The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I'm posting this in the Lounge specifically to avoid the degeneration of this thread into name-calling, which is the inevitable result of the Smack Forum. Also, I usually stay away from starting political threads, even though I don't mind contributing to them every now and again, but this piece really caught my attention and I think that it's well worth looking over.

That said:

Bill of Rights Under Bush: A Timeline

Having posted that, I'm happy to disclose anything about my own political beliefs:

* I'm not a conservative, I'm not a liberal, and I'm not anything in between that you would call moderate. If the terms liberalism, classical liberalism, libertarianism, or the like have any meaning to you, then you're in the neighborhood of what I think.

* Bush is, without a doubt in my mind, the most destructive president that this country has had to date. Qualifiers: There's a lot of competition for that title, and (to be fair) he really inherited that title more than he forged it—for the same reason that compound interest dictates that your returns 80 years from now will be exponentially larger than your current returns. As much as, say, Wilson, LBJ, or FDR did, there was only so much they could do.

And that's why I pass this along. Because I don't think that conservatives care about something that they have traditionally cared about. I think many Republicans are more interested in war and bullying for its own sake then they really are interested in security. I think Republicans who think we can't afford universal health care (they're right) should think long and hard about how much it costs to run a war using our war machine, and what the consequences are here at home. I think most Republicans defend Bush mostly because if they don't it means "the liberals" are right about something.

Most of all, I hate the logic that says "If you've got nothing to hide, why do you care if the government finds out about it?" We'd have to be in the Smack forum for me to respond to that appropriately. So forgive me if I'm pulling a crazyhorse with this post, but I think that link above is worth a look.

OK. . .got that off my chest. . .that should do it for political threads on THN in the next 2 years.

Irn-Bru wrote:* Bush is, without a doubt in my mind, the most destructive president that this country has had to date.

QFT

Irn-Bru wrote:* Bush is, without a doubt in my mind, the most destructive president that this country has had to date. Qualifiers: There's a lot of competition for that title, and (to be fair) he really inherited that title more than he forged it—for the same reason that compound interest dictates that your returns 80 years from now will be exponentially larger than your current returns. As much as, say, Wilson, LBJ, or FDR did, there was only so much they could do.

He blows, to be sure, and you acknowldge there is stiff competition, but I can't rate him ahead of these off the top of my head.

The Worst, by far - FDR - Eliminated the two most important amendments in the Bill of Rights 9th and 10th Amendments putting on our current decent into socialism.

Wilson - Put us on the course to take over EVERYONE's international problems.

I would also argue that LBJ, Hoover and Andrew Johnson were worse and Carter and Clinton were just as bad at being President and mere circumstance prevented them from being as bad.

But Bush has been pretty bad.

The worst was Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus, and who jailed dissenting judges.

Second was FDR, who thoroughly trampled the Constitution in a wholesale manner.

Bush is bush league in comparison.

Is it curious that the 4 post thus far are from individuals whom have claimed libertarian beliefs?

Countertrey wrote:The worst was Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus, and who jailed dissenting judges.

Second was FDR, who thoroughly trampled the Constitution in a wholesale manner.

Bush is bush league in comparison.

Is it curious that the 4 post thus far are from individuals whom have claimed libertarian beliefs?

To Trey: I know what you're saying on Lincoln and for me at least you don't need to go into more detail, but he did face extraordinary circumstances. Obviously he didn't do it to end slavery. But I think to make him the worst you have to believe the South should have been allowed to go. Otherwise while he trampled the Constitution the effects were not nearly as lasting as an FDR, Wilson or LBJ.

To Bush haters: I find it interesting that anyone could hate Bush more then Wilson who started the course that lead to situations like Iraq only all over the world. If you hate Bush so much for toppling a foreign government, how can you not hate the guy who negotiated the treaty that predictably left us as policeman to THE WORLD, not just Iraq?

My point was that Bush's actions are magnified because of the government growth that had already happened before he set foot in office.

So, even though under Bush the government has increased by about the same percentage as it did under LBJ, 50% of $2 trillion is far worse than 50% of (say) 200 million (or whatever it was). Same goes with the kinds of rights-violations the government is capable of. As bad as someone like FDR was, he simply didn't have the capacity to listen in on phone calls or do the kinds of things that our government has been able to in the last 10 years.

Irn-Bru wrote:My point was that Bush's actions are magnified because of the government growth that had already happened before he set foot in office.

So, even though under Bush the government has increased by about the same percentage as it did under LBJ, 50% of $2 trillion is far worse than 50% of (say) 200 million (or whatever it was). Same goes with the kinds of rights-violations the government is capable of. As bad as someone like FDR was, he simply didn't have the capacity to listen in on phone calls or do the kinds of things that our government has been able to in the last 10 years.

It's what makes these discussions so interesting, there are always different ways to look at it. The list of Bush's transgressions go on:

- Assault on the 1st Amendment signing the "Campaign Finance" reform preventing opponents of incumbents from freely criticizing them leading into an election to make it harder for incumbents to stay in office for life.

- To me the biggest sin of Iraq isn't the toppling of a criminal government, it was deepening our government's manipulation of our economy through control of oil prices.

- And in Iraq continuing our policy of being policeman to the world.

- Extending socialism with the "prescription drug" program.

- While cutting taxes was good he has deepened the complexity...

- ...and extended turning our tax code into ANOTHER socialist entitlement program with more refundable credits.

- While increasing the desire of Islamic Terrorists to attack us he has helped shield securing our borders with pseudo border patrol programs

- One of the lest heralded but to me deeply disturbing acts was attacking Oregon's assisted suicide laws in flagrant violation of the 10th Amendment. Ashcroft was a true right wing lunatic.

- The "No Child Gets Ahead" program again tramples the 10th Amendment while ensuring mediocre to poor education for all.

The only actually good things he has done are the tax cuts and nominating Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. Though with the Myers nomination you have to wonder if it was shear luck. And again the tax cuts came with the price of additional complexity so those come with qualifications as well.

lets not even start...worst president ever is Carter by far. Ps what are you libs gonna do in 08??? Remember Bush is not running! You tried bush bashing your way through the 04 election and you saw where it got John Kerry. A big fat loss!!! Cant wait to watch the same results for Hillary or Obama for that matter.

Personal attacks and off-topic posting aside, those who believe in this President's agenda should be supporting it by enlisting. Now. Today. No excuses.

The difference between the current President and his predecesors is timing.

The difference between our individual opinions on who has been the worst President is dependent upon our individual values. Is Domestic Policy more important than Foreign policy? A Domestic error in judgment could lead to Civil War. A Foreign error in judgment could lead to a World War.

Has it occurred to anyone other than me that we would have no need for "Homeland Security" if this administration wasn't busy pissing off the world? We haven't needed "Homeland Security" up until this administration.

Has it occurred to anyone other than me that some children should be left behind? If a child cannot read, spell, compose a basic sentence, paragraph, perform basic math, locate the United States on a map, the child has no business being passed from grade school to high school.

This administration has accomplished nothing of value with regard to domestic affairs and has created problems that did not previously exist with foreign affairs.

It may all be a matter of degrees but I live in the present and my children live in the preent and the future. Therefore, Presidents who screwed up previously are incidental. We managed to survive their errors in judgment. It remains to be seen how we survive the current President's errors in judgment.

GSPODS wrote:Has it occurred to anyone other than me that we would have no need for "Homeland Security" if this administration wasn't busy pissing off the world? We haven't needed "Homeland Security" up until this administration.

I was mostly with you till this one.

Bill Clinton ordered military attacks during his Presidency off the top of my head in Iraq, Afghanistan, The Sudan, Somalia, Serbia, Bosnia, Haiti and Iraq before Bush took office. The 911 hijackers were in the US training for their mission during his Presidency, they only carried it out under Bush.

We didn't HAVE a department of Homeland security before Bush, but on what planet didn't we NEED one. As I keep saying BOTH parties are the same. This comment in your post was just tripping. We need to change our entire foreign policy to stop making the world problems our own. Rewriting history in no was solves that.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Has it occurred to anyone other than me that we would have no need for "Homeland Security" if this administration wasn't busy pissing off the world? We haven't needed "Homeland Security" up until this administration.

I was mostly with you till this one.

Bill Clinton ordered military attacks during his Presidency off the top of my head in Iraq, Afghanistan, The Sudan, Somalia, Serbia, Bosnia, Haiti and Iraq before Bush took office. The 911 hijackers were in the US training for their mission during his Presidency, they only carried it out under Bush.

We didn't HAVE a department of Homeland security before Bush, but on what planet didn't we NEED one. As I keep saying BOTH parties are the same. This comment in your post was just tripping. We need to change our entire foreign policy to stop making the world problems our own. Rewriting history in no was solves that.

I know you knew better than to bite on that but I wanted to see the response of the member who decided to make this a personal attack on anyone not blindly supporting and following this President.

Since this is The Lounge, not Smack, I wanted to "test the waters" to see if this poster had any basis in fact to support the sweeping accusation posted above. I'm still waiting for their reply, although you answered it for them.

GSPODS wrote:I wanted to see the response of the member who decided to make this a personal attack on anyone not blindly supporting and following this President.

I don't see a personal attack in this forum by anyone on anyone. Maybe it's the use of the term "personal attack" that's throwing me. I get the bait for the Bush-ite though, sorry I tripped your trap.

Here's the hypocrisy of the Bush-ites. I get this part. IF we are going to maintain the CURRENT US foreign policy THEN we are going to be a constant target of terrorists and we need to take the war to them, not wait for them to attack us. Despite the rhetoric of the left, Hussein was an international criminal, terrorist and a real torturer.

Now, let's apply Conservative ideology to this.

#1: we are in the Middle East for oil. I am not saying this as a brain dead liberal who simultaneously blasts Republicans demanding cheap oil while blasting Republicans for getting it. I'm saying it as the government shouldn't be involved in oil prices at all. If you Conservatives don't believe our government is in the Middle East for oil then tell me why we are in no other similar no mans land in the world except the Middle East. Clearly it's oil.

#2: Hussein is a criminal, but why is he and the Middle East OUR problem? Clearly the Islamofascists hate us for being there. Europe is closer, more vulnerable and more dependent on Middle East oil. If we were not there they would totally focus on Europe and they would have to deal with their own problems. I am not saying we shouldn't support Europe, I'm saying how can a true Conservative say we should just take their problem for them? And to top it off they continually blast us while we do it? So again, why are we there taking their problem for them? See #1.

#3: While Bush has waged war on Hussein and the Islamic Terrorists, what has he done to change the DYNAMIC of 1 and 2? That is the only "Exit Strategy."

I am NOT advocating acquiescing to terrorists. I'm saying if we were following a true Conservative agenda we would not be taking EVERYONE's heat, just our own. Our economy would be better because we would be using oil supplys we could depend on w/o our military. And we would be dealing with only our own part in the war on Islamoloonies.

And then you would have my total support to introduce any Islamic terrorist threat to us to their 80 virgins. Oh, and you wouldn't be complete and utter hypocrites for supporting the Bush agenda which isn't Conservative.

***Note to Mods. I used the word "Bush-ite" without the hyphen, not a profanity but the profanity filter thought apparently it was a different word so I added the hyphens***

skins#1fan wrote:lets not even start...worst president ever is Carter by far. Ps what are you libs gonna do in 08??? Remember Bush is not running! You tried bush bashing your way through the 04 election and you saw where it got John Kerry. A big fat loss!!! Cant wait to watch the same results for Hillary or Obama for that matter.

The original post to which I was responding. Perhaps not a direct personal attack but certainly a baseless, sweeping generalization of anyone reading the post.

To respond to your post, oil is the only reason for being in the Middle East. Common sense, which is uncommon in this administration, dictates that nations should be left to resolve their own affairs. We learned nothing from the history of World War II, the Korean War, and the Viet Nam conflict (never declared a war by Congress) and therefore we are doomed to repeat it with the Iraqi confilict (again, never offcially declared a war by Congress). The parallels between the two "conflicts" are eerily similar, and so too shall be the aftermaths. History repeats itself because repeating the same actions and expecting different results is defined as insanity.

Irn-Bru wrote:My point was that Bush's actions are magnified because of the government growth that had already happened before he set foot in office.

So, even though under Bush the government has increased by about the same percentage as it did under LBJ, 50% of $2 trillion is far worse than 50% of (say) 200 million (or whatever it was). Same goes with the kinds of rights-violations the government is capable of. As bad as someone like FDR was, he simply didn't have the capacity to listen in on phone calls or do the kinds of things that our government has been able to in the last 10 years.

What's so funny is Bush is doing so many Left wing things they can only dream of doing and yet the Left more lividly hates him then anyone. Look at the news today, Bush wants to turn sub-prime lending into another welfare program. It is really truly too bad when people can't pay their loans, but as my 16 year old daughter observed this morning, "poor people won't be able to get any more loans." Too bad more adults don't get that. And of course those who lived in their means get nothing, those who didn't get a handout.

Liberalism - A system of policies that are well intentioned and poorly conceived that result in the government providing incentives counter to the desired effect, which when recognized as not being effective results in the endless escallation of the counter incentives to combate the escallation of the recognition of the lack of the desired effect.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:My point was that Bush's actions are magnified because of the government growth that had already happened before he set foot in office.

So, even though under Bush the government has increased by about the same percentage as it did under LBJ, 50% of $2 trillion is far worse than 50% of (say) 200 million (or whatever it was). Same goes with the kinds of rights-violations the government is capable of. As bad as someone like FDR was, he simply didn't have the capacity to listen in on phone calls or do the kinds of things that our government has been able to in the last 10 years.

What's so funny is Bush is doing so many Left wing things they can only dream of doing and yet the Left more lividly hates him then anyone. Look at the news today, Bush wants to turn sub-prime lending into another welfare program. It is really truly too bad when people can't pay their loans, but as my 16 year old daughter observed this morning, "poor people won't be able to get any more loans." To bad more adults don't get that.

The question I have is: What is considered a sub-prime loan under the Bush Administration? A FICO score of 720 used to be considered a good score but even persons with those credit scores are buried in debt to the point of credit counseling and / or bankruptcy. So, is there any definitive credit score to this plan or is it just another abitrary pissing in the wind to see which direction it is blowing plan?

GSPODS wrote:or is it just another abitrary pissing in the wind to see which direction it is blowing plan?

Has Bush had any other type of policy? I know you know that, it wasn't a disagreement with you.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:or is it just another abitrary pissing in the wind to see which direction it is blowing plan?

Has Bush had any other type of policy? I know you know that, it wasn't a disagreement with you.

Thus, the use of the word another as opposed to the word "a". From all evidence, Bush has to call a Cabinet Meeting to be advised to unzip his fly before said pissing ...

Notwithstanding the failed policies of the Bush administration, what sets his administration apart from any others is the way he goes about doing his business. His blatant disregard for the will of the public, his contstant lying to the American people, his flagrant violations of established norm, and his overall "screw you" attitude.

Bush and Cheny both carry out their duties as if to say to the American people that they'll do it their way, and if people don't like it then who cares!!

He has constantly misinformed, misrepresented, and mislead the American people over everything from his failed Middle East Policy to the Valerie Plame debacle! Case in point is his recent condemnation of Iran pursuing a Nuclear Weapons program....he spent a lot of time convincing the American people that Iran do, in fact, have a Nuclear Weapons program and then a report from his OWN intelligence sources comes out that says he was briefed a long time ago that Iran has halted its Nuclear Weapons programs. This is only one example of how Bush carries out his duties with a pre-determined agenda and if anything gets in the way of carrying out that agenda, then he'll simply lie his way around it and continue to pursue his agenda.

The support for these policies, or the lack of support, is part and parcel of a Democratic society, but as I mentioned, what makes THIS President so despicable and pathetic is a)his blatant disregard for the will of the American people and b)the way he goes about carrying out the duties of the Office of President. True, most Presidents have committed some kind of immoral lapse at some point during their term, for instance Clinton lying about he Lewinsky scandal, Reagan lying about the Iran/Contra affair, but THIS President appears to actually FLAUNT his disregard for the American people, and doesn't seem to learn from the mistakes of his past. One would think that his lying about the Iraq WMD mission would make him leary of lying on such a grand stage again, but NO, he was caught lying about the whole I. Scooter Libby/Valerie Plame investigation, and he could care less.

If that wasn't enough, now he's caught lying about the whole Iran Nuclear Weapons program, and he just doesn't care!! Because of his lies, his attempts to carry out a pre-set agenda, and his unbelievable disregard for the International Community, this President has, without doubt, distinguished himself as not only the most incompetent President in the History of this Country, but also the President that his hated the most by his own People. Really quite sad, when you think about it!

GSPODS wrote:Perhaps not a direct personal attack but certainly a baseless, sweeping generalization of anyone reading the post.

And thus by definition, NOT a personal attack. If it isn't intended or directed at anyone specifically, how is it a 'personal' attack?

Thankfully, we have moderators who KNOW the rules for this kind of stuff.

admin wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Perhaps not a direct personal attack but certainly a baseless, sweeping generalization of anyone reading the post.

And thus by definition, NOT a personal attack. If it isn't intended or directed at anyone specifically, how is it a 'personal' attack?

Thankfully, we have moderators who KNOW the rules for this kind of stuff.

Bad choice of words on my part. Knowing what you want to say and saying it correctly are two different things in my case.

If and / or when anyone else has four children under the age of two all screaming at the same time, it will be easy to understand why I can no longer compose or complete a semi-coherent thought.

JPFair wrote:Notwithstanding the failed policies of the Bush administration, what sets his administration apart from any others is the way he goes about doing his business. His blatant disregard for the will of the public, his contstant lying to the American people, his flagrant violations of established norm, and his overall "screw you" attitude.

Bush and Cheny both carry out their duties as if to say to the American people that they'll do it their way, and if people don't like it then who cares!!

He has constantly misinformed, misrepresented, and mislead the American people over everything from his failed Middle East Policy to the Valerie Plame debacle! Case in point is his recent condemnation of Iran pursuing a Nuclear Weapons program....he spent a lot of time convincing the American people that Iran do, in fact, have a Nuclear Weapons program and then a report from his OWN intelligence sources comes out that says he was briefed a long time ago that Iran has halted its Nuclear Weapons programs. This is only one example of how Bush carries out his duties with a pre-determined agenda and if anything gets in the way of carrying out that agenda, then he'll simply lie his way around it and continue to pursue his agenda.

The support for these policies, or the lack of support, is part and parcel of a Democratic society, but as I mentioned, what makes THIS President so despicable and pathetic is a)his blatant disregard for the will of the American people and b)the way he goes about carrying out the duties of the Office of President. True, most Presidents have committed some kind of immoral lapse at some point during their term, for instance Clinton lying about he Lewinsky scandal, Reagan lying about the Iran/Contra affair, but THIS President appears to actually FLAUNT his disregard for the American people, and doesn't seem to learn from the mistakes of his past. One would think that his lying about the Iraq WMD mission would make him leary of lying on such a grand stage again, but NO, he was caught lying about the whole I. Scooter Libby/Valerie Plame investigation, and he could care less.

If that wasn't enough, now he's caught lying about the whole Iran Nuclear Weapons program, and he just doesn't care!! Because of his lies, his attempts to carry out a pre-set agenda, and his unbelievable disregard for the International Community, this President has, without doubt, distinguished himself as not only the most incompetent President in the History of this Country, but also the President that his hated the most by his own People. Really quite sad, when you think about it!

Deceit? How unusual in Washington. Bush v. Clinton, different lies, same effect. I totally agree with you of course.

An inherently beneficial and totally intended effect of libertarianism is having less government to lie to you means you are lied to less. We fully expect the part that's still there to lie like the master manipulators we have doing the job now.

what makes THIS President so despicable and pathetic is a)his blatant disregard for the will of the American people and b)the way he goes about carrying out the duties of the Office of President.

Here's a problem. At the time the US endeavored to invade Iraq, and to overthrow Saddam, the "will of the American people" was "right on! Kick gas and take names." At that time, I was still in the military, and was opposed, on both practical and political grounds:
1. There was no international consensus.
2. Such an action would require "nation building", a major, decade plus burden, which I was certain we were not prepared to do.
3. It really wasn't any of our farkin business.
4. It would distract assets from the necessary hunting down and termination of the sub-human forms known as al Qaeda.
5. It would increase the unecessary burden on our military to function as "the world police", which further violates my libertarian sensibilities.

Once a committment to such an action is made, however, those who pushed for it are responsible to finish it. We gained a moral and ethical imperative to re-establish the order in Iraq which WE disrupted. The job must be completed before leaving.

Those who pushed for this action, and are now demanding the removal of the troops are hypocrites, or cowards. If you opposed this action all along, bless you... please continue. If you were among the clear majority who screamed "mount up, move-em out", well... shut up, and get back in line. You are the reason we are in this. Have the guts to finish it. You know who you are. Be ashamed.

I opposed the action prior to the start. However, once engaged, our troops required us to have the backbone to see the job finished. That is why I continue to insist that we finish. This "we support the troops but don't support the war" pap is just trash. You can't have it both ways. It's like saying "We support our police... now, explain to me why they need those stupid guns."

Additionally, we encurred a debt, and a responsibility to the people of Iraq. They did not, as a society, ask us to overthrow their government. We did, however, and we are responsible to take care of them until they can care for themselves. Demands that they achieve certain milestones in order for us to continue are disengenuous. Again, they did not ask us to intervene. They had no vote in our actions.

Countertrey wrote:Here's a problem. At the time the US endeavored to invade Iraq, and to overthrow Saddam, the "will of the American people" was "right on! Kick gas and take names."

If that was the case then why didn't they declare war? It's a lot harder to get a war declared than it is to rely on presidential fiat—which is unconstitutional, as far as I can tell.

CT wrote:Once a committment to such an action is made, however, those who pushed for it are responsible to finish it. We gained a moral and ethical imperative to re-establish the order in Iraq which WE disrupted. The job must be completed before leaving.

So what of the argument that the only way to re-establish order is to leave? I don't fully understand why our politicians think that a stronger (or longer) military presence there will somehow make things OK. . .if they have enough time.

Without the talk of 'timetables' for withdrawal, how much time would it reasonably take just to achieve order? I submit we could be there for 15 years, doing what we are doing, without re-establishing order. The Iraqis are in it for the long haul. We cannot be, if only because we cannot afford to (I mean that in the literal, financial sense).

From Irn-Bru's link, these are the scariest portions to me:

John Warner Defense Authorization Act is passed. The act allows a president to declare a public emergency and station US military troops anywhere in America as well as take control of state based national guard units without consent of the governor or other local authorities. The law authorizes presidential deployment of US troops to round-up and detain “potential terrorists”, “illegal aliens” and “disorderly” citizenry.

and

National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51) establishes a new post-disaster plan (with disaster defined as any incident, natural or man-made, resulting in extraordinary mass casualties, damage or disruption) which places the president in charge of all three branches of government. The directive overrides the National Emergencies Act which gives Congress power to determine the duration of a national emergency.

JPFair wrote:this President has, without doubt, distinguished himself as not only the most incompetent President in the History of this Country

He is certainly not incompetent. You said yourself he is carrying out his own agenda, truth, will of the people, or Constitution be damned. Sounds very competent to me!