How long are you going to accept, excuse and defend the erosion of our rights, the corruption and incompetence of the Bush administration?


Defending the torture, rendering [kidnapping] and detention of people who have not been charged is un-American and anti-Christian.


[Edited on January 12, 2006 at 2:26 PM. Reason : /]

1/12/2006 2:26:27 PM

well, shit, if you're going to edit

[Edited on January 12, 2006 at 2:27 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2006 2:27:21 PM

you're not getting away with that edit:

Quote :

"If voting machines remained rigged, the media remains silent, and americans remain ignorant, I see no other option than to take up arms against our gov't or move to another country."

go right ahead. you're too much of a pussy to pick up a gun, so why don't you move someplace better?

like you could find one.

[Edited on January 12, 2006 at 2:28 PM. Reason : *]

1/12/2006 2:28:03 PM

I meant to delete the news story.

I'll stand by the taking up arms against tyranny.

1/12/2006 2:36:52 PM

You'll never take up arms, hippy.

The most that you will do is hold a free music festival.

1/12/2006 2:42:29 PM

I'd have to have my great-great-grandappy's gun restored.

1/12/2006 2:59:04 PM

thats cute

1/12/2006 3:01:36 PM

I have a gun. Does that make me a hippy or a pussy?

1/12/2006 3:13:45 PM

that gun wouldn't have the power to kill a fly

1/12/2006 3:14:21 PM

Quote :

"How long are you going to accept, excuse and defend the erosion of our rights, the corruption and incompetence of the Bush administration? Defending the torture, rendering [kidnapping] and detention of people who have not been charged is un-American and anti-Christian. "

1/12/2006 3:17:23 PM

Quote :

"You'll never take up arms, hippy. The most that you will do is hold a free music festival."

1/12/2006 3:22:45 PM

How long are you going to keep being a sniveling whining pussy?

1/12/2006 3:23:18 PM

Quote :

"How long are you going to accept, excuse and defend the erosion of our rights, the corruption and incompetence of the Bush administration?"

I do not and I doubt many on this board would do so. I bet everyone on this board knows of something they did not appreciate Bushy doing.

That said, I'm too busy with the armed rebellion currently underway against the city of Clayton (the city has siezed control over electricity distribution and has raised rates 30%-50% above the rate charged by Progress Energy, their form of taxation I presume, a sick joke I fear).

Wait for the next round of primaries. The Republicans are going to revolt against the Bush types.

1/12/2006 5:38:14 PM

Exactly the moment he posted the picture of that gun I realized that pryderi hasn't intended anything he's ever done on this board to be taken seriously under any circumstances.

1/12/2006 6:29:54 PM

^^ Why so optimistic?

1/12/2006 8:42:31 PM

Because that is what parties do when an unpopular president finishes, his party pretends he never happened. They're not going to rebel, the word is a little too strong. More likely, they'll just go a radically different way and hope no one notices.

1/12/2006 10:11:43 PM

Quote :

"Exactly the moment he posted the picture of that gun I realized that pryderi hasn't intended anything he's ever done on this board to be taken seriously under any circumstances"

Why? Because I'm not in that little compartment you've consigned me to in your brain?

1/13/2006 3:14:34 AM

No.

Because nobody who was serious would:

a) Boastfully claim to be on the verge of violent revoltion while simultaneously showing no real signs of actually preparing for the same, and/or
b) Post a picture of an ancient and barely-if-at-all functional piece of hunting armament as a "real sign" of said preparation

You're a bitch-made little punk, no different from the thousands of others who swear up and down that they're about to flee the country or take up arms. You ain't gonna do shit. You'll stay here because it's still better than so many of the alternatives, which is the same reason (on top of your basic cowardice) that you're not about to shoot anybody.

You're self-interested just like every-goddamn-body else, and at the end of the day all your professed idealism is secondary to your own direct, personal benefit.

But if I really meant any of that, it would just be succumbing to your joke, which, while elaborate, is increasingly transparent.

1/13/2006 3:24:28 AM

Does calling someone a coward on the internet really mean anything?

Moving away from yet another one of your ad-hominem attacks, do you care to comment on my view of the state of our country?

1/13/2006 3:31:12 AM

Quote :

"Does calling someone a coward on the internet really mean anything?"

Nope.

In that respect, it is very much like threatening to take up arms or flee the country.

Quote :

"do you care to comment on my view of the state of our country?"

Certainly.

I think that in many wartime situations before, civil liberties have been infringed upon to various extents, and they have always been reinstated afterwords. The effect of this process has not been visibly negative.

During the Revolutionary War, we tarred and feathered (and occasionally did worse) to British loyalists. We punished them for their beliefs -- hardly an American principle. But we won that war, and our freedom, and afterwords things returned to at least a very close approximation of our ideals at that time.

During the Civil War we suspended habeas corpus. We won the Civil War, and habeas corpus came back in full. The result is that nowadays we have a very strong union in which minority groups have equal rights (or, at the very least, rights far closer to equal). Perhaps the suspension was unecessary, but I can see how, at the time, things might appear otherwise.

During WWII we threw Germans and Japanese into internment camps. It was, quite probably, a ludicrous choice of action that need not have been taken and which was therefore a completely and unequivocably unjustifiable course of action. At the same time, there was no substantial German or Japanese spying going on in the United States during the war, after which everybody was released and subsequently became functioning parts of America just like everybody else.

In all of these situations, the media and the people at large have scarcely complained.

The point is this -- we have occasionally had to make brief sacrifices of liberty for its greater preservation. Perhaps these are not always (or even ever) necessary sacrifices. But the people -- the same people that give the government the right to rule in the first place -- have agreed at the time, in substantial proportion, that they are preferable to the likely alternative.

Do I think that such is a desirable outcome? Of course not. If I had my way, nobody would ever threaten our borders or our freedom or any such. As it happens, I don't have that choice. So if you ask me, "Will I slightly resrict a few civil liberties for a little while to preserve all civil liberties, completely, and for a long while...then the answer is yes. I think we should maintain the highest level of scrutiny and suspicion of such policies while they are in place -- such is the best gaurantee that they will go away as soon as possible.

Now watch someone quote Benjamin "I owned slaves even though I was against slavery" Franklin.

HOWEVER, that being said...

There are those things that I can possibly accept, assuming the government has generally been telling us the truth about certain issues. If we have to make a guy stand up and listen to rock music for a few days, that I can deal with. If we have to listen in on American phone calls, that I can -- to a lesser extent -- possibly deal with.

Notice I never said that I automatically assume that this or any other government is telling the truth. I simply said that if they were on all relevant counts, I could accept certiain actions. But, in order to convince me those actions are wrong, you have to first convince me that I'm getting fed nothing but a vicious pack of lies.

But if I actually had any reason to believe that voting machines were rigged, we'd both be shooting the government together. As it happens, I've seen -zero- evidence of this activity, so I'm going to ignore it altogether. Except for that sentence, and this one explaining it.

[Edited on January 13, 2006 at 4:06 AM. Reason : I can easily predict the response to this post]

[Edited on January 13, 2006 at 4:12 AM. Reason : ]

1/13/2006 4:02:31 AM

Wow, GrumpyGOP, I have not agreed with you to such an extent ever before. Brilliantly written, might you adapt it to Tenchician submission?

1/13/2006 4:30:24 PM

Quote :

"Certainly. I think that in many wartime situations before, civil liberties have been infringed upon to various extents, and they have always been reinstated afterwords. The effect of this process has not been visibly negative. During the Revolutionary War, we tarred and feathered (and occasionally did worse) to British loyalists. We punished them for their beliefs -- hardly an American principle. But we won that war, and our freedom, and afterwords things returned to at least a very close approximation of our ideals at that time."

It's funny you mention this, as I view you and other Bush defenders in the same light as our Patriot forefathers viewed the Loyalists. It's an argument that works against you.

The Loyalists were supporting and defending a monarch who was trampling on the rights of the governed.

Quote :

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."

Our "ideals at that time" came about because of oppression. By defending Bush, you're defending the trampling of our rights.

Quote :

"During the Civil War we suspended habeas corpus. We won the Civil War, and habeas corpus came back in full. The result is that nowadays we have a very strong union in which minority groups have equal rights (or, at the very least, rights far closer to equal). Perhaps the suspension was unecessary, but I can see how, at the time, things might appear otherwise. During WWII we threw Germans and Japanese into internment camps. It was, quite probably, a ludicrous choice of action that need not have been taken and which was therefore a completely and unequivocably unjustifiable course of action. At the same time, there was no substantial German or Japanese spying going on in the United States during the war, after which everybody was released and subsequently became functioning parts of America just like everybody else."

These examples just don't work in today's, "War on Terror". There is no real defined enemy with a standing army, borders and leaders. Except Osama bin Laden, whom Bush "doesn't really think about that much."

You say that putting Japanese and Germans into internment camps were a "ludicrous choice" and "completely and unequivicobaly unjustifiable", and yet you defend Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo detentions.

Quote :

"In all of these situations, the media and the people at large have scarcely complained. The point is this -- we have occasionally had to make brief sacrifices of liberty for its greater preservation. Perhaps these are not always (or even ever) necessary sacrifices. But the people -- the same people that give the government the right to rule in the first place -- have agreed at the time, in substantial proportion, that they are preferable to the likely alternative. Do I think that such is a desirable outcome? Of course not. If I had my way, nobody would ever threaten our borders or our freedom or any such. As it happens, I don't have that choice. So if you ask me, "Will I slightly resrict a few civil liberties for a little while to preserve all civil liberties, completely, and for a long while...then the answer is yes. I think we should maintain the highest level of scrutiny and suspicion of such policies while they are in place -- such is the best gaurantee that they will go away as soon as possible. "

When does the "War on Terror" end? What is the definition of victory? How will we know when it is over so we can reinstate our full enjoyment of civil liberties? The "War on Terror" is entering it's 5th year, with no end in sight. I say we stop spying on American citizens, repeal the "Patriot Act" and take real steps to protect our nation.

Besides, Bush didn't act on the legitimate intelligence he received in his August 2001 PDB informing him of bin Laden's impending attack.

Bush has proven his ineptitude in protecting American citizens. Look at the handling of the Katrina disaster by the Dept. of Homeland Security. Hiring unqualified cronies into important positions of power isn't making us safer.

Quote :

"Now watch someone quote Benjamin "I owned slaves even though I was against slavery" Franklin. HOWEVER, that being said... There are those things that I can possibly accept, assuming the government has generally been telling us the truth about certain issues. If we have to make a guy stand up and listen to rock music for a few days, that I can deal with. If we have to listen in on American phone calls, that I can -- to a lesser extent -- possibly deal with. Notice I never said that I automatically assume that this or any other government is telling the truth. I simply said that if they were on all relevant counts, I could accept certiain actions. But, in order to convince me those actions are wrong, you have to first convince me that I'm getting fed nothing but a vicious pack of lies."

The Bush administration has lied, and misled repeatedly. You're either very ill-informed or your blind Loyalist point of view keeps you from seeing the truth.

1/14/2006 3:13:21 AM

Pryderi, I'm pretty sure he had more than one person in mind when he said government.

GrumpyGOP, keep pwning.

1/14/2006 1:16:55 PM

Quote :

"Pryderi, I'm pretty sure he had more than one person in mind when he said government."

I guess I should have included the Republican run Congress as well as the Bush administration in my statement, since Republicans are the gov't at this point.

1/14/2006 1:43:58 PM

well, you seem to be fixated on Bush in pretty much everything I've read you type.

1/14/2006 1:50:17 PM

Well, that's because Bush puts out the initiatives, and Congress rubberstamps them. I guess that's why I fixate on Bush...because he sets the republican agenda which gets approved by the republican congress.

1/14/2006 2:02:23 PM

I get it. Congress members don't have a mind of their own.

1/14/2006 2:05:37 PM

^obviously you're being sarcastic. but we all to some extent it's true

1/14/2006 2:44:55 PM

Quote :

"Well, that's because Bush puts out the initiatives, and Congress rubberstamps them. I guess that's why I fixate on Bush...because he sets the republican agenda which gets approved by the republican congress"

I don't think this is very accurate. After all, if Bush really had that much control then we would already have social security reform among other things. It is my impression that Bush goes along with alot of crappy social programs and various other government pork just so he can retain the support of the congress for the war. The democrats and moderate(liberal) republicans do still have a fair amount of power, even if it is only in the form of being obstructionists. It would be nice if Bush was more fiscally conservative on government spending, veto some of that congressional nonsense once in a while.

1/14/2006 3:27:21 PM

Only one time has Congress stood up to this president. That was regarding torture which the president threatened to veto, finally signed, but said he would ignore the legislation.



[Edited on January 14, 2006 at 6:36 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2006 6:35:36 PM

There is that, of course there are also the numerous examples of pork spending which the president promises to veto, congress passes anyway, then the president signs and gives a speech about the importance of standing up for small government.

[Edited on January 14, 2006 at 8:45 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/14/2006 8:45:34 PM

Quote :

"I view you and other Bush defenders in the same light as our Patriot forefathers viewed the Loyalists."

Right. And you can tell how much you are the same, becaue when our Patriot forefathers had their rights trampled they posted about it on the internet. Lexington and Concord were famous web forums in 1775.

But more on point, our Patriot forefathers, sterling men most of them, did their fair share of rights trampling themselves with the goal of acheiving greater freedom later on. That's why I mentioned the tarring and feathering, etc.

Quote :

"Our "ideals at that time" came about because of oppression."

And ours now didn't?

Do you think that if Iraq were a functioning and peaceful democracy we ever would have invaded it or allowed the President to so much as allude to invading it? Do you honestly think we're such sheep that he could have gotten us to attack, say, Bangladesh or Mongolia?

Quote :

"There is no real defined enemy with a standing army, borders and leaders. Except Osama bin Laden"

We do have an enemy, or rather, a multitude of very similar enemies, in the form of various terrorist organizations.

They don't have a standing army, but that doesn't much matter, except insofar as it means that they do not qualify for most of the terms of various conventions regarding POW's, as it happens. Ditto borders.

And leaders they have. Many leaders, admittedly, but real and shootable ones.

Quote :

"You say that putting Japanese and Germans into internment camps were a "ludicrous choice" and "completely and unequivicobaly unjustifiable""

Actually, no.

I said they may have been those things.

And maybe, fifty years from now, everyone will say that about Gitmo. Probably they will. But looking back is easy as fuck. Deciding what to do right now with a bunch of people who largely fall outside of domestic and international law is a bit more difficult.

Quote :

"How will we know when it is over so we can reinstate our full enjoyment of civil liberties?"

It doesn't have to be over. We just have to reach the point when enough people say (as they always have), "OK, these measures are no longer necessary."

Admittedly, accepting this requires that you have some modicum of faith in the American people. MathFreak would never go for it, because he thinks we're not suitable as pets for neanderthals. Never mind the evidence -- that this sort of thing has happened before several times in America, and it's always righted itself.

Quote :

"The Bush administration has lied, and misled repeatedly"

This is probably true. But they haven't lied about everything. That's why I said, "assuming the government has been telling the truth about certain issues.

1/14/2006 9:35:50 PM

GrumpyGOP, again, I affirm full support of your stated points in this thread. However, I must point out, your tormentors have never demonstrated the ability to grasp such concepts. So go easy, and do not exert yourself too much over such individuals.

1/14/2006 11:21:40 PM

Quote :

"our Patriot forefathers, sterling men most of them, did their fair share of rights trampling themselves with the goal of acheiving greater freedom later on. That's why I mentioned the tarring and feathering, etc."

Right. They were attacking their oppressors and throwing off the bonds of tyranny. You post and defend the oppressors and criticize those who oppose today's tyrannies. Again, your Loyalist-Patriot argument undermines your own point of view.

Quote :

"And ours now didn't? Do you think that if Iraq were a functioning and peaceful democracy we ever would have invaded it or allowed the President to so much as allude to invading it? Do you honestly think we're such sheep that he could have gotten us to attack, say, Bangladesh or Mongolia?"

What business is it of ours if Iraq is a democracy or not? Why do you defend Bush depriving of our liberties, which are the foundation of our democracy, and extolling the virtues of democracy in Iraq? Sheer madness.

Quote :

"We do have an enemy, or rather, a multitude of very similar enemies, in the form of various terrorist organizations.They don't have a standing army, but that doesn't much matter, except insofar as it means that they do not qualify for most of the terms of various conventions regarding POW's, as it happens. Ditto borders. "

Again, spying/wiretapping on Americans without warrants is illegal. How does this help us defeat these terrorist organizations? If we give up our liberties, haven't the terrorists already won? I seem to remember that they supposedly "hate us for our freedoms".

Quote :

"And leaders they have. Many leaders, admittedly, but real and shootable ones."

Where's Osama? Saddam is not Osama. Saddam did not attack us.

Quote :

"Actually, no. I said they may have been those things. And maybe, fifty years from now, everyone will say that about Gitmo. Probably they will. But looking back is easy as fuck. Deciding what to do right now with a bunch of people who largely fall outside of domestic and international law is a bit more difficult."

<insert Santayana quote>

Quote :

"It doesn't have to be over. We just have to reach the point when enough people say (as they always have), "OK, these measures are no longer necessary.""

That won't happen if the gov't is keeping the citizens in a state of fear by using words like "mushroom clouds", and "brutal killers" are out to get us.

Quote :

" This is probably true. But they haven't lied about everything. That's why I said, "assuming the government has been telling the truth about certain issues."

What "certain issues" are important that our gov't doesn't lie about? Would lying about foreign treats in order to invade a nation qualify as a "certain issue" that you would be concerned about?



-pryderi

1/15/2006 11:33:03 AM

Quote :

"Would lying about foreign treats in order to invade a nation qualify"

haha... foreign treats.

That said, pryderi is currently Suspended. Let us all enforce his suspension, in the name of the almighty socialist government of TWW, by ignoring him until the authorities say we are free to do otherwise.

1/15/2006 12:05:55 PM

Suspended though he may be, I suppose I'll respond.

Quote :

"They were attacking their oppressors and throwing off the bonds of tyranny."

And in so doing they were oppressors themselves, were they not?

Quote :

"What business is it of ours if Iraq is a democracy or not?"

For me, personally, because I think it is the duty of every free man to work for the freedom of all men. I don't feel that, having acheived my own liberty, I can turn my back on the rest of the world and just enjoy myself until I die.

But for the country, because military dictatorships with huge armies, an expressed grudge against America and America's allies are threats to us, to be dealt with.

Quote :

"spying/wiretapping on Americans without warrants is illegal."

Yes, it is illegal. But that IN AND OF ITSELF does not make wiretapping wrong.

Quote :

"How does this help us defeat these terrorist organizations?"

This is the only area you have a leg to stand on, and I suggest that you focus your efforts accordingly. It's possible that, with the same information available to the President and others, any other idiot in the world would see that wiretapping was a bad plan.

Or...

It's possible that with access to that information in the panicked days after 9/11 almost anybody would wiretap the shit out of everybody.

Quote :

"If we give up our liberties, haven't the terrorists already won?"

I bet if we ask the terrorists, the terrorists would say, "No." They don't win until we give them what they want, which can be summed up as "Israel on a silver platter," although that's a simplification.

Though they may at times be fighting for their own independence, though, the terrorists and their leaders do indeed have at least a strong disdain for freedom. Notice how few suicide bombers are attacking Musharraf or the Saudi princes in an effort to get free elections.

Anyway, all that aside, I still disagree. If we chose to sacrifice some civil liberties, then we are, through that very act, exercising some important degree of freedom -- just like we will be when we chose to take our liberties back.

Quote :

"Where's Osama?"

I said that our enemy had leaders, not that I or anyone else knows where those leaders are.

Quote :

"Saddam did not attack us."

Bullshit he hasn't.

He didn't attack us on 9/11, and he might not have attacked us at all in recent years, but read up on your assassination attempts and the firing on American planes.

Quote :

"That won't happen if the gov't is keeping the citizens in a state of fear by using words like "mushroom clouds", and "brutal killers" are out to get us."

And here you illustrate my point exactly. You have absolutely no faith in the American people. In this respect you are like much of the left. You think we have to have our hands held through everything. If the government doesn't tell us what to do, we'll never figure it out on our own, right?

But, that said, there are brutal killers out to get us, and if they could manage it, they would use nuclear weapons.

Quote :

"Would lying about foreign treats in order to invade a nation qualify as a "certain issue" that you would be concerned about?"

I've covered this before at some length.

The case for the Iraq war involved LOTS of "certain issues." Bush lied about some of those to build support more quickly for a cause that I think will ultimately prove worth more than some lies and even a lot of deaths.

So are WMD's a "certain issue" that I care about? Not enough to sway my position, anyway.

What are some issues I care about? Let's see...

1) The wiretapping and spying might be acceptable if it is only targetting individuals who can reasonably be suspected of terrorism. If Bush is using it to listen in on Democratic election comittees or something, get rid of him immediately.
2) Same basic issue for arrests, detentions, and "tortures" abroad -- are they really being used judiciously or are we just locking up guys with cloths on their heads?
3) Is the search for Osama really being conducted to the best of the administration's (possibly limited) abilities?

Just for starters.

1/16/2006 4:24:14 PM

Quote :

"pryderi: Does calling someone a coward on the internet really mean anything?"

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Nope. In that respect, it is very much like threatening to take up arms or flee the country."

I LOL'd. A lot. And for a long time.

1/16/2006 4:45:38 PM

You know what's hillarious? I don't think I've ever made a post as lauded as my first one in this thread was (even if it was only lauded by like-minded people), but I was so drunk when I wrote it, I don't even remember posting it.

Normally its the sort of thing I wouldn't say because it wouldn't be worth the flaming.

But more importantly...

I don't think Bush is a particularly good President. He may be a bad one. Whatever the case, I think the final judgement will be magnified to an unrealistic extreme simply because of the circumstances surrounding his terms.

We were, at first, thrown into war by someone other than Dubya. I'm fairly secure in my belief that any of his subsequent foreign failures and successes will be viewed in terms of strategic decisions regarding that war. Domestically, I don't think he'll be known for much of anything. Say what you will about tax cuts, gay marriage, social security, and everything else -- for good or bad, they don't currently look like they'll have a lot of long-term significance.

The only domestic policies I steadfastly defend him on are working to help immigrants and entrenching capital punishment, both of which could have been done better, but were, at least, done. Everything else I don't know enough about to comment on, or I just plain don't support him.

But foreign affairs-wise (which seems to be what pryderi is largely concerned with), the same situation it taken to greater extreme. In principle, I think the War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq were good and right causes, though I think their executions were bungled, often horribly. The problem for someone in my position is that it seems unlikely that any other politician would/could take the same measures in any direction I agreed with. Certainly none of the Democratic candidates I saw. So basically, it's either take a half-assed, cluster-fucked Bush job, or no job at all. It's really quite difficult for me.

What I am certain of is that this reasoning, "Any erosion of any civil liberties for any duration at all is automatically reprehensible," is unacceptable, and it is also used in a completely self-serving way. The course of action has been taken before, often by very liberal Presidents (Lincoln and FDR leap to mind), and in those cases the left was not losing its shit nearly so much as it is now, when a conservative President tries the same. That could reflect a number of things, many of which do not speak negatively about liberals in general, but the point must still be made for us to have a reasonable conversation on the subject.

My last comment is this: I rather wish pryderi had not been suspended, but rather that some of his less-necessary threads had been deleted.

[Edited on January 16, 2006 at 10:58 PM. Reason : ]

1/16/2006 10:43:29 PM

^ I'll have whatever he was drinking.

1/16/2006 11:03:59 PM

That would be the cheapest rum available (Ronrigo), combined in a 1:1 ratio with coca-cola and ice. Consume with Basic Lights. Repeat as needed until you're as eloquent as you've ever been.

Speaking of which, it's time for another.

1/16/2006 11:13:31 PM

i blame cheese

1/18/2006 4:11:31 PM