible for appointing these new judges; usurping the idea of checks and balances by stacking the odds in his favor! Pretty crafty (if I remembered correctly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I may be off here, but I recall something about him trying to increase the number of supreme court judges. He would then be responsible for appointing these new judges; usurping the idea of checks and balances by stacking the odds in his favor! Pretty crafty (if I remembered correctly).
That would require an amendment to the Constitution. The things Bush has done have involved basically ingoring laws and crafting new laws that expand his power that don't require amending the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I may be off here, but I recall something about him trying to increase the number of supreme court judges. He would then be responsible for appointing these new judges; usurping the idea of checks and balances by stacking the odds in his favor! Pretty crafty (if I remembered correctly).
That would require an amendment to the Constitution. The things Bush has done have involved basically ingoring laws and crafting new laws that expand his power that don't require amending the Constitution.

 

CBS - google search it is your friend!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glacier, you are a brilliant troll artist: mention polotics in a semi-serious way, and bing! 4 pages of J_B, PeterPuget, and JayB will follow.

 

Werd. rockband.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×