• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

White House is being run by a bunch of cowboys

S

supernova87a

Senior member
I have come to the conclusion, after watching the Bush administration for the past several weeks, that we have a bunch of cowboys in the White House. So many of their actions strike me as ill-considered, hastily thought up plans drawn by a few people who influence Bush. They don't check for other opinions before announcing their plans, and they're really trampling on congress and our justice system.

Just take a look at this article today: from cnn

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Attorney General John Ashcroft lashed out Thursday at critics of the administration's response to terrorism, saying questions about whether its actions undermine the Constitution only serve to help terrorists...

Excuse me? Crticism of governmeint is inappropriate in time of war, and combating terrorism? For some reason, I thought that dissent and criticism were most important exactly in a time of war, when lives are at stake and the government must be kept in check. This is just like when Ari Fleischer, press secretary, told Bill Maher of Politically Incorrect, to "watch what he says". Can you believe this?
 
Anyone can sit in the whitehouse and ask for other opinions. It takes balls to think of something and go through it without worrying about crap tossed your way from people who don't agree. Clinton was DWINDLING our armed services down to nothing. If we would have had the same size/strength of forces we had when we were working in the gulf, things may have been progressing a bit faster.

Be happy we have a pres. who's doing anything about it -even though it is his civic duty to do so. Stand behind the President. We can't afford not to.

Nik
 
i'm sure supernova87a still stands behind our president and our country, but just because he thinks they're not doing a good job, doesn't make him unpatriotic or anything.

i sure wouldn't like to live in a country where nobody had the guts to say that they thought the government was making unwise decisions, which i think the bush administration have been making.

but who's to say that anyone else would be any better? still, the biggest thing that riles me up is that bush is not considering compromise on anything, and still talking about his campaign B.S. about bipartisanship as he's doing so.

john ashcroft is the administration's biggest joke, even more than janet reno.
my god, every answer he has to any critic is "you are helping the terrorists". that guy is plain dumb.
 
If the Bush's policies were well thought-out and well implemented, I would, as you say, Stand behind the President. But take a look at these policies -- they're not well thought out!

And I don't think that it helps us to robotically stand behind the president, even if he's doing something that's not right. Leaders have a horrible record of doing things, even if they're wrong, unless people stand up and tell them that they're wrong. It may feel good to stand together behind something, but not if it's wrong.

I'm not saying that everything he's doing is wrong, but you have to admit that some of these actions, like the military tribunals, holding people without trial or due process, etc. -- these are not right. They have been shown over and over to be the wrong thing to do. Just like the thousands of guardsmen standing around at airports -- they look good, but they really don't do anything, I have to say.

 


<< I'm not saying that everything he's doing is wrong, but you have to admit that some of these actions, like the military tribunals, holding people without trial or due process, etc. -- these are not right. They have been shown over and over to be the wrong thing to do. Just like the thousands of guardsmen standing around at airports -- they look good, but they really don't do anything, I have to say. >>



I have to ask, do you disagree with FDR and the allied decision to use militart tribunals for Nazi and Japanese spys and war criminals?

This IS in our Constitution, folks. And it was put there by hard core libertarians for a reason: when it comes to national security, or the rights of a person who has taken up arms against our country, national security comes first.
 


<< Leaders have a horrible record of doing things >>

Kinda shows the crap that the people are made out of, doesn't it -after all, it's the people that elect the horrible leader. 😉

Actually, I'm quite happy with his decisions. If you think about it, we're fighting to get something done. Bin Ladin is opposing it, obviously. If you're not helping our progress, you're doing Bin Ladin and his cronies a favor. Even if it's supporting the President in word, you're not poisoning other people against him and his decisions. Can you change his decisions? No. Can you affect what decisions he makes? No. Live with it, and follow like a robot for a noble cause. How he goes about doing it is something that you have absolutely no control over.

Nik
 
I have to ask, do you disagree with FDR and the allied decision to use militart tribunals for Nazi and Japanese spys and war criminals?

I disagree with the fact that Japanese citizens were basically imprisoned during WWII just for being Japanese, and that no one seemed think that was too big a deal. Treating several thousand - tens of thousands of our own citizens this way far outweighs the convictions (and executions) of a few spies. It is an embarassment to our country, and if you don't know about it, you should.

National security is too often trumpeted as the goal when people don't want to answer for what they're doing. Or when they don't want to be stopped and told to think first.

I think you forget too easily that the Constitution, while setting up our government, is primarily designed to protect individuals from infringement by the government. I would expect the most die-hard conservatives to agree with that statement. Suddenly, you want it the other way?

And lastly, this comment:
If you're not helping our progress, you're doing Bin Ladin and his cronies a favor.
This smacks spookily of what Stalin said -- "if you're not with us, you're against us."
 


<< TextI have to ask, do you disagree with FDR and the allied decision to use militart tribunals for Nazi and Japanese spys and war criminals?

I disagree with the fact that Japanese citizens were basically imprisoned during WWII just for being Japanese, and that no one seemed think that was too big a deal.

National security is too often trumpeted as the goal when people don't want to answer for what they're doing. Or when they don't want to be stopped and told to think first.

I think you forget too easily that the Constitution, while setting up our government, is primarily designed to protect individuals from infringement by the government. I would expect the most die-hard conservatives to agree with that statement. Suddenly, you want it the other way? >>



The Constitution put limitations on government, but also gave them certain powers. Military tribunals are one of those powers. Don't like it? Amend the Constitution.
 
The Constitution put limitations on government, but also gave them certain powers. Military tribunals are one of those powers. Don't like it? Amend the Constitution.

Yes, that's true. But where did it say that this could be done by the president acting on his own? Last I heard, there were also congress and the courts to answer to.

And what about the several hundred people being detained secretly right now, without trial and without charges? Is that in the constitution?

Why are you defending Bush so vigorously? Aren't you interested in asking questions about what's going on?
 


<< White House is being run by a bunch of cowboys >>

Yeehaa!

<< Excuse me? Crticism of governmeint is inappropriate in time of war, and combating terrorism? For some reason, I thought that dissent and criticism were most important exactly in a time of war, when lives are at stake and the government must be kept in check. >>

Noooo, you're mistaken. Ashcroft wasn't referring to anyone who had any LEGITIMATE criticism, which as been limited to...well...nobody really. All of the criticisms haven't been criticisms, they've been UNFOUNDED, BASELESS, FACTLESS, and CONJECTURAL attacks of the Justice Department, but nobody has yet to come up with a criticism of substantive matter.

Its just more "the sky is going to fall!" and "if you do this, we're all going to DIEEEAAAAAHHH!" and "run for your lives, the world is coming to an end, aahhhhhhhhhhhheeeeee!"

Chicken-little alarmism, pure and simple.
 


<< You're a fscking moron supernova. Crawl back into your hole little boy, leave the governing of America to grownups. >>

Talk to him like that, and he'll always be a "fscking moron." If you actually explain things, you never know, he could actually learn something and move away from his "fscking moron-ness."

Nik
 
And what about the several hundred people being detained secretly right now, without trial and without charges? Is that in the constitution?

No, the Constitution is quite specific about not being able to do this. However, most (all?) of these people are being held for something, almost all to do with immigration violations. While in most instances and times this would not involve detention, I believe the use of detention is allowed de jure. It may be regretable that those that are innocent or innocent of any more diabolical activity are being detained, but it seems to be allowed. And, I can say with experience, that if the Feds want you, they will get you. They'll concoct something and throw stuff 'till it sticks.

I do agree that the wholesale attempt at the repression of liberty in the name of fighting terrorism is troublesome. Hell, I don't want to give up any liberty. But if noncitizens not in this country get nabbed I don't see why we should drag them back here for a civilian trial.
 
Aren't you interested in asking questions about what's going on?

I already KNOW what's going on... WE'RE AT WAR WITH TERRORISTS! DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Takes a lot of thought to criticize without even a hint of an idea of how to do the job better. I'd sure like to hear your awesome plan for dealing with it!
 
seems to me i remember days after the attack people were whining that our government had not been doing enough about terrorist threats. now people are whining that the government is doing too much. seems to me there are always whiners no matter what happens.
 
You're a fscking moron supernova. Crawl back into your hole little boy, leave the governing of America to grownups.

Whoa. I can't believe how pigheaded some people get here. Do you mean that because I'm talking about rationally thinking out policies and having at least other branches of government have some say, that I'm a moron. Or am I a moron for not getting in line and having my first reaction be "Bomb the $hit out of those bastards! " ? I'm certainly glad you're here and not one of those grownups governing America.

Bush is simply using powers granted to him by the constitution and congress.
As for this one, have you noticed that John Ashcroft has been called before the Senate to explain his actions?

Takes a lot of thought to criticize without even a hint of an idea of how to do the job better. I'd sure like to hear your awesome plan for dealing with it!

You know what, I *don't* know how to do the job better. But that doesn't make the points I raise any less valid. If I see an airline pilot yanking some guy off a plane just because he's got a middle-eastern sounding last name, on the advice of a nervous/prejudiced passenger, you bet I'm going to ask questions. I may not be able to fly the plane, but I can see when something wrong is happening. And it would be wrong of me to keep quiet.
 
This is a messy fvcking problem we have here, and the solutions may not be pretty, but damn it, the jobs getting done no thanks to some people! :disgust:
 
I'm not saying that everything he's doing is wrong, but you have to admit that some of these actions, like the military tribunals, holding people without trial or due process, etc. -- these are not right. They have been shown over and over to be the wrong thing to do.

Could you show me where they've 'been shown over and over to be the wrong thing to do'?


Just like the thousands of guardsmen standing around at airports -- they look good, but they really don't do anything, I have to say.

Well, it's a good thing you're such an authority on these matter, otherwise i'll think you're pulling all this out of your ass.

This smacks spookily of what Stalin said -- "if you're not with us, you're against us."

So if Stalin had said potatos are good, then we should hate potatos?

 
"As for this one, have you noticed that John Ashcroft has been called before the Senate to explain his actions?"
--

yeah he did today, and he did a damn fine job of it. He shut up those democratic senators good. He put em on the spot, and they backed down.
 
Look, I'm neither fiercely liberal nor fiercely conservative. And I'm not out there to criticize just because it's easy or I get a kick out of doing so.

But we've got hundreds of people sitting in jails here, and you can't even find out their names. Isn't this a little unusual? Don't you think that at least someone ought to raise question marks about it?

I am inherently distrusting of government. Whether or not democrat or republican in the white house.

Could you show me where they've 'been shown over and over to be the wrong thing to do'?

Yes, I can start with the Sedition Act of 1798, less than 10 years after the hallowed Constitution was conceived. You've got an act here, implemented to quiet dissent among the population, that made it a *crime* to publish anything "malicious" against the government. Is that soon enough for you. I think the examples continue up to the present.


This is a messy fvcking problem we have here, and the solutions may not be pretty, but damn it, the jobs getting done no thanks to some people!

I'm sure glad that someone is doing it. Let's keep an eye on them, just to be sure they're doing it right, though.


Bush is "Da Man".Best President since Reagan,IMHO.

Ok, there are 2 things wrong with this sentence. I can't believe any intelligent person would seriously think this.
 
I don't trust Ashcroft but that's because I have a bias against Fundies(Especially Mullah Falwell and Mullah Roberstson). That said, I think GW is doing a fine job. I must admit that I am surprised but I'm pleasantly surprised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top