quote:Originally posted by First of Two: But what if Dictatorship rested in the hands of a truly benevolent person who really DID have his people's best interests at heart? What then? I don't know. It's probably too risky to ever find out. Despite my 'grassroots campaign,' I wouldn't say I'm best suited for the job, either.
I'm of the opinion that this actually happened during FDR's administration in World War II. Certainly it wasn't a complete dictatorship, but the President then wielded incredible powers to control and direct the government during the crisis. FDR was also the only American president to server more than two full terms.
It's easy in retrospect to approve this kind of event because of the favorable outcome and the apparent benevolence of FDR. Nevertheless, I do not intend to support the handing over of such overriding authority, even under the present circumstances. There have been laws put into effect that allow the Executive Branch to act quickly and preemptively for emergency responses in times of crisis, but the President is ALSO required to justify himself to Congress (and the people) within a specific time period. Anyone familiar with the War Powers Act of 1974? (I think I got the date right.) The President may dispatch US forces overseas for combat missions without the direct authorization of Congress, but is required to inform them of the reasons and to get approval for any activities longer than 90 days.
The simple fact is that the very principle of the American form government is that our leaders are SUPPOSED to be restricted in what they can do. "Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence." Our government is capable of protecting us from terrorists and other enemies; yes, the job is a little bit harder without the sort of overriding blank check authority that Bush and his cronies want. But just how far would we have come if our government did NOT allow people to speak freely, to choose to live the way they wish without fear of government interference? Without the government deciding unilaterally what is best for us?
I'm an undergraduate college student working towards a degree in History, and therefore I tend to look to the past to get some kind of perspective on the present. In the past few months I've learned a great deal about those great men who founded the United States of America. The class I'm taking this semester focuses on the early American period, from 1776 to 1825. It's the first college course I've taken focusing on that period, and I think I've gained some excellent insight on the personalities of the era. One of the books I've most enjoyed is a collection of the writings of Thomas Jefferson -- I already posted one quote above -- and I believe that although the reality today is much different, and certainly the purpose and structure of the government has radically changed on the surface, the basic principles in which he believed still apply today.
"At any other period, the even-handed justice we have observed [...] would have preserved our peace, and secured the unqualified confidence of all other nations in our faith and probity. But the hurricane which is now blasting the world, physical and moral, has prostrated all the mounds of reason as well as right." -- From a letter to Caesar A. Rodney, February 10, 1810
At any rate (seeing as how I've rambled on far longer than I intended to), I think the important thing is that the U.S. is founded on the principle that no good can come from ultimate and unrestricted power. That's the basic purpose of the Constitution, and the principle that I believe the current administration is trying to circumvent.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Jesus christ dont scare me like that. I thought this was about the moon (miranda) and its orbit was decaying and we were all going to die..
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
coupla points, Wes m'boy
1) We are all going to die.
2) If Miranda was falling out of its orbit, how would that affect us?
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I keep resurrecting Governor Bush's words for a reason. He is the first candidate, soon to be president, who has to the best of my knowledge stated his wish to be a dictator and live in a dictatorship. Governor Bush didn't say it once; he said it twice. When I heard him utter those words, I thought, "Oh, Shit! We are in trouble." This is a not light-hearted statement Bush was making.
On to other things...
Yesterday, I read the news conference conducted at the White House. I remember vividly two points. One, Ari Fleischer was asked if the president had plans to help the economy. His response is that the president is monitoring the economy and, if something needs to be done, the president will act. That's just sweet. There are more homeless on the street, jobs are drying up faster than water in a desert, and the economy is recovering very slowly. What economical movement will engage this president in stimulating the economy?
Second, when asked about the information required by Saddam Hussein on December 8th at the UN, Mr. Fleischer stated the information would be checked against the intelligence gathered by the US. The implication was that the administration knew exactly what the Iraqi government had and, if Iraq didn't match item for item, they were lying. My mind was blown by this. I thought the inspectors were in Iraq on an intelligence gathering mission to determine the extent and situation of the WMD programs in this country. They were operating on certain assumptions, namely we don't know for 100% certainity what is in Iraq. If the US government has 100% certainity of Iraq's WMD, why have the inspections at all?
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
"If Miranda was falling out of its orbit, how would that affect us?"
Well, I could make some joke about Miranda crashing into Uranus, but she's already been going down since the thread was started, so it doesn't seem necessary...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Sources, Colin, sources! In order to argue with Farquad, you need to provide documentary evidence. Otherwise he'll just say "No, no, my beloved Bush never said that, la la la, I can't hear you. . ." Give us some links! Granted, he'll just say "No, no, that source is totally biased, la la la, I can't hear you. . ." instead, but hey, it's all for a bit of a laugh anyway. 8)
quote:There are more homeless on the street, jobs are drying up faster than water in a desert, and the economy is recovering very slowly. What economical movement will engage this president in stimulating the economy?
Consumer confidence is steady, interest rates are staggeringly low, and the stock market had a seven-week gain. It's not where it was last May, but it's close. It's still trending up. You don't mess with upward trend.
And what are you proposing, anyway? Make the tax cuts permanent? Make them take effect sooner? That would help. They're trying to do that, despite heavy opposition from silly people.
Plus, why SHOULDN'T the US check what Iraq says versus what they believe to be true? THAT is what the inspectors are there for, We say they have weapons, they say they don't, everybody says "prove it," and that's why the inspectors are there. Since Iraq's statement will come out WAY before the inspectors can possibly finish, there IS a need to validate it.
Because only the galactically stupid would take the word of Saddam Hussein and not verify it.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
While I certainly agree with that last statement, it seems to me that this isn't the purpose of the inspectors, from whom the relavent intel agencies of the U.S. and U.K. are keeping a great deal of information. It should be. But there you are.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, they wouldn't be intel agencies if they didn't keep secrets.
And I think some secrets may be getting out... which is why the Iraqis are SO ticked right now at the thought that the inspectors might start making unannounced, "surprise" visits rather than sticking to their predetermined (read: "letting the Iraqis know exactly where they'll be and when so they can hide things beforehand") schedule.
I think if we see surprise visits starting, it's because someone is telling the inspectors where our intel guys say to look.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Having read that article it makes me appreciate the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 so much more.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
