oldman420

Platinum Member
May 22, 2004
2,179
0
0
How do you feel about the theory of the unitary executive?
Has the executive gone too far?
What are the implications?
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Wow, so there'd be people who would destroy American freedoms to "save" them? People would actually accept troops in our cities and martial law? Wow.
 

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Wow, so there'd be people who would destroy American freedoms to "save" them? People would actually accept troops in our cities and martial law? Wow.

Truman did it badly.

Carter did it.

Lincoln did it badly.

Clinton did it.

Bush is doing it now.

Pardon me if I don't buy into the arguement that the sky is falling.

 

AragornTK

Senior member
Dec 27, 2005
207
0
0
You forgot the last question in the poll: "Is this a loaded poll, slanted to fit my liberal beliefs?" Only one option possible, Yes
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Wow, so there'd be people who would destroy American freedoms to "save" them? People would actually accept troops in our cities and martial law? Wow.

Truman did it badly.

Carter did it.

Lincoln did it badly.

Clinton did it.

Bush is doing it now.

Pardon me if I don't buy into the arguement that the sky is falling.

Did what, exactly? I don't recall martial law being declared in my lifetime?
 

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
Did what, exactly? I don't recall martial law being declared in my lifetime?

You truly don't know?

Truman rounded up the Japanese, stuck them in camps, and took their land.

Lincoln deported people who disagreed with his politics. He sent in the army to stop an elected body from voting in Maryland.

Clinton approved warrantless wire taps in a spying case of Aldrich Ames. "WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order." Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993 by the Clinton Administration, both without a federal warrant."

Carter signed an executive order which allowed electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence without a court order.

Have you really never heard of these things?
 

oldman420

Platinum Member
May 22, 2004
2,179
0
0
Originally posted by: AragornTK
You forgot the last question in the poll: "Is this a loaded poll, slanted to fit my liberal beliefs?" Only one option possible, Yes

I added it just for you
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Did what, exactly? I don't recall martial law being declared in my lifetime?

You truly don't know?

Truman rounded up the Japanese, stuck them in camps, and took their land.

Lincoln deported people who disagreed with his politics. He sent in the army to stop an elected body from voting in Maryland.

Clinton approved warrantless wire taps in a spying case of Aldrich Ames. "WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order." Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993 by the Clinton Administration, both without a federal warrant."

Carter signed an executive order which allowed electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence without a court order.

Have you really never heard of these things?

Actually, I heard of all of them, but only Lincoln actually came close to declaring martial law. Truman's actions were horrible, but weren't even close to declaring martial law.

Foreign intelligence gathering doesn't impact American freedoms.

And if that bit about Clinton violating the FISA had any truth, Gingrich et al wouldn't have needed to pry into Clinton's personal life...

But I have to ask, would you support full blown martial law and troops in the streets?
 

AragornTK

Senior member
Dec 27, 2005
207
0
0
oldman, we may disagree on supposedly "important" issues, but you are now my favorite forum member AND poll creator... that's a pretty lofty position
 

The Linuxator

Banned
Jun 13, 2005
3,121
1
0
Originally posted by: oldman420
How do you feel about the theory of the unitary executive?
Has the executive gone too far?
What are the implications?


Excellent well laid out poll BTW :thumbsup:
 

oldman420

Platinum Member
May 22, 2004
2,179
0
0
Thank you so much, I endeavor to see if my thoughts are supported by the majority
 

Vadatajs

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2001
3,475
0
0
is our way of life in jeopardy? are we doomed to failure?

Is a 2 part question: Yes:No
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
A loaded question would presuppose information for which there is no supporting evidence. That isn't the situation here. There is plenty of evidence to support positive answers for most of the questions.
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
The judiciary is the branch that has gone too far. They have usurped the constitution for decades with no real effort to change it legally.

I would join armed troops in my town in hunting terrorists.

In the long term, everyone is endangered by the Islamic effort to rule the world.

Machines always have an error rate. The shame is on the ones who try to go to court to exploit what had been a 1.5% error rate in PCAM for years in order to wrest the 2000 presidential election from the elected winner.

Since the Clinton Presidency, I have always assumed that any communication that I conducted on anything electronic was monitered. In fact, I knew it was. At least Bush is doing it for something besides keeping Democratic rabble rousers in power.

There would be a social and/or political crisis in the US if we hadn't been able to keep the liberals at bay for the last eight years.

I think that Iran is just one finger on the power seeking hand of Islam.

Our way of life is in jeapordy but we haven't given up yet.

Now, digest my loaded answers to your loaded poll!
 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,340
3
71
Originally posted by: Condor
I would join armed troops in my town in hunting terrorists.

How would that work? Door to door searches of all "under bed" areas? Youre such a tool to this administration.
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: Deudalus
But I have to ask, would you support full blown martial law and troops in the streets?

Under what scenario?

Any scenario at all, you name it. Because I don't care what happens, I do not and will not ever support martial law in America. If that were to happen, America will die.
 

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
Any scenario at all, you name it. Because I don't care what happens, I do not and will not ever support martial law in America. If that were to happen, America will die.

What if we were invaded?

What if a string of dirty bombs go off and we know that more are going to?

Ask yourself this question:

If America were truly in jeopardy of being destroyed, would you cling to your freedoms which you would inevitably lose by the loss of your country or would you understand that freedoms are worthless without the country that provides for them?

Lincoln and Truman got it right when they realized that the number one job of the president is to defend the country and make sure that it continues to exist. Our constitution is worthless without the country that safeguards it.
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Any scenario at all, you name it. Because I don't care what happens, I do not and will not ever support martial law in America. If that were to happen, America will die.

What if we were invaded?

What if a string of dirty bombs go off and we know that more are going to?

Ask yourself this question:

If America were truly in jeopardy of being destroyed, would you cling to your freedoms which you would inevitably lose by the loss of your country or would you understand that freedoms are worthless without the country that provides for them?

Lincoln and Truman got it right when they realized that the number one job of the president is to defend the country and make sure that it continues to exist. Our constitution is worthless without the country that safeguards it.

If America were going to be destroyed, I'd rather it be destroyed a free nation than as some fascist military-run state.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Any scenario at all, you name it. Because I don't care what happens, I do not and will not ever support martial law in America. If that were to happen, America will die.

What if we were invaded?

What if a string of dirty bombs go off and we know that more are going to?

Ask yourself this question:

If America were truly in jeopardy of being destroyed, would you cling to your freedoms which you would inevitably lose by the loss of your country or would you understand that freedoms are worthless without the country that provides for them?

Lincoln and Truman got it right when they realized that the number one job of the president is to defend the country and make sure that it continues to exist. Our constitution is worthless without the country that safeguards it.

If America were going to be destroyed, I'd rather it be destroyed a free nation than as some fascist military-run state.

I don't think your being honest with yourself. If America were invaded I'd be willing to bet good money that you'd fight back with everything you have.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
would you support armed troops in your town or city for the purpose of hunting terrorists?
15% said yes. That's scary.
do you personaly feel you are endangered by terrorism or terrorists?
17%!

are you concerned by the reports of voting machine problems?
Yes. I honestly don't think they have been rigged, but many problems have been proven, and made untracable (we'll never know if they happen!)

do you feel that the last 2 presidential elections were fair and complete with all concerned votes correctly counted?
See above.

would you feel your constitutional rights were being violated if you learned your phone and emails were recorded and investigated?
That depends on what they had to do to get them. Due process and all that jazz.

do you feel that there is a building crisis in the united states socially and politically?
Absolutely. It's not bad, except for getting annoyed at sheeple.

do you think Iran is evil?
No. Good and (actually or) evil are silly generalizations that gloss over what good and evil even mean (which will vary by person), and that most everything embodies both the qualities attributed to good and to evil. Semantics, maybe, but in this case, important semantics.

is our way of life in jeopardy? are we doomed to failure?
Two-part, but I say yes to both.
Time is cyclic, as is humanity's general behavior.
I think we are doomed to failure, but also think that shaking up our society is something that is necessary within my lifetime.