I tell you what, Joe. Let's put our money where our mouths are. I wager 50 billion space bucks that the following will happen:
Election time will come. Elections will happen. The Democratic candidate will win. George W. Bush will retire to relative obscurity. Congress will stay roughly the same, ceding four or five more seats to the Democrats. Gradual troop withdrawal schedules will be penned in the first 100 days. It will take nearly twice as long as projected to enact the schedules. There will be a slight economic recession, coupled with a launch of new social programs. Taxes will go up. America will become mired in a UN Peacekeeping venture in Africa with mixed results.
Now you pen your predictions and one of us, whomever is more accurate in six years' time, will get the space bucks.
Now we have crazy people on both sides motivated by religion who think they have nothing to lose. That concerns me a lot more.I think you'd be surprised at how many religious people there are among the ranks of libertarians, democrats, and other groups concerned about civil liberties and social justice. Even conservative religious groups are considering abandoning the GOP, as they believe the party no longer represents them and has betrayed them. Unfortunately, party loyalty from voters has more to do with the people who they don't want in office.
If you really want change, vote non-incumbent. Playing this retarded lesser-of-two-evils party system doesn't help anyone but the professional politicians.
I tell you what, Joe. Let's put our money where our mouths are. I wager 50 billion space bucks that the following will happen . . . Now you pen your predictions and one of us, whomever is more accurate in six years' time, will get the space bucks.
I'll have to think about it. To tell the truth, I'm completely nonplussed by the offer of a wager.
I hope that you're right, but I honestly cannot imagine Iran not being bombed before the elections.
If you really want change, vote non-incumbent. Playing this retarded lesser-of-two-evils party system doesn't help anyone but the professional politicians.
I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, there was never supposed to be a class of professional politicians.
Iran is bombed. Iran retaliates. $5.00 per gallon gas. Elections occur. Cons try their best, but they lose the WH, and Dems get veto proof majorities. Draft reinstated. Taxes up. Real Estate continues to plummet. Homelessness + Unemployment result from this and the ever rising gas prices. More weird, severe weather. Weeping and gnashing of teeth. Second Great Depression. Zombie apocalypse.
That's the problem, hungryjoe. You're too pessimistic about this.
Call me naive, but I believe that the government is doing things to protect us from terrorists. You may disagree due to a perceived erosion of civil rights across the board, but I truly believe that the government's intent is a good one. I just don't see this as a big conspiracy to erode the civil rights of all Americans so the New World Order can take over.
There is a lot I am critical of. No doubt Haliburton's connections to this administration raise a lot of red flags. Nonetheless, this is all about fighting terrorists, not our own citizens.
And if anyone thinks that the Democrats will fix things... Good luck. Here is the bottom line: To become president or a congressman, you have to owe favors. And trust me, those favors aren't owed to you or I.
If you really want change, vote non-incumbent. Playing this retarded lesser-of-two-evils party system doesn't help anyone but the professional politicians. I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, there was never supposed tobea class of professional politicians.
Remember all the hubbub surrounding the 2006 mid-term elections? Remember how it was supposed to be a major power shift and things were Going to Change™? I voted purely non-incumbent in that election. Only 1 of 4 people for which I voted won. Things changed, but they didn't change enough.
Another problem is those damn block voters who vote party line and never think about a thing. I have to wonder how different election results would be if the ballots were randomized with no indicator of party affiliation.
If you really want change, vote non-incumbent. Playing this retarded lesser-of-two-evils party system doesn't help anyone but the professional politicians.
I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, there was never supposed tobea class of professional politicians.
Remember all the hubbub surrounding the 2006 mid-term elections? Remember how it was supposed to be a major power shift and things were Going to Change™? I voted purely non-incumbent in that election. Only 1 of 4 people for which I voted won. Things changed, but they didn't change enough.
Term limits + Donation limits (or Government funding) + Disallowal of employment with lobbying firms for some number of years after term.
That's the problem, hungryjoe. You're too pessimistic about this.
Good! I worried about this all day on my way back from Hawaii. Now I'm sitting here in L.A. and I'm less worried. On a side note, it was weird, as we were coming in for a landing, you could smell the wildfires.
Joe, you're being too pessimistic. We won't reach fascism for a good long while yet. There's still not really any violence in politics, and the party system still has vestiges of ideology.
If you really want change, vote non-incumbent. Playing this retarded lesser-of-two-evils party system doesn't help anyone but the professional politicians.
I don't think that'll work. Judging from what I know about the US political system, the two party situation you have is a direct cause of your electoral system. If you don't like that, change your electoral system. Also, even in a system with more parties like here in Germany (where we currently have five parties represented in the Bundestag), high politicians are professionals. They may have done something else before (Angela Merkel actually studied physics, how she managed to do that at her mental capacity puzzles me to this day), but as soon as they rise in politics, they have to give up their profession, because politician is a full-time job. Which of course doesn't mean that your two-party doesn't suck. From my perspective, you have a rightist and a not-so-much-rightist party.
Call me naive, but I believe that the government is doing things to protect us from terrorists.
I agree that governments are not thinking "Oh mans, terrorism, awesome opportunity, let's go straight to fascism." But I don't think all of them follow a line of thought like "we have to protect our citizens". For example, the German minister of inner affairs, Wolfgang Schäuble: he's in a wheelchair, because he was shot in the back. The measures he takes are not originating from an honest desire to protect people, I think he's primarily seeking personal revenge. And your president George W. Bush: well, he was an alcoholic for so long that he probably doesn't think *anything*. Your president is *not* dangerous. He's simply stupid, his *puppeteers* are the ones you want to watch out for. Find out where the money is. Anyhow, while it matters what motivations people have when you are looking for a president, it does *not* matter when you discuss the measures they propose. When it's about the course of politics, you should never, ever get personal. Journalists often do, but that's the public discourse topic again.
Now, about fascism: In my opinion, the problem is not that we'll suddenly have a totalitarian state like the 3rd Reich. (Study German history of the 20th century, there's a lot you can learn about politics and historical processes from it. Actually: study history.) Hitler established his totalitarian state within months. The current process is a more subtle one. Gradually, legislation strives for more control, especially concerning technology issues. Because it is a gradual process, it does no good waiting for the 'red line of fascism' to be crossed. What we need are clear laws, covering the rights of the citizens concerning technology issues. How anonymous should one be on the internet? Should there be institutions randomly collecting personal data without a reason for suspicion? Things like that.
I am not going to get into wars and 'secret' torture prisons, because that is on a whole different level. Also, it's nothing new. It's not like the US has only recently started occupying countries, assassinating democratically elected governments and implanting atrocious dictatorships (-> Chile, Pinochet | -> Iraq, Saddam Hussein | -> Afghanistan, Taliban, just to name a few). It's not like Germany doesn't make a ton of money selling small arms and other weapons. The second most used assault rifle is the G3. Those things aren't new, and are not what I mean by recent developments.
So to sum it up: Stop focusing on concentration camps and GeStaPo, look at the situation closely and identify the new dangers. History always repeats itself, yet never repeats itself.
So to sum it up: Stop focusing on concentration camps and GeStaPo, look at the situation closely and identify the new dangers. History always repeats itself, yet never repeats itself.
The de facto abrogation of Posse Comitatus is new. The ability to claim emergency powers and the devolution of legislative authority to the executive is new. The John Warner Defense Authorization Act, the National Presidential Security Directive, The Homeland Security Directive, and The Executive Order titled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" are all new.
Please understand that I am not advocating any "crazy conspiracy theory" so thoroughly derided on the boards. All that is required for concern is: (1) GWB has given himself the power to define and declare an "emergency", in which (2) he will acquire power to legislate, (3) he can take away the liberty and property of anyone he decides is an "enemy", (4) he has a private mercenary army to enforce his orders, and (5) he can order official U.S. forces to maintain "order".
No conpiracy is required. This much concentrated power is dangerous in and of itself. History has shown time and time again that, once this type of power is available, it will be used. It always ends in tears.
H.R.5122 was signed into law by President Bush on October 17, 2006, and will take effect October 1, 2007 (unless an earlier effective date is established by regulation). "On the same day, Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which abolishes the legal protection of habeas corpus, authorizes the president to detain and jail anyone (even US citizens) without charge and subject them to harsh interrogation that may or may not involve torture."
If you don't like that, change your electoral system.There has been a growing sentiment for such changes in the U.S.
Which of course doesn't mean that your two-party doesn't suck. From my perspective, you have a rightist and a not-so-much-rightist party.It's true. However, I think you'd be surprised at the gradual changes we're taking towards democratic socialism.
H.R.5122 was signed into law by President Bush on October 17, 2006, and will take effect October 1, 2007 (unless an earlier effective date is established by regulation). "On the same day, Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which abolishes the legal protection of habeas corpus, authorizes the president to detain and jail anyone (even US citizens) without charge and subject them to harsh interrogation that may or may not involve torture."
That *does* sound pretty bad and, frankly, reminds me of one of the first laws passed by the NSDAP. Well, actually, those technically weren't laws, but "Notverordnungen". I never heard of H.R.5122 (btw, what does H.R. stand for?), but I have to ask: you have a Supreme Court, don't you? How come that wasn't blocked by the Supreme Court? The Bundesverfassungsgericht would have ruled that unlawful without a second thought. Probably, Köhler would have refused to sign it, too. How come this could actually be passed in the US?
The Supreme Court can't just say a bill being considered is unconstitutional and stop it being passed. The law needs to be passed, someone has to get screwed over by it, take their case to court, appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, and then the Supreme Court can make a decision and maybe they'll say that it is unconstitutional.
I believe the Supreme Court does not actually have to have a case taken before them to strike down a law as unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, I think HungryJoe's predictions about the future are not inaccurate. Looking from my current position, it does not seem like much of a stretch for the President to declare a national emergency and martial law, then take over. However, I think the only way this would have any chance of occurring was if the US was subjected to another 9/11 scale terrorist attack. After that, the Pres declares an emergency, finds "evidence" connecting Iran to the attack, we bomb Iran, and maybe even start WWIII.
I can't think of two insanely powerful factions to fight each other in WWIII. They're all either weak or economically and politically connected very strongly.
However, I wonder how things will change when the last survivor of WWII is dead. Right now, in Germany, the war-generation is still alive. I am probably part of the last generation that is being told about WWII and the Nazi-regime by people who have actually been there. Both my grandfathers were taken POW, one by the Russians, one by the Americans. People who survived concentration camps are visiting schools telling students about their experiences. When there's noone left that has actually seen those horrors, noone really knows how public discussion will change.
I can't think of two insanely powerful factions to fight each other in WWIII. They're all either weak or economically and politically connected very strongly.
However, I wonder how things will change when the last survivor of WWII is dead. Right now, in Germany, the war-generation is still alive. I am probably part of the last generation that is being told about WWII and the Nazi-regime by people who have actually been there. Both my grandfathers were taken POW, one by the Russians, one by the Americans. People who survived concentration camps are visiting schools telling students about their experiences. When there's noone left that has actually seen those horrors, noone really knows how public discussion will change.
The same as with WWI I guess.
And if WWIII starts, then the forumgoers who don't live in the US will probably be fucked and have to fend for themselves... crap.
Comments
Now we have crazy people on both sides motivated by religion who think they have nothing to lose. That concerns me a lot more.
Election time will come.
Elections will happen.
The Democratic candidate will win.
George W. Bush will retire to relative obscurity.
Congress will stay roughly the same, ceding four or five more seats to the Democrats.
Gradual troop withdrawal schedules will be penned in the first 100 days.
It will take nearly twice as long as projected to enact the schedules.
There will be a slight economic recession, coupled with a launch of new social programs.
Taxes will go up.
America will become mired in a UN Peacekeeping venture in Africa with mixed results.
Now you pen your predictions and one of us, whomever is more accurate in six years' time, will get the space bucks.
If you really want change, vote non-incumbent. Playing this retarded lesser-of-two-evils party system doesn't help anyone but the professional politicians.
I hope that you're right, but I honestly cannot imagine Iran not being bombed before the elections. I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, there was never supposed to be a class of professional politicians.
Iran retaliates.
$5.00 per gallon gas.
Elections occur. Cons try their best, but they lose the WH, and Dems get veto proof majorities.
Draft reinstated. Taxes up.
Real Estate continues to plummet. Homelessness + Unemployment result from this and the ever rising gas prices.
More weird, severe weather. Weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Second Great Depression.
Zombie apocalypse.
Call me naive, but I believe that the government is doing things to protect us from terrorists. You may disagree due to a perceived erosion of civil rights across the board, but I truly believe that the government's intent is a good one. I just don't see this as a big conspiracy to erode the civil rights of all Americans so the New World Order can take over.
There is a lot I am critical of. No doubt Haliburton's connections to this administration raise a lot of red flags. Nonetheless, this is all about fighting terrorists, not our own citizens.
And if anyone thinks that the Democrats will fix things... Good luck. Here is the bottom line:
To become president or a congressman, you have to owe favors. And trust me, those favors aren't owed to you or I.
Remember all the hubbub surrounding the 2006 mid-term elections? Remember how it was supposed to be a major power shift and things were Going to Change™? I voted purely non-incumbent in that election. Only 1 of 4 people for which I voted won. Things changed, but they didn't change enough.
Also, even in a system with more parties like here in Germany (where we currently have five parties represented in the Bundestag), high politicians are professionals. They may have done something else before (Angela Merkel actually studied physics, how she managed to do that at her mental capacity puzzles me to this day), but as soon as they rise in politics, they have to give up their profession, because politician is a full-time job.
Which of course doesn't mean that your two-party doesn't suck. From my perspective, you have a rightist and a not-so-much-rightist party. I agree that governments are not thinking "Oh mans, terrorism, awesome opportunity, let's go straight to fascism." But I don't think all of them follow a line of thought like "we have to protect our citizens".
For example, the German minister of inner affairs, Wolfgang Schäuble: he's in a wheelchair, because he was shot in the back. The measures he takes are not originating from an honest desire to protect people, I think he's primarily seeking personal revenge. And your president George W. Bush: well, he was an alcoholic for so long that he probably doesn't think *anything*. Your president is *not* dangerous. He's simply stupid, his *puppeteers* are the ones you want to watch out for. Find out where the money is.
Anyhow, while it matters what motivations people have when you are looking for a president, it does *not* matter when you discuss the measures they propose. When it's about the course of politics, you should never, ever get personal. Journalists often do, but that's the public discourse topic again.
Now, about fascism:
In my opinion, the problem is not that we'll suddenly have a totalitarian state like the 3rd Reich. (Study German history of the 20th century, there's a lot you can learn about politics and historical processes from it. Actually: study history.) Hitler established his totalitarian state within months. The current process is a more subtle one. Gradually, legislation strives for more control, especially concerning technology issues. Because it is a gradual process, it does no good waiting for the 'red line of fascism' to be crossed. What we need are clear laws, covering the rights of the citizens concerning technology issues. How anonymous should one be on the internet? Should there be institutions randomly collecting personal data without a reason for suspicion? Things like that.
I am not going to get into wars and 'secret' torture prisons, because that is on a whole different level. Also, it's nothing new. It's not like the US has only recently started occupying countries, assassinating democratically elected governments and implanting atrocious dictatorships (-> Chile, Pinochet | -> Iraq, Saddam Hussein | -> Afghanistan, Taliban, just to name a few). It's not like Germany doesn't make a ton of money selling small arms and other weapons. The second most used assault rifle is the G3. Those things aren't new, and are not what I mean by recent developments.
So to sum it up: Stop focusing on concentration camps and GeStaPo, look at the situation closely and identify the new dangers. History always repeats itself, yet never repeats itself.
Please understand that I am not advocating any "crazy conspiracy theory" so thoroughly derided on the boards. All that is required for concern is: (1) GWB has given himself the power to define and declare an "emergency", in which (2) he will acquire power to legislate, (3) he can take away the liberty and property of anyone he decides is an "enemy", (4) he has a private mercenary army to enforce his orders, and (5) he can order official U.S. forces to maintain "order".
No conpiracy is required. This much concentrated power is dangerous in and of itself. History has shown time and time again that, once this type of power is available, it will be used. It always ends in tears. Source.
Which of course doesn't mean that your two-party doesn't suck. From my perspective, you have a rightist and a not-so-much-rightist party.It's true. However, I think you'd be surprised at the gradual changes we're taking towards democratic socialism.
I never heard of H.R.5122 (btw, what does H.R. stand for?), but I have to ask: you have a Supreme Court, don't you? How come that wasn't blocked by the Supreme Court? The Bundesverfassungsgericht would have ruled that unlawful without a second thought. Probably, Köhler would have refused to sign it, too. How come this could actually be passed in the US?
Unfortunately, I think HungryJoe's predictions about the future are not inaccurate. Looking from my current position, it does not seem like much of a stretch for the President to declare a national emergency and martial law, then take over. However, I think the only way this would have any chance of occurring was if the US was subjected to another 9/11 scale terrorist attack. After that, the Pres declares an emergency, finds "evidence" connecting Iran to the attack, we bomb Iran, and maybe even start WWIII.
Happy thought, isn't it?
However, I wonder how things will change when the last survivor of WWII is dead. Right now, in Germany, the war-generation is still alive. I am probably part of the last generation that is being told about WWII and the Nazi-regime by people who have actually been there. Both my grandfathers were taken POW, one by the Russians, one by the Americans. People who survived concentration camps are visiting schools telling students about their experiences. When there's noone left that has actually seen those horrors, noone really knows how public discussion will change.
And if WWIII starts, then the forumgoers who don't live in the US will probably be fucked and have to fend for themselves... crap.