RE: From the Administration That Cried Wolf

RE: From the Administration That Cried Wolf (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

cyberdude611 -> RE: From the Administration That Cried Wolf (2/12/2007 10:27:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Hitler was elected also, and then given unlimtied power by the assembly, just like Hugo. So I guess if you are arguing that Hitler was not a dictator, your point makes sense. Iran is run by a dictatorial commitee, they can veto any act that the president or parliment passes, and they can issue decrees that overrule the "elected part" of the gov. Also they get final say on who can stand for office. So was that other warmonger, GWB. Nope. Hugo Chavez was elected, but his assembly just recently gave him the exact same power that the Reishtag gave Hitler in 1934. For some reason people have this idea that despotism and dictatorship are the same. They are not. There have been many times in history that a person is elected and then is given the powers of a dictatorship by the assembly. The Patriot Act does not give Bush the powers of a dictator. The power Hugo Chavez has is he has the ability to make laws by decree. There is no check or balance system any longer in Venezuela. In the US, Bush does not have this power. The congress has the ability to yank or turn down any of Bush's policies. And the courts can declare anything (including the Patriot Act) unconstitutional. Bush is also leaving office in 2 years. Hugo Chavez says he wants to be president for the next 30 years. There is a very clear difference here...

farglebargle -> RE: From the Administration That Cried Wolf (2/12/2007 10:32:24 AM)
"The Patriot Act does not give Bush the powers of a dictator." Tell that to the people held without Equal Protection...

luckydog1 -> RE: From the Administration That Cried Wolf (2/12/2007 10:42:25 AM)
ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Thompson? Bush does not have unlimited power under the patriot act, nor can he rule by decree. To call him a dictator is just nonsense. He can and has suspended habius corpus, wiretaps without court order, secret prisons. Nah that is not dictotorial.....is it? Now I get it thompson, you don't understand the difference between an adjective(dictatorial) and a noun (dictator). You can find dictatorial traits in Bush if you want, it is a subjective process. You can find dicatorial traits in anyone if you want. You just have a poor grasp of language. Bush is not a dictator...you subjectivley see dictatorial traits in him....and you do not see that Chavez is an actuall dictator. He was just officially given power to rule by dictate. Thats what a dictator is, one who rules by decree or dictate. You seem to support him, you seem to support dictatorship. Am I wrong? Bush absolutly does not rule by decree.

farglebargle -> RE: From the Administration That Cried Wolf (2/12/2007 10:44:39 AM)
Bush became a dictator the MOMENT he denied Equal Protection of the laws to people he designates as "Unlawful Enemy Combatants". The only difference between him, and say Hitler, is the body count, and the level of secrecy their governments maintain as they pretend to be free and open societies.

thompsonx -> RE: From the Administration That Cried Wolf (2/12/2007 11:19:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Thompson. please stay in reality..... "A coup d'état (pronounced 'kū dā ta'), or simply a 'coup', is the sudden overthrow of a government, usually done by a small group that just replaces the top power figures. It is different from a revolution, which is staged by a larger group and radically changes the political system. The term is French for "a sudden stroke, or blow, of a state". ... Perhaps you might tell us just at what number a coup differs from a revolution. George Washington was among the leaders of a group that was involved in the violent overthrow of the existing power structure and eventually became the president ...If you choose to pick fly shit out of pepper then please be my guest. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup Washington did not lead a coup. Please tell me you have heard of the Articles of Confederation. You are aware that we had an entirley different government after the revolution, before the Current Constitution was formed, are you not? Actually we had the articles of confederation from the inception of the revolution until the current constitution was enacted. Washington played no Political part in the first one. And was elected by the people after the new constition was created, aprox 15 years after the revolution. No only a bit less than 6 years elapsed from the treaty of Paris ( the end of the revolution) until the creating of the new constitution and the election of Washington. To say Washington was a coup leader is nonsense. You seem to think it is nonsense and you are entitled to your opinion. Again, lets stay in reality...the patriot act does not give Bush power to rule by decree. Dictators do not lose control of assemblies by elections. There is no rubber stamp republican congress, it was voted out by the people, that doesn't happen in dictatorships. The difference between the demopubs and the republicrats is not something I have ever been able to decipher. Only the names change not the goal. Body count for pinochet v hugo? Hugo has only been a dictator for a few weeks. You are actually comparing aprox 25 years to 3 weeks? Pinochet had 3000 dead. Can't find any numbers on Chavez, but he is just geting started. Over 100 were killed in his 90s attempt to sieze power. The record indicates he was elected in 98 and reelected in 2000 and in 2006 so that would make 8 years....bush&co. have always refered to him as a dictator. thompson

thompsonx -> RE: From the Administration That Cried Wolf (2/12/2007 11:24:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Hitler was elected also, and then given unlimtied power by the assembly, just like Hugo. So I guess if you are arguing that Hitler was not a dictator, your point makes sense. Iran is run by a dictatorial commitee, they can veto any act that the president or parliment passes, and they can issue decrees that overrule the "elected part" of the gov. Also they get final say on who can stand for office. So was that other warmonger, GWB. Nope. Hugo Chavez was elected, but his assembly just recently gave him the exact same power that the Reishtag gave Hitler in 1934. For some reason people have this idea that despotism and dictatorship are the same. They are not. There have been many times in history that a person is elected and then is given the powers of a dictatorship by the assembly. The Patriot Act does not give Bush the powers of a dictator. The power Hugo Chavez has is he has the ability to make laws by decree. There is no check or balance system any longer in Venezuela. In the US, Bush does not have this power. The congress has the ability to yank or turn down any of Bush's policies. And the courts can declare anything (including the Patriot Act) unconstitutional. Bush is also leaving office in 2 years. Hugo Chavez says he wants to be president for the next 30 years. There is a very clear difference here... bush&co have claimed on numerous occasions that they may rule by decree and that the constitution is "just a goddamn piece of paper". If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and shits through feathers then it sure seems like a duck to me. thompson

thompsonx -> RE: From the Administration That Cried Wolf (2/12/2007 11:37:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Thompson? Bush does not have unlimited power under the patriot act, nor can he rule by decree. To call him a dictator is just nonsense. He can and has suspended habius corpus, wiretaps without court order, secret prisons. Nah that is not dictotorial.....is it? Now I get it thompson, you don't understand the difference between an adjective(dictatorial) and a noun (dictator). You can find dictatorial traits in Bush if you want, it is a subjective process. You can find dicatorial traits in anyone if you want. You just have a poor grasp of language. Bush is not a dictator...you subjectivley see dictatorial traits in him....and you do not see that Chavez is an actuall dictator. He was just officially given power to rule by dictate. Thats what a dictator is, one who rules by decree or dictate. You seem to support him, you seem to support dictatorship. Am I wrong? Bush absolutly does not rule by decree. luckydog1: Yes you are wrong again as usual. I believe that Venezuela should be governed by venezuelans that does not make me in favor or against dictatorships... bush&co. have tried to overthrow the legally elected president of that country. If I did not understand the difference between adjectives and nouns why would I have used dictatorial to describe the actions of a dictator? I am not sure why your attempted game of semantics apply to me and not to bush&co. who have refered to Chavez as a dictator from day one since by your definition he has only been a dictator for a few days. thompson

farglebargle -> RE: From the Administration That Cried Wolf (2/12/2007 11:57:22 AM)
If the election systems in the US didn't seriously suck, we could make the point that Bush was without a doubt, lawfully elected to the office he holds. But they do seriously suck, so Bush has exactly as much legitimacy as Chavez.

thompsonx -> RE: From the Administration That Cried Wolf (2/12/2007 11:59:36 AM)
cyberdude611: That was the exact same reason Japan gave for attacking Pearl Harbor. The U.S. Britian, Holland and China had refused her strategic materials...oil, iron,rubber etc. so they took the position that if you wont sell it to me I will take it. I was under the impression that we were a signator and a gurantor of the U.N. charter which outlaws wars of aggression ie: taking someone elses stuff. But then if your national honor is worth less than used toilet paper then why not? By the way would it be ok if I stopped by and took what ever of yours I feel I cannot live without? thompson

thompsonx -> RE: From the Administration That Cried Wolf (2/12/2007 12:02:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle If the election systems in the US didn't seriously suck, we could make the point that Bush was without a doubt, lawfully elected to the office he holds. But they do seriously suck, so Bush has exactly as much legitimacy as Chavez. farglebargle: Actually less since his first term he was appointed to and his seccond term was riddled with voter fraud. thompson

UtopianRanger -> RE: From the Administration That Cried Wolf (2/12/2007 12:34:34 PM)
quote: When people realize that their way of life is being determined by overseas dictators, they will favor war. The United States economy is ran on oil. If oil prices go up, it costs more to transport goods. Employees have to pay more money just to get to work or school. The entire economy is connected to oil. And it is well beyond the point of no return. Experts say that it will take 30 years or more for the US to get off foreign dependance of oil. It took Brazil 30 years to get off foreign energy dependance. Maybe you are willing to ride a bike. But I assure you the majority of Americas are not willing to do that. They will go to war. Welcome to civilization. This is been going on for about 6,000 years now. Nations and empires have gone to war many dozens of times just to capture more natural resources. You're partially correct….but you left something very important out. The US economy IS run on oil…but the system in which the oil is garnered /acquired through is deviant and based on greedy ''free market'' principles, where there’s few checks and balances, and information controlled by those who are in control of the oil determines / manipulates the price. That economy is also susceptible to a volatile and illegitimate monetary system that is artificially inflated because the oil bought and sold--- no matter who the seller / purchaser—is denominated only in the currency that is a proprietary of that system. So in essence, we’re not really fighting for the oil per se; were fighting to preserve/control the system in which it is bought and sold, which in turn artificially inflates an illigitimate currency and props up our economy. I'm personally in favor of seeing all petroleum interests nationalized…. You’d treat it like a public utility and make it part of our infrastructure. It’s no longer a commodity that’s controlled by a monopoly or speculators in the market place – It’s too precious /vital to our existence to let such a small minority control it. Sooner or later people will get smart enough that they will begin to understand that fighting to preserve a system which controls the worlds oil so a very small minority can make money, is just no longer worth it. I just don’t see them controlled /enslaved that way for too much longer. The masses do truly own the power.....they just don't fully understand it yet ; they think they're fighting for the oil and don't understand the system. [;)] - R

luckydog1 -> RE: From the Administration That Cried Wolf (2/12/2007 1:03:20 PM)
thompson "Actually we had the articles of confederation from the inception of the revolution until the current constitution was enacted. Washington played no Political part in the first one. And was elected by the people after the new constition was created, aprox 15 years after the revolution. No only a bit less than 6 years elapsed from the treaty of Paris ( the end of the revolution) until the creating of the new constitution and the election of Washington. from 1776( when you say the articles of confederation took effect) to 1789 was 13+ years, which is much closer to aproximatley 15 than 6. But Bush is not a dictator, applying dictatorial to him is nonsense. You truley do not grasp the difference between an adjective and a noun, do you. And yes, I would say that anyone calling Chavez a dictator before he assumed dictatorial powers was engaging in hyperbole. That was innaccurate. However what would you call shutting down oppposition media, and jailing journalists?

farglebargle -> RE: From the Administration That Cried Wolf (2/12/2007 1:30:25 PM)
"However what would you call shutting down oppposition media, and jailing journalists?" The same as jailing "Enemy Combatants", without due process or equal protection of the law, simply because The President names them as "Enemy Combatants".

MasterKalif -> RE: From the Administration That Cried Wolf (2/12/2007 2:43:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: MasterKalif thompsonx....a little update...Chavez has shut down opposition media to his regime, he has packed the national assembly with his supporters, there are daily clashes in the streets, the president just adding fuel to the political violence...he was a former coup leader who tried to take power in 1992 by force and failed. As I remember my american history George Washington was a coup leader who became president. ..and now his "assembly" of yes men have given him an 18 month mandate to rule by decree (this means without congress or anyone's approval, changings laws and passing laws as he likes)....now tell me how is that not a dictatorship? Kinda like bush & co. and the republican "rubber stamp" congress and the patriot act? General Pinochet and his military junta ruled with decrees and yet had less power than this clown and was called a "dictator" at the very least. What would you guess is the difference in body count between Pinochet and Chavez. As for Iran, the actual revolutionary regime came to power by force in 1979, killed hundreds of thousands who were in the armed forces and government ministers My understanding is that the Shah was not exactly shy about executing large numbers of his detractors. under the Shah and anyone who was opposed to their oppressive theocratic rule (notice under the Shah women were allowed to work and drive cars; now they have to go around with male relatives and their head covered)....now in the 1990's the Iranian people have a limited choice between hardcore hardliners and populists who differ little from each other I would suggest that that is Iran's problem and not the U.S. ...therefore the whole government in Tehran lacks political legitimacy. Isn't political legitimacy a defacto function of power? Iran and Venezuela are doing ok because those regimes are proped up by oil. I suppose everyone needs something to hold them up. I guess oil is as good as any other comodity. thompson George Bush was a president and did not carry out a coup d'etat....he was involved in a revolution, and had he done a coup, he would have just replaced the leadership with himself and he would have been in London, not in the US. No validity of comparison there. While I extremely dislike Bush and think his government is "authoritarian" (notice not dictatorial) and has complete disregards for due process, habeas corpus and human rights of Americans and others, the republican system is nominally in place, and Congress was not hand picked by him...what you have in the US are opportunistic democrats who jumped in the war bandwagon lest they be thought of as anything but "unpatriotic"...by and large Bush cannot do what he wants nor does he rule by decree.... As for body counts, Chavez is just getting started....and has nominally held real power starting this yearm, before he had to act carefully as he had to deal with an opposition, today silenced and sidelined. The Pinochet government lasted many more years, and was a reaction to a chaotic, out of control government and political system that destroyed itself. My point of comparison was that Pinochet was considered a dictator since he and his ruling junta ruled by decree....at least he did the country some good, what has Chavez done to better the lot of his people? Because the Shah was "bad" does not make the Ayatollah and his bearded backwards regime "good"....in fact if things were bad under the Shah, they became a nightmare for Iranians after the 1979 revolution.... On my previous point, it is Iran's problem but it shows that a "democracy" in the proper sense of the word, does not exist in Tehran. Political legitimacy is important for a regime to be considered within the boundaries of acceptable, legal government, and accepted in the eyes of their people. Again the point of mentioning oil in the case of Venezuela and Iran is not that those regimes are successful economically, but rather are propped up by an expensive commodity such as oil...not because their economies are healthy or doing well....which also makes it harder for the people of those countries to counteract any government propaganda and hold on power, because those governments (Venezuela, Iran) also have access to unlimited resources and therefore money.

farglebargle -> RE: From the Administration That Cried Wolf (2/12/2007 2:54:14 PM)
quote: As for body counts, Chavez is just getting started So is George Bush. What's he up to? 3000 Dead GI's and 250,000 Dead Iraqi Civilians, Women, Children?

MasterKalif -> RE: From the Administration That Cried Wolf (2/12/2007 2:57:02 PM)
holy smokes farglebargle, you are right! he has surpassed other Latin American dictators already....I hope those neo-cons don't come back to power again!

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125