25 has the point: Stop listening to your preferred talking heads opinions on the "other" side, and think about what policies and procedures these people are actually debating over?
Stop thinking that its to "defeat terrorism," a phrase as meaningless and filled with unspoken lies as the phrase "its for the children."
Every time another power is given to the executive branch (stop thinking of it as "President Bush" or anything partisan) its another loss of the system of checks and balances.
Look beyond single issues to whole packages, and stop selling your support down the line for a supposed stance on a single issue.
Today, your Republican President G. W. Bush is wiretapping citizens without warrants, is imprisioning people beyond the reach of the law, and endorsing the use of interrogation techniques that before 2001 would've been considered torture by most reasonable Americans. He does this all to defeat terrorism, a vague goal that promises to NEVER be acheived.
Tomorrow, will it be your Democratic President H. R. Clinton? Will she be wiretapping and imprisioning Americans and those abroad beyond the reach of our law and so many other new powers that the current executive branch has wrestled away from the legislative branch? How will that affect you, then? What about when she says that its for the safety of the children? Better point the "Uniformed Secret Service" boys towards the "underground militias" who's members congregate on secretive Internet message boards under coded handles and discuss their arsenels, tactics for the attack and defence from others, and refine the accuracy and killing power of their high-power sniper rifles and assault weapons. Its OK, though, because you know, other, previous, presidents exercised the same power, so if they could, I mean POTUS Clinton can to, right? I mean, we're at war with something, and at "war" then clearly the executive branch can overstep its bounds and do what it needs to, y'know.. for the children.
And in 2016 when we get another president, who knows where he'll stand? With the increasing divide in America, the us versus them attitudes prevelent among us all and encouraged and stoked by our talking heads, who knows what will follow? Maybe it will be the Socialist nightmare you all invision, or the theocracy that others do? Maybe we'll finally get our first, true, American dictator and those final barriers will come down. Will it be for the children, or against the terrorists or something else? Who'll care, it won't matter, it's all lost.
Because we, now and for the last 8 or so years, gave up trying to do something that's right and instead participated in the rising chorus of attacks. And does it matter who started it first? No, because none of us have bothered to stop.
We haven't sunken to a complete farce of our republic, yet. We're still not, officially, voting on El Presidente for life or setting up dynasties to rule us based solely on their breeding.
Well, we're working on that last count, and not just the Bush family, either.
gfen.
Stop thinking that its to "defeat terrorism," a phrase as meaningless and filled with unspoken lies as the phrase "its for the children."
Every time another power is given to the executive branch (stop thinking of it as "President Bush" or anything partisan) its another loss of the system of checks and balances.
Look beyond single issues to whole packages, and stop selling your support down the line for a supposed stance on a single issue.
Today, your Republican President G. W. Bush is wiretapping citizens without warrants, is imprisioning people beyond the reach of the law, and endorsing the use of interrogation techniques that before 2001 would've been considered torture by most reasonable Americans. He does this all to defeat terrorism, a vague goal that promises to NEVER be acheived.
Tomorrow, will it be your Democratic President H. R. Clinton? Will she be wiretapping and imprisioning Americans and those abroad beyond the reach of our law and so many other new powers that the current executive branch has wrestled away from the legislative branch? How will that affect you, then? What about when she says that its for the safety of the children? Better point the "Uniformed Secret Service" boys towards the "underground militias" who's members congregate on secretive Internet message boards under coded handles and discuss their arsenels, tactics for the attack and defence from others, and refine the accuracy and killing power of their high-power sniper rifles and assault weapons. Its OK, though, because you know, other, previous, presidents exercised the same power, so if they could, I mean POTUS Clinton can to, right? I mean, we're at war with something, and at "war" then clearly the executive branch can overstep its bounds and do what it needs to, y'know.. for the children.
And in 2016 when we get another president, who knows where he'll stand? With the increasing divide in America, the us versus them attitudes prevelent among us all and encouraged and stoked by our talking heads, who knows what will follow? Maybe it will be the Socialist nightmare you all invision, or the theocracy that others do? Maybe we'll finally get our first, true, American dictator and those final barriers will come down. Will it be for the children, or against the terrorists or something else? Who'll care, it won't matter, it's all lost.
Because we, now and for the last 8 or so years, gave up trying to do something that's right and instead participated in the rising chorus of attacks. And does it matter who started it first? No, because none of us have bothered to stop.
We haven't sunken to a complete farce of our republic, yet. We're still not, officially, voting on El Presidente for life or setting up dynasties to rule us based solely on their breeding.
Well, we're working on that last count, and not just the Bush family, either.
gfen.
