A rare victory against Bush-Cheney Friendly Fascism - Page 8 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #71 of 85 (permalink) Old 07-03-2006, 10:41 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
azimuth's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
Your words made your position perfectly clear - no point in trying to patch it up now. It's interesting that you appear either cynical or deluded enough to believe that - even within our own democracy - the President acts unilaterally and as a totalitarian without any outcry or reprimand on the part of the congress or the wholly left-leaning mainstream media. You've gotta look pretty hard, at some pretty thin media, to come to the conclusions at which you've arrived. The truth is that many of the representatives you may hold in high regard (or their leaders are likely parties to any activity on behalf of the government in this regard. I'd do some homework for you, but that I know this to be factual and I'm too tired. You can start by looking at voting records, committee memberships, and the recommendations & findings thereof.

It's a big world out there...try not to make it seem so simple as "I'm right and you're wrong, go live someplace else." I'll go when Alec Baldwin and the other "ignorami" from Hollywood make good on their promises circa November 2004.

aborted Shop Forum member


Last edited by azimuth; 07-03-2006 at 10:43 PM.
azimuth is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #72 of 85 (permalink) Old 07-03-2006, 11:08 PM
CH4S Artist
 
Teutone's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 1985 500SEC, 1991 190E 2.6.
Location: Los Angeles / Hannover Germany
Posts: 33,551
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Quoted: 956 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Some people appear to have elevated self brain washing to a new artform. If I had to choose between the Pepsi/Coca Cola goverments, I would prefer to see a Republican President for foreign policy, and a Democratic President for domestic. If Clinton and Bush were leaders of industry, Bush would have been out of a job long ago. The Clinton Goverment, in its last three years, managed to reduce the then 5.7 trillion national debt by 360 billion. The U.S. national debt as of May 22nd 06 was 8.3 trillion, with the U.S owing 700 bio. to Japan, 200 bio. to China, even 171 bio. to England, just to name a few.
Teutone is offline  
post #73 of 85 (permalink) Old 07-03-2006, 11:34 PM
guage
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
post #74 of 85 (permalink) Old 07-03-2006, 11:44 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
Your words made your position perfectly clear - no point in trying to patch it up now. It's interesting that you appear either cynical or deluded enough to believe that - even within our own democracy - the President acts unilaterally and as a totalitarian without any outcry or reprimand on the part of the congress or the wholly left-leaning mainstream media. You've gotta look pretty hard, at some pretty thin media, to come to the conclusions at which you've arrived. The truth is that many of the representatives you may hold in high regard (or their leaders are likely parties to any activity on behalf of the government in this regard. I'd do some homework for you, but that I know this to be factual and I'm too tired. You can start by looking at voting records, committee memberships, and the recommendations & findings thereof.

It's a big world out there...try not to make it seem so simple as "I'm right and you're wrong, go live someplace else." I'll go when Alec Baldwin and the other "ignorami" from Hollywood make good on their promises circa November 2004.
I'll be the author of my position, and describe it as I see fit. Your desire to deflect the point of my comments is noted though.

This was a discussion about the value of individual rights of citizens granted by the Constitution/Bill of Rights, when I entered. And I brought the subject of outsourcing torture and other anti-Constitutional activities this President has engaged in, and then rallied his base to support after the fact. With peculiar logic that rigns of "the end justifies the means" and, generally, "What, we don't need no stinking Constitution now that we have our war on Terror!"

Your willingness to forfeit your rights to the government, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, was cited to highlight your outlook and contrast it with the outlook of the men who wrote the Constitution. Lets stay on topic. Are you willing to give up your Constitutional Rights to the Government? And what makes you think because you are willing to do so, we should follow suit because you think it is impractical for the Government to abuse its citizens once they give up those rights? I think the authors of the Constitution had it right. The Government needs limits on power and those limits need to be guarded and enforced. All that impractical argument means is you think it is ok for the Government to be lazy. Which is the fundamentally different characteristic of this administration compared to others - it is lazy. Too lazy to invest the effort needed in diplomacy. Too lazy to plan an invasion its aftermath. All explained away and forgiven when you hear the chorus of that now too familiar tune, Condi's Lament - "No one could have known.......(you fill in the fuck up)."

No QBNCGAR, I will not join you in turning over my rights for the expediency of a lazy ass administration I don't trust. Not that we should trust any administration with our rights - the authors of the Constitution sure didn't. This could sound familiar to the gun guys. Their argument is, owning a gun is a right graned by the Constitution and they are not willing to give it up. That attitude applies to all of our rights, equally.

So, I expect another declaration that my position has been compromised again, instead of a response on the subject of why any of us should believe it is time to rewrite the Bill of Rights. Or a discussion about how you believe the Government is the intended recipient of the rights described in the Bill of Rights. I am willing to listen, and even reread the Bill of Rights to see if I have missed something. As for those responsible for establishing the policy to transport prisoners to the 'Stans for outsourced torture, or to rewrite the instruction manuals for our soldiers to try to allow poorer standards of treatment, or tapping our phone lines and reviewing our phone records - I don't recall seeing any politicians I support in that crowd. Matter of fact, as I see it they are mostly appointees of the President. Jim

Last edited by JimSmith; 07-03-2006 at 11:49 PM.
JimSmith is offline  
post #75 of 85 (permalink) Old 07-04-2006, 07:11 AM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teutone
If Clinton and Bush were leaders of industry, Bush would have been out of a job long ago. The Clinton Goverment, in its last three years, managed to reduce the then 5.7 trillion national debt by 360 billion. The U.S. national debt as of May 22nd 06 was 8.3 trillion, with the U.S owing 700 bio. to Japan, 200 bio. to China, even 171 bio. to England, just to name a few.
Keep in mind that any President is rarely able to see the impact of their policies take form in the economy until after their terms have ended. Bill Clinton inherited an economy that was firing on all 8 cylinders, and had been for some time, right up to the inevitable dot-com bubble burst and 9/11 - both of which happened shortly after GWB took office. You can't blame Bush for the economic issues following those two events any more than you can credit Clinton for the state of the economy as it approached 2000. Not to say that they had no effect on it, just that they weren't solely responsible for the fortunes/misfortunes.

That said, at least Clinton didn't get stupid with the surplus of cash (mainly because he was kept in check by a Republican-majority congress), and Bush + congress were able to help mitigate some of the fiscal damage resulting from 9/11 by issuing some immediate tax relief and adopting a more business-friendly set of policies (which was important - after all, unless you're a prostitute, you work for a business - even if you're self employed).
Qubes is offline  
post #76 of 85 (permalink) Old 07-04-2006, 07:39 AM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
So, I expect another declaration that my position has been compromised again, instead of a response on the subject of why any of us should believe it is time to rewrite the Bill of Rights. Or a discussion about how you believe the Government is the intended recipient of the rights described in the Bill of Rights
Well, it's true that I am getting dizzy trying to find where you come down on this, but it's really not of significant concern to me. If the things you're alleging are 1) in fact happening, and 2) have happened in an illegal manner at the direction of the President and his cabinet, I have faith that those facts will come to light and that those responsible will be brought to justice. If the press can pin Monica Lewinski to Bill Clinton, I'm sure they can pin something as big and significant as this to the wrongdoers (assuming anything's there).

I know Ben Franklin said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." This is ostensibly what is rubbing everyone so raw - the precept that their essential liberties are being sold in the name of temporary safety. Ben Franklin was a pretty smart guy in a group of other pretty smart guys - none of them could concieve of a post-9/11 world. Back then, the enemy wore bright colors and walked in neat rows in the open. The point is this - our system of government is riddled with issues that seem easy to fix on internet bulletin boards - it remains the BEST system of government the planet has ever seen, regardless as to who holds the highest office in the land at any given point in time.

Believe it or not, I'm an optimist by nature. That doesn't mean I'm stupid or gullible, it just means that I don't innately believe the government is out to get us. I mean, what's the point? It just fails the plausibility test. We'll never have a president for longer than 8 years - "we the people" would take up our arms (per our 4th amendment rights) and overthrow any leader that wanted to modify or usurp our democracy so that they could stay indefinitely (a la Saddam, etc).

By going on and on about how you feel our rights are being trampled upon, the implication is that the government is no longer interested in liberty - this implies they're no longer interested in democracy either, since neither can really thrive without the other. I'm not purposely nitpicking your points, I'm just baffled at whatever system of belief lies behind them, or whether you've actually thought about them that much (it's rare when people have - those who do are typically better able to make their cases).

I don't recall indicating that I'm in favor of citizens surrendering their rights to the government en masse and carte blanche - I simply don't think it's the question facing us as a people. No offense, but the people who DO think the government is out to get them are typically found in sparsely populated areas, living in mobile homes they've insulated in aluminum foil, wearing dark sunglasses and sounding like Dale Gribble from "King of the Hill". Not exactly mainstream. Perhaps the rest of us are just that stupid, but you won't be the first or last person to claim that the government is revoking our liberties one-at-a-time - and by my measure at least, you won't be the last person to be wrong about it.
Qubes is offline  
post #77 of 85 (permalink) Old 07-04-2006, 08:19 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Your response asks me questions that you should try answering first. For example, you suggest the government is not "out to get us" and seem willing to give up your rights in some fashion other than "Carte Blanche" to this government, essentially because of your faith in the theory the government is not out to get us. While I believe your basic premise and concept of what motivates people in power is flawed, it is clear you believe we live in circumstances where our freedoms are more than a mere inconvenience to the Bush Administration, and you believe, contrary to Ben Franklin, that we should give up some freedom and liberty to ensure a little more safety. Why? Your premise is not a given.

Try answering what freedoms and liberties you are willing to cede to the government because of the war on terror, or what other present day conditions you believe warrant such actions. Please explain why it is more important for the longevity of our nation and our values to give these freedoms up instead of figure out how to face the threat and win, without giving up these freedoms and liberties.

I lived in an aluminum trailor for a year in Alaska, long ago. I would only recommend it if that is all you can afford. Better than sleeping outside. I did not develop my distrust of the government then. I developed my distrust when I saw the government send my generation to Vietnam to defend some catch phrase political agenda, I believe it was "The Domino Theory," with our lives and only after 50,000 were killed did they put an end to it. Power and money are what the "parties" in government want. They have no allegiance to anything but money and power, and if our liberties and freedoms get in the way they are perfectly capable of concocting conditions to curtail those freedoms and liberties to serve their purposes. Both Parties. The Founding Fathers knew this and set up a Republic that specifically grants these freedoms, unconditionally. So, you are correct, we have the greatest form of government on the planet, ever, but you need to vigilantly preserve that because those in power have no such interest.

While you question how anyone could believe the present administration finds these Constitutional rights annoying and cumbersome, and views that as a threat, you condemn the whistleblower who even you concede you depend on to get the information out when their is indication or suspicion of wrongdoing. You can't have it both ways. Either the government is open with the people and clearly seeks to be on the right side of the law, or we need whistleblowers who are protected. This administration is secretive and, frankly, lazy. They always pick the easy way out and then, when the shit hits the fan, offer up Condi's Lament - "No one could have known" or some similar excuse for laziness and inexperience.

Try checking your corporate ethics policy on why people do unethical things. I have worked in the Defense Industry and there is a clear correlation between people doing things they are not qualified for and false statements, falsified records, cutting corners and similar subversive behavior. This is brought up in every briefing and annual "refresher" seminar on ethics and fraud.

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #78 of 85 (permalink) Old 07-04-2006, 08:56 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Same doo-doo, same catapult, same effect.

B
Botnst is offline  
post #79 of 85 (permalink) Old 07-04-2006, 09:22 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Same doo-doo, same catapult, same effect.

B
And your apathy and disinterest in the welfare of the United States, while not unique, is alarming. In fact your general disdain for the Republic of the United States is about the same as it has been for the several years I have witnessed your posts here and elsewhere. Mad Magazine's Alfred E. Newman had a quote - "What, Me Worry?" that seems to apply to generally describe your apathetic outlook. It was the same social disease that spawned the Nazis from the Weimarer Republik under stressful economic and social fronts.

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #80 of 85 (permalink) Old 07-04-2006, 10:06 PM
BenzWorld Extremist
 
Date registered: Feb 2005
Vehicle: 1984 300SD 1986 300SDL 1989 300SE 1998 740iL
Location: NY
Posts: 1,111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith

Try answering what freedoms and liberties you are willing to cede to the government because of the war on terror, or what other present day conditions you believe warrant such actions. Please explain why it is more important for the longevity of our nation and our values to give these freedoms up instead of figure out how to face the threat and win, without giving up these freedoms and liberties.


Jim
A little aside to this very good discussion.

My brother had a bit of a run-in with the Feds. He relates a story on car salesman. Apparently, there are quite a few car salesman in the Federal Pens. How would this be possible, you say?

Well, the car salesman accepted a cash payment for the vehicle. Naturally, they duly reported the cash sale to the government, as required by law. But, the government responded by indicting the car salesman on charges because the car salesman should have realized that the cash was coming from an illegal activity. The case hinges on whether the government can prove that the salesman "should have known".

But, like almost every federal indictment, there is insufficient resources to defend oneself against the Feds, and the consequences of a loss at trial would be a sentence that is 4X longer than the plea. Additionally, the Feds typically don't take a loss lightly and may attempt to indict the individual on another charge such as tax evasion. Therefore, rightly or wrongly, 98% of all Federal indictments are plead out.

The Feds have no desire to see justice done. They simply have a quota to meet. If you want to cause a load of hurt on someone, just drop a dime to the Feds with a bit of factual info.

He has other stories on how the Feds sent a 70 year old man to jail for 5 years because he couldn't repay a loan to a bank after 9/11. Seems the bank found an error in his loan application from 10 years ago and dropped a dime to the Feds. Since the loan was 5 million dollars, and was, by definition, fraudlently obtained due to the error on the application, this poor SOB got 5 years in the big house. Was justice served here?

Yep, it's quite the government that this administration is operating. The things that the average citizen doesn't hear will turn your stomach.

Brian Carlton
1984 300 SD
1986 300 SDL
1987 300 SDL
Brian Carlton is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome