PhilinYuma
Well-known member
This is the third time that I have tried to post on this thread . The two previous attempts were "disappeared" by Ron Paul, Precarious, or a "proud Republican". Who can say, but I'll make this short and not check my facts!.
The opening quotation from Tully's Philippics is particularly apropriate to the discussion since it adresses the overreaching of governmental (senatorial) power and Anthony's attempt to elevate Julius Caesar to emperor "You all did see howon the Luperchal I thrice presented him a kingly crown" from "The Empire Strikes Back"). The rhetoric is great, but Cicero was not a very consistent politician and he paid with his life for his opposition to Anthoy, something that I hope is not likely to happen to Precarious.
The NDAA ammendment was proposed by both a Republican and Democratic senator and passed overwhelmingly in both houses. to pretend that this is Obama's law is absurd.
Obama's original objectiion to signing off on the law was that the White House saw the codification of the ammendment as a threat to presidential power. There have been many proponents of a strong presidency aside from George Bush(he was a Republican. President Obama is a Democrat for anyone who may be missing the point) and presidents from both parties in the past, such as Teddy Roosevelt ® and Harry Truman (D) have embraced this view of the presidency, so Obama is hardly espousing something new, here.
I do find, though, that Obama has reneged on the spirit of his campaign promises here, but while I personally find this contemptible, I am aware that it is a coomonplace for US presidents. Obama's predecessor, G. Bush did exactly the same with oil caps.
While most posters were content to make anti Obama comments which revealed more about their ignorance of the situation than anything else, Precarious at least suggested a saviour for our problem, even though his savior was none other than Ron Paul, fresh from a promising (or not) third place finish in the first Republican caucus.
There are two problems here. The most obvious is that his chances of changing the NDAA ammendment in the face of such overwhelming bipartisan support are just about nil. Republicans thought that Bush would get Rowe versus Wade repealed. Democrats thought that Obama would reduce greenhouse emissions. Sorry folks. You actually trusted the promises of a politician?
The second problem is with the idea of Paul becoming president. He might not repeal the NDAA, but surely he would take a crack at the Equal Rights Act? He has consistently and emphatically opposed it before and after its passing on the grounds that it did not achieve racial harmony. And I, in my ignorance, thought that it was designed to create equal living, educational, and employment conditions for blacks and whites.
As an MD, he has laid the blame for AIDS firmly on the backs of the sufferers, which he claims is a result of their naughty life style. Do we want a president who belives this? And do we want a president whose newletters contained racial slurs in the first person? When this issue was raised at the last election, he said that the rematks were taken out of context (heard that one before?). Now he says that he said that to avoid "confusing' the elctorate and that he had never made the remarks at all and that they were the work of "ghpst writers".. Would you let folks put out views that you opposed in a newsletter bearing your name without recalling or retracting them? Apparently Dr. Paul would.
Also, Sporeworld, in what is a no doubt a sincerely intended statement, quotes Dr Paul's comment that the ammendment puts the US under "martial law", a comment endorsed by Mark Udall (D) (have i got that right? politics is a family business with that clan. Mo, I think was the daddy.). What is their qualification for such profound comments? Dr Paul is an MD and Mark Udall got a bachelors in "American Civilization" (something that would have made Oscar Wilde laugh uproariously) so it seems that rhetoric aside, neither is qualified to make such a statement, though claims that abortion and the clubbing of baby seals are "murder" gives some license for such absurd exageration.
Finally, have you thought why this pathetic, nasty piece of legislation was so widely accepted by both parties? Since WWII, American poliicians have had a slew of foreign foes with which to terrorize us and support the Military Industrial Comples (Eienhouer's words, remember?). First there were the nasty Commies with their batallions of fictitious tanks ready to wipe out the Allies in Europe (and don't forget how McCarthy helped us to expose the threat at home), and then their were the "proxy wars" in Korea and South Vietnam. It has been said that we lost the latter and at best tied the former, but they were great for justifying military spending, so all was not lost. Now with our withdrawal from Iraq, where we saved the Civilized World from the threat of weapons of mass destruction (O.K. so they were imaginary, but they might have been real) and a pointless war in Afghanistan while our "friends and allies" in Pakistan were sheltering Osama bin Lauden, which will soon come to a close. So how can we justify more modest military spending consistent with the fact that we are up to our necks in international debt? Homeland Security! That's the ticket! We have become much more sophisticated in how to spend a federal dollar in home defence since Sacco and Vanzetti (I daren't check the spelling!) raised the dreaded spector of Anarchism nearly 100 years ago.
And that's it. Be cheered by the fact that as an alien, I stand a much greater chance of being held incommunicando than you US citizens, but I promise that I shall rat on each and every one of you if I think that it will help my case.
The opening quotation from Tully's Philippics is particularly apropriate to the discussion since it adresses the overreaching of governmental (senatorial) power and Anthony's attempt to elevate Julius Caesar to emperor "You all did see howon the Luperchal I thrice presented him a kingly crown" from "The Empire Strikes Back"). The rhetoric is great, but Cicero was not a very consistent politician and he paid with his life for his opposition to Anthoy, something that I hope is not likely to happen to Precarious.
The NDAA ammendment was proposed by both a Republican and Democratic senator and passed overwhelmingly in both houses. to pretend that this is Obama's law is absurd.
Obama's original objectiion to signing off on the law was that the White House saw the codification of the ammendment as a threat to presidential power. There have been many proponents of a strong presidency aside from George Bush(he was a Republican. President Obama is a Democrat for anyone who may be missing the point) and presidents from both parties in the past, such as Teddy Roosevelt ® and Harry Truman (D) have embraced this view of the presidency, so Obama is hardly espousing something new, here.
I do find, though, that Obama has reneged on the spirit of his campaign promises here, but while I personally find this contemptible, I am aware that it is a coomonplace for US presidents. Obama's predecessor, G. Bush did exactly the same with oil caps.
While most posters were content to make anti Obama comments which revealed more about their ignorance of the situation than anything else, Precarious at least suggested a saviour for our problem, even though his savior was none other than Ron Paul, fresh from a promising (or not) third place finish in the first Republican caucus.
There are two problems here. The most obvious is that his chances of changing the NDAA ammendment in the face of such overwhelming bipartisan support are just about nil. Republicans thought that Bush would get Rowe versus Wade repealed. Democrats thought that Obama would reduce greenhouse emissions. Sorry folks. You actually trusted the promises of a politician?
The second problem is with the idea of Paul becoming president. He might not repeal the NDAA, but surely he would take a crack at the Equal Rights Act? He has consistently and emphatically opposed it before and after its passing on the grounds that it did not achieve racial harmony. And I, in my ignorance, thought that it was designed to create equal living, educational, and employment conditions for blacks and whites.
As an MD, he has laid the blame for AIDS firmly on the backs of the sufferers, which he claims is a result of their naughty life style. Do we want a president who belives this? And do we want a president whose newletters contained racial slurs in the first person? When this issue was raised at the last election, he said that the rematks were taken out of context (heard that one before?). Now he says that he said that to avoid "confusing' the elctorate and that he had never made the remarks at all and that they were the work of "ghpst writers".. Would you let folks put out views that you opposed in a newsletter bearing your name without recalling or retracting them? Apparently Dr. Paul would.
Also, Sporeworld, in what is a no doubt a sincerely intended statement, quotes Dr Paul's comment that the ammendment puts the US under "martial law", a comment endorsed by Mark Udall (D) (have i got that right? politics is a family business with that clan. Mo, I think was the daddy.). What is their qualification for such profound comments? Dr Paul is an MD and Mark Udall got a bachelors in "American Civilization" (something that would have made Oscar Wilde laugh uproariously) so it seems that rhetoric aside, neither is qualified to make such a statement, though claims that abortion and the clubbing of baby seals are "murder" gives some license for such absurd exageration.
Finally, have you thought why this pathetic, nasty piece of legislation was so widely accepted by both parties? Since WWII, American poliicians have had a slew of foreign foes with which to terrorize us and support the Military Industrial Comples (Eienhouer's words, remember?). First there were the nasty Commies with their batallions of fictitious tanks ready to wipe out the Allies in Europe (and don't forget how McCarthy helped us to expose the threat at home), and then their were the "proxy wars" in Korea and South Vietnam. It has been said that we lost the latter and at best tied the former, but they were great for justifying military spending, so all was not lost. Now with our withdrawal from Iraq, where we saved the Civilized World from the threat of weapons of mass destruction (O.K. so they were imaginary, but they might have been real) and a pointless war in Afghanistan while our "friends and allies" in Pakistan were sheltering Osama bin Lauden, which will soon come to a close. So how can we justify more modest military spending consistent with the fact that we are up to our necks in international debt? Homeland Security! That's the ticket! We have become much more sophisticated in how to spend a federal dollar in home defence since Sacco and Vanzetti (I daren't check the spelling!) raised the dreaded spector of Anarchism nearly 100 years ago.
And that's it. Be cheered by the fact that as an alien, I stand a much greater chance of being held incommunicando than you US citizens, but I promise that I shall rat on each and every one of you if I think that it will help my case.
