Originally posted by: Reflex
This right here is a texbook strawman example.
I smell yet another dodge to a very simple question. Its sad really. You are just getting lazy.
You take some statements of mine out of context and then simplify them into easy yes/no questions in order to look like you know what I was talking about to those who have not read the original threads they were posted in. This thread is not about Clinton, its not about abuse victims, but you will use those statements, taken out of context, in an attempt to slam my point of view in this unrelated thread. If you are going to quote me, do so, don't just post the "Texmaster condensed version" since it says only what you wish it to say, not my actual words. Until you can at least leave things in context there is little point in responding to them.
You really are amusing Reflex. You challenge me to bring up the quotes than when I ask you to clarify your position you throw the lazy accusation out and run away.
Is your position so weak it can't be explained? Or are you afraid that your explanation will reveal you cannot defend the remarks you made?
A conservative is a political and social point of view, a Libertarian is a political party with its own platform. There is no party known as the 'Conservative Party' in this country that I am aware of, so I don't see how thats an either/or question.
Another dodge. How sad. So conservatives are devoid of having a political structure, only Libertarians have that distention.
Just another dodge to a simple question. You must have played Frogger quite a bit as a kid.
I did not claim there were no differences between Libertarians and Republicans, if there were no differences there would not be seperate parties. The Libertarians are to the Republicans what the Greens are to the Democrats: Further to the right of the mainstream party. Your specific example, drug legalization, happens to have been a liberal program during the 20's and 30's that the Libertarians oppose. If you note I stated that I do not agree with the Libertarians on all issues, and that is one that I happen to not agree with. I doubt anyone agrees with their party 100%. However their immigration ideals, welfare reforms, and schooling choice issues are all very attractive to me.
Why is it so hard for you to answer simple questions? You claimed you are a conservative. You also claimed you are a libertarian. Which is it?
To pretend that people who define themselves as conservatives don't have their own political agenda is laughable.
Quit running around the question and be direct.
Are you just afraid of a label or are you afraid your political views and opinions don't support what you claim to be?
The bills were proposed by Republicans and passed by Republicans.
Right Reflex. So no Democrats voted for it.
Do some reading next time if you are going to make such grand mistakes.
For the record, the vote was 98-1-1 in the Senate. Yet another distortion by you clearly in favor of Democrats and another example that you are not the Conservative you claim to be.
I do hold all who voted for them responsible actually, however bashing the Dems for it is kind of redundant because even had they better opposed it it all still would have passed in 2001. But yes, they are certainly to blame as well. However as of now they are NOT the ones trying to renew it in its entirety or extend it to be more intrusive, which is a positive.
That's right. Make excuses for the Democrats who voted for it LOL You bias is just shining through.
Remember, just because I bash the Republicans at times, it is not an automatic endorsement for the Democrats, they simply are not in power right now and as a result there is not much to say about them.
Then call yourself for what you claim to be. An Independent. You are NOT a conservative. Face facts.
Actually, the issue I have is that the libraries cannot contest the order in court like any other group would be able too prior to this act. And the law does not prohibit them from challenging it directly, it uses the sneaky tactic of making it illegal for them to reveal they are under surveillance without providing them a backdoor to challenge secretly, in essense 'shutting them up from complaining' regardless of whether or not the wiretap is just. This is Secret Police Mentality.
Your interpretation does not make it fascist. Just another mislabel by you. Seems to be a trend here.
Did I claim this? Where did I claim this? Strawman strikes again. If Lyndon B Johnson was still in office you can bet I'd be protesting him as well. But since he is not, Bush is the obvious person to be discussing.
I love it. I ask you to clarify your position and instead you throw out another label and a theory instead of answering the question.
I read your snippet. It said US citizens on foreign soil. However the calls being tapped originated from US soil and went overseas. Bush specifically asked for authorization from Congress for this and was denied. He did it anyway. That appears to be illegal to me, the US citizen on US soil that is the other half of that call requires a warrant to be wiretapping.
Once again, read more carefully
This authorization clearly supported the war in Afghanistan. It also clearly justifies the use of force against Al Qaeda. In the Hamdi case, the Supreme Court added that the AUMF authorizes the detention of enemy combatants - notwithstanding 18 USC 4001(a), which requires an Act of Congress to support executive detention. In the Court's view, the AUMF stands as the relevant Act of Congress, authorizing detention. It is therefore reasonable to say that the AUMF, by authorizing the use of "all necessary and appropriate force," also authorizes surveillance of those associated with Al Qaeda or any other organizations that "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" of September 11.
The reason is that surveillance, including wiretapping, is reasonably believed to be an incident of the use of force. It standardly occurs during war. If the President's wiretapping has been limited to those reasonably believed to be associated with Al Qaeda and its affiliates - as indeed he has said - then the Attorney General's argument is entirely plausible. (The AUMF would not permit wiretapping of those without any connection to nations, organizations, and persons associated with the September 11 attacks.)
You get so wrapped up in one law being violated you forget about others that give the President the power. But of course, that wouldn't help your biased argument would it?
Strawman again. Just because Bush is doing something does not mean I am saying no one else ever did, only that it is wrong and fascist. Clinton did this as well, for the record, at Guantanamo Bay, and set the precedent for what Bush is doing, however the courts ruled against Clinton and he managed to get the decision vacated in a settlement.
So Clinton is guilty of attempted Fascism? LOL Answer the question.
When the vice president is asking congress for specific permission for the CIA to commit torture after the revelations came out, I'd say its pretty probable.
Another bald faced lie. Present the exact wording where the VP specifically asked for "torture" to be carried out by the CIA.
There are also explicit captives who have claimed torture, including a German man who was mistakenly kidnapped by the CIA. As for redefinition, I posted a lengthy article about so-called 'soft-torture', its one of the most brutal forms known to man.
And this just goes to show your bias once again. You are more willing to believe an uncorroborated source and accept his definition of torture than the current government. How do you know he is not lying Reflex? Why do you assume it's the US without evidence to support the claim?
The Nazi and Soviet regiems routinely kidnapped those both domestic and abroad who they felt were a threat to their reign, or simply to keep people living in fear of what might happen to them should they step out of line. A key tactic was to kidnap the innocent because then everyone would wonder what they did and stay extra careful going forward. I already mentioned the German case, however the CIA has since admitted to over 100 such kidnappings per year since 2001. Newsweek had an excellent article about it a couple weeks ago, you may wish to look it up.
So you have no proof that Bush did this you accuse him of. I understand. Sad but predictable.
There is no evidence you presented at all that said Bush ordered his imprisonment was a kidnapping.
Obviously unprovable in the absolute sense.
So why make the accusation unless you have a specific bias? You are becoming increasingly transparent.
However when so many things he has claimed steadfastly have turned out to be factually incorrect, or supported only by part of the evidence a pattern can begin to emerge. At some point a person has to wonder why much of what the president says turns out not to be true in the long run and then question if he is really as ignorant as he is making himself out to be.
So you have no evidence. Just suspicion based on biasness. I understand.
As for how it fits into Fascism, its a tactic both Hitler and Stalin used extensively, problems were blamed on "the Jews", "the Gypsies", "the Bolschevists", "traitors and spys", "Zionist terrorists", etc. These claims were usually based in 'facts', ie: a few random specific examples that could be partially or fully verified, but which were mis-represented to imply that an entire group or class of people were responsible. This tactic has been used extensively by fascist regiems througout the 20th century.
Yet you have ZERO evidence Bush did it! LOL You really do post just to fuel your own ego don't you? No evidence whatsoever that your charge was true yet you are more than willing to give everyone a history lesson even though you already admitted you can't prove it
They just announced an investigation into the wiretapping leak, despite the fact that someone was being patriotic by revealing illegal government activity. This one is the most obvious and recent event. In Germany in the 30's if government officials revealed Nazi misdeeds they would be investigated, their career ruined and eventually arrested or worse.
So once again you have no proof just suspicion and other ego driven history lesson. How sadly predictable.
Mistreating a woman who has provided years of service to the country simply because her husband has political views that are not in line with the current administration?
Right! Because he never lied about what he discovered did he? LOL So in your world, Bush can't defend himself on this issue without being fascist. LOL Go on, throw another straw man accusation and run away from the point again.
Oftentimes in fascist regiems historically agents and spys were 'outed' when it was convenient for the administration to discredit or punish them or their associates for political views that were against the current ruling party in any way. As for Clinton, its not the topic at hand, criticizing Bush does not mean I am praising Clinton, only that I am criticizing Bush. I will note however that I do not remember the Clinton administration ever outing a CIA agent due to thier partner's political views.
Ah another ego driven history lesson. And it has already been proven that she was "outed" at parties by her husband and its also a fact she was NOT under cover but working in the US which is exactly why no one has been charged with "outing" her illegally. Once again, your biasness overrides the factual evidence.
I already provided my list, you can choose to disagree with my interpretation of course, but you asked me to list what seemed fascist to me and I did so. As for whether or not other presidents have done things I disagree with is irrelevant. In order to criticize Bush's actions I do not have to at the same time praise all previous presidents. I have disagreed with many for their actions, and as it turns out, Bush has been at least as bad as the worst of them from what I have seen so far. That does not mean I am praising previous administrations, only that I am criticizing the one that is currently in power for these actions. Feel free to attack me as a hypocrit if I do not do likewise should the next administration behave similarly.
I also asked for evidence and you had none. Your interpretation is not evidence. She does not qualify for the law you claim was broken so that is another false charge on your part.
Your quote from the law is not the entire thing, as pointed out by others its only a snippet and even it does not say what you seem to think it does. Some of the people on this forum are lawyers you know, and they do not read it how you seem to either I might add. As for how I fit under the catagory of Conservative, I follow the ideals set out by Thomans Jefferson, John Adams, and others rather than trying to be a part of the 'winning team' whether or not it is detrimental to the nation and its people.
Yet you cannot define those beliefs when asked. Another dodge in an already very shaken posting.
Once again I ask: How would you have felt if this had been President Hillary and all this wiretapping nonsense had come out? I guarantee the Republicans would hae raised hell(and rightfully so).
I never said they wouldn't. But I will stay away from the cheap label you throw out in these circumstances because it doesn't go to the argument.
If she had done it and had explained it was to combat terrorists and NO evidence was given to prove her wrong, in a time of war, I would trust her as I did Clinton in Kosovo and I did condemn anyone who criticized him for going to war once we were there because it hurts our troops and fuels our enemies.
That is something you keep forgetting when you base your accusations on assumptions and allow your bias to form your opinion when facts are not available to do so.