GOP becomes completely irrelevent

[xoxoxoBruce]

They actually try and win, which seems only right.

Far right.

Seems to me the Republican candidates, that are sucking up the the Neocons and Religious zealots, can tell them both to fuck off after the primaries. Who are they gonna vote for ... a Democrat?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

The actions that encouraged those attacks are those of the Clinton Administration, whose foreign policy is a study in cluelessness. It was not an improvement on the Carter Administration's. This same weakness, inadequacy, and general incompetence continues to be desired by the Democrats. As if the Democrats have won any wars since Truman. They should talk? No, the Republicans are more worthy of the Republic's trust on this. They actually try and win, which seems only right.

That's a fact jack... well done.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Ibram

So what you're saying is that authoritarians that win wars by becoming the enemy are preferable to libertarians that don't kill people?

Ibram, every controversial action taken by the Bush Administration has been of the nature of taking on war powers, without having the convenience of Congress having declared a state of war, which is something that frees up the Executive to employ sweeping decrees in aid of the war effort and no questions asked -- like Lincoln's suspending habeas corpus for the duration.

Within US jurisdiction, suspension of habeas corpus is not contemplated by this Administration. There are those who want this applied to foreign nationals -- not remotely citizens of these United States -- held as what are in effect if not in the precise letter of the law prisoners of war. Nobody charges prisoners of war with crimes with good cause (North Vietnam tried it for propaganda purposes, just one more of myriad Communist sins, bad behavior, and shittiness.) in any case, yet the defeat-America BAF'ers will insist we do this. Their motivations are as obvious as they are basely antidemocratic.

This is not "becoming the enemy" except by rumors spread by those Bush-haters who will lie in the most promiscuous and unscrupulous fashion about the war effort, simply because we've got a Republican President. These people have their priorities so completely out of whack that only the whacked listen to them, I can say from my 51-year-old perspective. I regard the opposition not as principled persons, but as mental masturbators -- and fascist-sympathizing jackoffs at that, given who they refuse to support, and thus whom, by default, they end up supporting. Note that I do not get that muddled up -- ever. Note too that some people around here are that muddled up.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Far right.

Sounds like you think the only people who actually work in the Republic's interest are the far right. You sure about that?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Ibram, every controversial action taken by the Bush Administration has been of the nature of taking on war powers, without having the convenience of Congress having declared a state of war, which is something that frees up the Executive to employ sweeping decrees in aid of the war effort and no questions asked -- like Lincoln's suspending habeas corpus for the duration.

Why is that? Why do you think the three branches, ie checks and balances, was created?
So a wacko president can't go tilting at windmills?

Well this wacko is tilting at windmills by circumventing the theory and practice that has made the Great Experiment successful.
He's a bad man... a very, very bad man.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Ibram, every controversial action taken by the Bush Administration has been of the nature of taking on war powers, without having the convenience of Congress having declared a state of war, which is something that frees up the Executive to employ sweeping decrees in aid of the war effort and no questions asked -- like Lincoln's suspending habeas corpus for the duration.

Please note the distinction that Lincoln was involved in a civil war.

Also, that exact argument has been used by Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, and even to an extent by Vladimir Putin. Many tyrants in the beginning are given their power democratically, either by assent or lack of dissent.

To an extent it even works. Noone has invaded North Korea in almost a century, and Saddam Hussein kept Iran and his other neighbors at bay. The people were perfectly safe from outside threats and outmatched any regional opponents except for superpowers like China. Ask them if it was worth it.

Democracy means assuming risk in exchange for freedom. Tyranny means better protection from outside threats in exchange for institutionalized oppression from within.

Our three branch government was the best failsafe our forefathers could assemble. Messing with it for the illusion of additional security is like trying to get a better picture from your TV by removing the back and sticking in a screwdriver.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

libertarians that don't kill people?

How would anyone know? they have never gotten more than .02% of the vote. Hardley a boil on the ass of the electorate!

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

How would anyone know? they have never gotten more than .02% of the vote. Hardley a boil on the ass of the electorate!

Whereas if someone like Bush gets %49 they can become a persistent staph infection or even work their way up to a venereal disease.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Whereas if someone like Bush gets %49 they can become a persistent staph infection or even work their way up to a venereal disease.

I could not disagree with that statement.