I'm really looking forward to a possible Democrat in the White House...

Scrum · 10-30-2006, 11:18 PM

So the people defending all these powers given to the president will change their tune.

Imagine if Hillary were in the WH right now and being given these powers.
Conservatives would be running around like it was the end of the world.

Thorgrim · 10-30-2006, 11:53 PM

I've said before in other threads, just now actually, that it would be quite easy for an executive, say Hillary, to declare abortion clinic bombers and militia groups "terrorists" and then find ties to the religious right and gun rights groups, and then anyone who had ties to them were by extension "questionable" figures until half the people on this board would be found by secret government courts to "have ties to terrorist organizations"

motivez · 10-31-2006, 01:50 AM

Yeah, and that's just as scary to me even though I really dislike those groups and what they stand for..

The President should not have these types of powers. It's amazing to me to see how willing people in this country are to give them up as long as it's not all at once.

It's like a slow dull pain that you're willing to ignore until it becomes so big that it drowns everything out.. and if we continue heading on this road, it's not going to be much longer before we start seeing ridiculous things dealing with freedom of the press and their ability to be independent and critical.

That's the obvious next step.

10-31-2006, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

So the people defending all these powers given to the president will change their tune.

Imagine if Hillary were in the WH right now and being given these powers.
Conservatives would be running around like it was the end of the world.

I dont want a democrat to take the white house but I couldn't agree with you more. My family is HARD CORE conservative. They kiss the ground bush walks on and it mkaes me sick. So basically I brought up the same thing to them and they changed their tune. I think I said something like "so if Hillary gets elected do you think she should be able to tap phones?" they shit bricks i was

for about 5 mins.

kinggovernor · 10-31-2006, 09:13 AM

I would have no problem with it

AVengeance · 10-31-2006, 10:55 AM

WTC bombing. Waco. Cole. Less liberties, less security, more treason, more terror.

That power is scary in any one pair of hands, but moreso when it's a republicrat. Our only hope is to elect a libertarian, so all this shit gets executive order'ed down the toilet.

ballz2wallz · 10-31-2006, 10:56 AM

I would have no problem with it.

What I would have a problem with is the Democrats not doing enough on security.

lew · 10-31-2006, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I would have no problem with it.

What I would have a problem with is the Democrats not doing enough on security.

ballz2wallz · 10-31-2006, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Perhaps I confused you. I'd have no problem with this:

Imagine if Hillary were in the WH right now and being given these powers.
Conservatives would be running around like it was the end of the world.

Ardentfrost · 10-31-2006, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Perhaps I confused you. I'd have no problem with this:

But did you look at the examples given? Like claiming an organization who supports the ownership of guns like the NRA, for instance, is a terrorist organization and arresting anyone involved with them?

I don't see how anyone can think that's ok, even if they don't like organizations like that. But if the POWER is there, then there's nothing to stop an overzealous president, be it Hilary or Hitler, from doing those things.

And yet people are still ok with the prez having those powers? How is that not seen as totalitarian/authoritarian?

hsmith · 10-31-2006, 01:06 PM

It saddens me people think the president is such an important figure and office.

ballz2wallz · 10-31-2006, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

But did you look at the examples given? Like claiming an organization who supports the ownership of guns like the NRA, for instance, is a terrorist organization and arresting anyone involved with them?

I don't see how anyone can think that's ok, even if they don't like organizations like that. But if the POWER is there, then there's nothing to stop an overzealous president, be it Hilary or Hitler, from doing those things.

And yet people are still ok with the prez having those powers? How is that not seen as totalitarian/authoritarian?

A person can sit down and write out books upon books of how the powers that be can be 'overzealous' and 'abuse' the system, even as it's set up now. To sit and speculate over how this or that could be abused this way or that way is a waste of time. If that were to occur, it will be dealt with appropriately.

DosEquis · 10-31-2006, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I dont want a democrat to take the white house but I couldn't agree with you more. My family is HARD CORE conservative. They kiss the ground bush walks on and it mkaes me sick. So basically I brought up the same thing to them and they changed their tune. I think I said something like "so if Hillary gets elected do you think she should be able to tap phones?" they shit bricks i was for about 5 mins.

I think those "security measures" belong in the category of be careful of what you wish for. It hasn't bit us in the ass yet (that i know of) but the way it is setup there is a potential for a huge abuse of power (if it hasn't happened already). I can't wait to see the reaction of people like my uncle or your family if a democrat starts using/abusing those powers.

I think balancing liberty and security is probably one of the larger challanges the elected officials have to face.

Scrum · 10-31-2006, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

But did you look at the examples given? Like claiming an organization who supports the ownership of guns like the NRA, for instance, is a terrorist organization and arresting anyone involved with them?

I don't see how anyone can think that's ok, even if they don't like organizations like that. But if the POWER is there, then there's nothing to stop an overzealous president, be it Hilary or Hitler, from doing those things.

And yet people are still ok with the prez having those powers? How is that not seen as totalitarian/authoritarian?

That's exactly my point.

Nonphixion · 10-31-2006, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

WTC bombing. Waco. Cole. Less liberties, less security, more treason, more terror.

That power is scary in any one pair of hands, but moreso when it's a republicrat. Our only hope is to elect a libertarian, so all this shit gets executive order'ed down the toilet.

Actually a genuine conservative is for small and un-obtrusive government. I would be fine with that.

But the problem facing us now is that Bush and his cabinet are definitively not Republican Conservatives, they follow the PNAC plan (a think tank, creator of the self-admitted "Bush Doctrine"). They want a Straussian-psychological control over the American people in order for The United States of America to be "prosperous" under them.

Scrum · 10-31-2006, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

A person can sit down and write out books upon books of how the powers that be can be 'overzealous' and 'abuse' the system, even as it's set up now. To sit and speculate over how this or that could be abused this way or that way is a waste of time. If that were to occur, it will be dealt with appropriately.

If it were to happen under current conditions, it's very possible none of us would never know anything about it.

That's why we need oversight, which is the biggest thing they have been working to remove.

ballz2wallz · 10-31-2006, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

Actually a genuine conservative is for small and un-obtrusive government. I would be fine with that.

But the problem facing us now is that Bush and his cabinet are definitively not Republican Conservatives, they follow the PNAC plan (a think tank, creator of the self-admitted "Bush Doctrine"). They want a Straussian-psychological control over the American people in order for a nation to be "prosperous"

Actually, conservatives are for smaller government, but big military. I think this would fall under military/security measures.

DosEquis · 10-31-2006, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

But did you look at the examples given? Like claiming an organization who supports the ownership of guns like the NRA, for instance, is a terrorist organization and arresting anyone involved with them?

I don't see how anyone can think that's ok, even if they don't like organizations like that. But if the POWER is there, then there's nothing to stop an overzealous president, be it *Hitlery, from doing those things.

And yet people are still ok with the prez having those powers? How is that not seen as totalitarian/authoritarian?

There you go.. fixed that one up for ya

ballz2wallz · 10-31-2006, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

If it were to happen under current conditions, it's very possible none of us would never know anything about it.

Not a chance. With the media and the opposing political party working their hands to the bones trying to expose anything and everything, there is no way an admin. can do anything they shouldnt' be doing.

That's why we need oversight, which is the biggest thing they have been working to remove.

We have more oversight than we ever have had.

Scrum · 10-31-2006, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Not a chance. With the media and the opposing political party working their hands to the bones trying to expose anything and everything, there is no way an admin. can do anything they shouldnt' be doing.

You think they have exposed every secret? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

We have more oversight than we ever have had.

No. They can hold a citizen indefinatly without having to grant constitutional rights. They never have to go to trial and never have to see the evidence against them. They never even have to notify anyone. No oversight.

They can also tap your phone without ever getting a warrant.