Something that really scares me

[Bustaballs]

While Celvantes speaks the truth about the spin in the articles on that executive order, you can not put anything past this administration. The order is very vague, just as the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act are and we've seen a huge number of examples of this administration interpreting various vague legislation in their own way and getting away with it. I don't expect this to be a huge step toward a police state, but I don't really see anything positive coming from it.

 

[smalls]

in other news the president has also made it illegal to kill ppl. this really scares me because i am afraid that criminals will be put in jail. also it puts a damper on my plans to kill ppl.

 

[Halifirien]

At least when you're accused of murder you get a trial and can appeal the verdict...

 

[Tok]

although i am against anything that has to do with the iraq war and i do highly believe that we shouldnt be interfering with a war between religious sects that have been waging this war for far longer then we have been a country...i do however agree with the reasoning behind this executive order, if you take the tools and resources away from a terrorist it makes them harder to commit terrorist acts...

honestly if ur not directly helping al quaida (sp?) then i really dont think u should be worrying about this

(this makes me think tho, was it the patriot act that said if you suspect someone of being a terrorist or having terrorist connections that you can turn them in to the FBI and they would be investigated? wouldnt that mean that you could turn someone in under the patriot act and have their stuff ganked under this new order? someone correct me please)

 

[Halifirien]

i do however agree with the reasoning behind this executive order, if you take the tools and resources away from a terrorist it makes them harder to commit terrorist acts...

If it's that vital to "The Global War on Terror," I don't see any reason why this should be an Executive Order and not a bill debated in Congress and placed to a vote by both houses and then signed into law by King George. But, hey... whatever makes it easier to do whatever the hell he wants, right?

 

[Tok]

let the boy have his fun, he only has one more year

as long as he doesnt put out an executive order that states that all non christian non republican americans are to be jailed for not being of the same parties as him and his kind then im not worried about the stuff he does

 

[Halifirien]

Shhh! Don't give him any ideas!

"Wish them into the cornfield, Georgie! Oh, that's good. That's real good that you did that, Georgie!"

 

[Celvantes]

Necro'ing because I've been gone for a while and couldn't respond.

You'd keep the military for like, a generation, at which point you wouldn't be able to pay for it.

Also, where do you expect people like me to live? I don't really fit into the current definition of conservative. You'd need to make a kind of Goldwater Island off to the right for me to live on with the classical liberals who think Hillary is a socialist (which she kind of is).

It's been a while since I've delved into the stats, but roughly 75% of US *personal* taxes (not corporate) are paid by about 30% of the population. This makes sense that you pay a higher percentage as your income goes up. Well guess what... the "rich white republican" stereotype isn't far off. Republicans generally fill the wealthier echelons of the country and at least for income taxes, it's registered Republicans who bear the majority of the tax burden. Is it any wonder Republicans always run on a "let's lower taxes" platform and Democrats run on a "let's tax the rich" platform?

Something tells me we could afford our portion of the military if we split. I know Rupert Murdoch would help foot part of the bill.

As far as where you'd live... well, people moved after the Mason-Dixon line came into effect. =P

This "stage show" is meant to find out how badly Team Bush fucked up and what rules they broke. Congress has legitimate oversight authority -- I'd like to see them pull Gonzales' funding for the bullshit he's pulled. As much as Bush would like it to be true, he's not the king of America.

The case-types the President made important involved making sure Democrats lost elections, Celvantes. That's overtly political and a perversion of what the attorneys are supposed to be doing. Being a political appointee doesn't mean you're supposed to do everything the President tells you.

After six years of rubber-stamp Congress putting party all else, I'm glad the Dems are going after them. I look forward to seeing Gonzales hauled out of office for perjury, and I look forward to Harriet Miers and what's-his-name slapped with contempt of Congress. Karl Rove can make my year by refusing to honor the subpoena and setting himself up for a similar charge.

Again - Team Bush as you call it exercised their rightful constitutional control over the Executive Branch. Control over which the legislature does *not* have oversight. If this investigation is legal, any branch could "investigate" any other branch with impunity. If I were the President, I'd start an investigation over congressional "earmarks" (also known as pork barrel spending) just to make a point. President doesn't have oversight over Congressional functions (only approval authority on bills), and the Congress doesn't have oversight over Executive functions. The ONLY exception is impeachment. Until you say the "I" word, GTFO.

And if they investigate the firing of these 9 attorneys, they'd better go back and do an investigation of when House Clinton fired ALL of them (conveniently getting rid of a Whitewater investigation in the process).

Those refusing Congressional suponeas have the balls to do their job right. The Congress is a legislature, not a bloody court.

Also, aside from non-permanent tax reductions, the "rubber-stamp congress" didn't do jack shit (this coming from a Republican). If *I'm* bitching, there's nothing *you* should be bitching about because they didn't advance the conservative agenda one damned bit when they should have picked up the torch and run with it as far as they could.

Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid is still a mess. I pay 7% of my income (about $3,000) a year into a broken system that will never give it back to me. If I were to put that in a SAVINGS ACCOUNT, I could generate over a million dollars before I retire. This broken system, mind you, consumes more taxpayer money than the ENTIRE defense budget.

The borders are a freaking joke. Forget the billions we pay on government services to PEOPLE WHO AREN'T AMERICANS, the security issue alone should have you afraid.

Our public school system sucks. Private schools getting less money than we give our public schools do a better job because there's actually an impetus for teachers to do well because they have to COMPETE for business. No Child Left Behind was a start, but it drove teachers to teach the test rather than to teach excellence.

Personally, I don't give a damn about the social aspects of Conservatism vs. Liberalism. Let gays marry, allow abortion, fine. Fix the finances of this country and keep it safe, that's all I ask. Get the basics right before you deal with social issues.

(this makes me think tho, was it the patriot act that said if you suspect someone of being a terrorist or having terrorist connections that you can turn them in to the FBI and they would be investigated? wouldnt that mean that you could turn someone in under the patriot act and have their stuff ganked under this new order? someone correct me please)

You would have to show someone to be materially aiding the enemy in a foreign country (like Iraq) in order to turn them in under this executive order. You couldn't just name names and watch them get their stuff taken.

I would assume the executive order was made to plug a loophole left by legislative law that wouldn't be plugged anytime soon by Congress.

If it's that vital to "The Global War on Terror," I don't see any reason why this should be an Executive Order and not a bill debated in Congress and placed to a vote by both houses and then signed into law by King George. But, hey... whatever makes it easier to do whatever the hell he wants, right?

Congress is slow and inefficient, as it was designed to be in the Constitution. This order takes the place of law as a means of plugging a loophole until the Congress legislates a permanent fix. This is the purpose of executive orders. Federal law will trump it when the Congress gets around to dealing with the issue.

As for your last statement, Hali, that just breathes ignorance. C'mon - I respect your skills as a debator. You're better than that.

 

[Valoran]

I think the problem I have with the order is the "or to pose a significant risk of committing" language. If this were explicated by a statistical process they intend to use, that'd be one thing. As it stands, it could be a significant risk to let a democratic congressman vote against funding. That could be interpreted to threaten stability. Not likely, but possible.

The problem with the possibles is that Bush, like a number of other presidents, is trying to strengthen the Executive branch to the exclusion of the other branches as much as possible. It's been done, it's been undone; people have varying views on how important it is for the country to have strong executive vs. legislative vs. judicial branches.

I personally find the idea of the branch that consolidates the maximum amount of power into the hands of the fewest people to be an undemocratic impulse. I firmly believe that politics should be effected by politicians -- people who have training for government -- as opposed to putting any random decision to a total popular vote, but I do think that John Stuart Mill was right when he suggested that the way to reach a good decision is to have voices in conflict work towards a solution.

When historians look at the war in Iraq, what will they compare it to? Vietnam seems far and away the most likely analogue to me. What good will they say is to come of it? Democracy cannot be forced on a people. It is antithetical to itself. If "nationbuilding" consists of putting those people in power who are sympathetic to democracy, then it is merely tyranny from outside. The power depends on the support of overwhelming external force, so it cannot be democratically elected. Ironically, the will of the local population in these cases seems to be NOT to have the installed sympathizers to democracy. This is cultural imperialism, and we have the guns.

I don't know if US foreign policy has an ethical choice any longer: leaving will generate a power vacuum that will definitely have damaging consequences, and staying is just shoring up that vacuum for a more dramatic fall when we lose interest as a nation. We are not the rightful arbiters of the Iraqi government.