WSJ: Obama adopts Bush view on the powers of the presidency.

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

:laugh: at your idea that your experiences are worth anything at all.

As I said, keep living your illusion it means the government is doing it's job. Your beliefs are a reinforcement of my vision.

Quoted for stupidity.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Genx87

Then again, we are relearning that the "Imperial Presidency" is only imperial when the President is a Republican. Democrats who spent years denouncing George Bush for "spying on Americans" and "illegal wiretaps" are now conspicuously silent. Yet these same liberals are going ballistic about the Bush-era legal memos released this week. Cognitive dissonance is the polite explanation, and we wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Holder released them precisely to distract liberal attention from the Al-Haramain case.

By the way, those Bush documents are Office of Legal Counsel memos, not policy directives. They were written in the immediate aftermath of a major terrorist attack, when more seemed possible, and it would have been irresponsible not to explore the outer limits of Presidential war powers in the event of a worst-case scenario. Based on what we are learning so far about Mr. Obama's policies, his Administration would do the same.

Pretty much sums up my opinion. The thread about Obama releasing information on Bush was amusing because Obama hasnt changed policies.

Absolutely ridiculous. As already shown earlier in this thread there are plenty of liberal voices who are vehemently condemning Obama's position on these issues. Furthermore the memos were legal opinions provided to executive branch agencies and their general counsels. They weren't just ideas they were kicking around the office, they were legal guidance provided.

I expect that sort of dishonesty from the WSJ page, but you have contrary evidence staring you right in the face, man.

And there are/were many conservatives who were against Bush. So what? The fact is, the left accepts Obama in spite if his same-ness to Bush.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
And there are/were many conservatives who were against Bush. So what? The fact is, the left accepts Obama in spite if his same-ness to Bush.

Huh? What are you basing this on? Obama is also different than Bush on lots and lots of issues. You know that you can disapprove of some things that a president does and still approve of the president overall, right?

I'm not even sure you could define 'the left' in a way that I couldn't turn it right back around and pull the same thing on 'the right'. You know those 30% of people who still approved of Bush? Something tells me they don't approve of Obama because he's continuing some of his positions. There are simply principled people, and unprincipled people. The WSJ's editorial is dishonest in its representation of the situation, but then again it's the WSJ editorial page. Not exactly shocking.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

heh, you truly think your "life" experiences give you a better view of the world when all they do is server as a prism through which you view the world. It is your life experiences that cause you to distrust the government, and my life experiences that cause me to trust it. I won't get into a "who has seen more" I have stated through these forums places I have been and things I have seen and I find it pathetic to use it as a crutch since all "experiences" truly means is the color of the glass you see the world through.

Do you think the businessman who has been everywhere and seen more than you ever will will suddenly have a better view on the world or a different one?

For someone with as much knowledge as you say you have, you certainly as shallow in how you justify your opinions.

As for your other point, if that was the way it worked already, we wouldn't have these stories every few years now would we? Keep your illusion of what you think the country represents, as I said I am glad you have it, it means the government is doing a good job, keeping the people happy and safe. What more could we ask for?

You are actually saying that experiences don't improve your understanding of the world, just that they color it. That explains a lot.

Your opinions on this issue are just really naive, there isn't much else I can say. I imagine you will grow out of them.

:laugh: at your idea that your experiences are worth anything at all.

As I said, keep living your illusion it means the government is doing it's job. Your beliefs are a reinforcement of my vision.

And yours are?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

:laugh: at your idea that your experiences are worth anything at all.

As I said, keep living your illusion it means the government is doing it's job. Your beliefs are a reinforcement of my vision.

Quoted for stupidity.

Quotes for lack of understanding?

:laugh:

What is sad is you think experiences translate into knowledge of the subject. Does the person living in Sudan understand why her life is the way it is? Or only that she in hungry? Some people are able to translate experiences into an actual intellect of the subject, the fact you think your experiences define the world shows you are unable to do this.

So yes, your experiences are worth nothing because you are unable to translate that as to why they mean anything.

For a better visual, Plato's Allegory of the Cave is a good example of what I am saying.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

heh, you truly think your "life" experiences give you a better view of the world when all they do is server as a prism through which you view the world. It is your life experiences that cause you to distrust the government, and my life experiences that cause me to trust it. I won't get into a "who has seen more" I have stated through these forums places I have been and things I have seen and I find it pathetic to use it as a crutch since all "experiences" truly means is the color of the glass you see the world through.

Do you think the businessman who has been everywhere and seen more than you ever will will suddenly have a better view on the world or a different one?

For someone with as much knowledge as you say you have, you certainly as shallow in how you justify your opinions.

As for your other point, if that was the way it worked already, we wouldn't have these stories every few years now would we? Keep your illusion of what you think the country represents, as I said I am glad you have it, it means the government is doing a good job, keeping the people happy and safe. What more could we ask for?

You are actually saying that experiences don't improve your understanding of the world, just that they color it. That explains a lot.

Your opinions on this issue are just really naive, there isn't much else I can say. I imagine you will grow out of them.

:laugh: at your idea that your experiences are worth anything at all.

As I said, keep living your illusion it means the government is doing it's job. Your beliefs are a reinforcement of my vision.

And yours are?

Only the ones I understand, but for the most part no.But again, I am not saying my experiences define me or the world. Simplistically you could say my experiences make me trust the government as I said earlier, but those same experiences could be used by someone to distrust the government, so whose is more valid?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

:laugh: at your idea that your experiences are worth anything at all.

As I said, keep living your illusion it means the government is doing it's job. Your beliefs are a reinforcement of my vision.

Quoted for stupidity.

Quotes for lack of understanding?

:laugh:

What is sad is you think experiences translate into knowledge of the subject. Does the person living in Sudan understand why her life is the way it is? Or only that she in hungry? Some people are able to translate experiences into an actual intellect of the subject, the fact you think your experiences define the world shows you are unable to do this.

So yes, your experiences are worth nothing because you are unable to translate that as to why they mean anything.

For a better visual, Plato's Allegory of the Cave is a good example of what I am saying.

Hey, you're doing that same thing you did in the other thread where you endorsed authoritarianism. You're arguing based on what you wish I said as opposed to what I actually said. My experiences don't define the world, they qualify my opinion. You're free to declare my experiences invalid because they don't meet some sort of made up criteria that you've invented, but that's why I was quoting your previous reply for stupidity.

You aren't able to win on the merits of your argument, and now you're getting mad that I keep calling you out on how silly you sound. Simply put, you have a child's understanding of the way the world works, and you seem unwilling or unable to glean the consequences of unchecked secrecy and power from both current and historical examples. There's not much I can do other than tell you this in the hopes that you will educate yourself on the topic.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

:laugh: at your idea that your experiences are worth anything at all.

As I said, keep living your illusion it means the government is doing it's job. Your beliefs are a reinforcement of my vision.

Quoted for stupidity.

Quotes for lack of understanding?

:laugh:

What is sad is you think experiences translate into knowledge of the subject. Does the person living in Sudan understand why her life is the way it is? Or only that she in hungry? Some people are able to translate experiences into an actual intellect of the subject, the fact you think your experiences define the world shows you are unable to do this.

So yes, your experiences are worth nothing because you are unable to translate that as to why they mean anything.

For a better visual, Plato's Allegory of the Cave is a good example of what I am saying.

Hey, you're doing that same thing you did in the other thread where you endorsed authoritarianism. You're arguing based on what you wish I said as opposed to what I actually said. My experiences don't define the world, they qualify my opinion. You're free to declare my experiences invalid because they don't meet some sort of made up criteria that you've invented, but that's why I was quoting your previous reply for stupidity.

You aren't able to win on the merits of your argument, and now you're getting mad that I keep calling you out on how silly you sound. Simply put, you have a child's understanding of the way the world works, and you seem unwilling or unable to glean the consequences of unchecked secrecy and power from both current and historical examples. There's not much I can do other than tell you this in the hopes that you will educate yourself on the topic.

Not angry at all. Amused is more like it as I watch you struggle. I've already declared my experiences are no more valuable than yours in defining how the world works. I do find it amusing you ignored all the points though since again, they don't fit into your "vision" of the world. I also enjoy your back pedling now on how you are stating your experiences are worth less than you were making them out to be earlier. They have gone from "showing me the real world" to "qualifying my opinion." You yourself have just withing a few posts removed some of the value of your experience.

As I said earlier, you lack the ability to actually convert your experience into anything meaninfull and use them as a crutch when your argument is weak, which you did in this thread with what you are accusing me of doing now :laugh: You yourself attempted to use your experiences to attack my opinion and now you are saying this is wrong.

You keep going in circles and you don't even realize it. So no, not angry in the least, amused yes.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Not angry at all. Amused is more like it as I watch you struggle. I've already declared my experiences are no more valuable than yours in defining how the world works. I do find it amusing you ignored all the points though since again, they don't fit into your "vision" of the world. I also enjoy your back pedling now on how you are stating your experiences are worth less than you were making them out to be earlier. They have gone from "showing me the real world" to "qualifying my opinion." You yourself have just withing a few posts removed some of the value of your experience.

As I said earlier, you lack the ability to actually convert your experience into anything meaninfull and use them as a crutch when your argument is weak, which you did in this thread with what you are accusing me of doing now :laugh: You yourself attempted to use your experiences to attack my opinion and now you are saying this is wrong.

You keep going in circles and you don't even realize it. So no, not angry in the least, amused yes.

I guess you just have reading comprehension problems. Do you understand what 'qualifying' your opinion means? If someone has a greater degree of knowledge about something than you do, it means their opinion is more valuable. My experience around the world has exposed me to many different types of societies with different attitudes towards governance and I've seen the results first hand. That's what seeing the real world means, and having done so makes my opinion stronger because it gives me a larger base of knowledge from which to draw my conclusions. They both referred to the same thing.

My argument isn't weak at all, in fact it relies on the exact same basis as last time when I demolished your appeal to authoritarianism. History clearly shows us the consequences of unchecked secrecy and power, as do numerous contemporary examples. You place implicit trust in government, and there are dozens, hundreds of examples of why this is a bad idea. You choose to ignore them at your peril.

Remember how everyone was dogpiling you in that other thread? You're doing the same thing again.

I'm not interested in another 3 page fagdance with you on the same subject. It's not even like you have an interesting opinion on it, you just have a dumb one. To be honest, I don't even think you really believe what you're saying... it's almost like you're playing a character at this point.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

Not angry at all. Amused is more like it as I watch you struggle. I've already declared my experiences are no more valuable than yours in defining how the world works. I do find it amusing you ignored all the points though since again, they don't fit into your "vision" of the world. I also enjoy your back pedling now on how you are stating your experiences are worth less than you were making them out to be earlier. They have gone from "showing me the real world" to "qualifying my opinion." You yourself have just withing a few posts removed some of the value of your experience.

As I said earlier, you lack the ability to actually convert your experience into anything meaninfull and use them as a crutch when your argument is weak, which you did in this thread with what you are accusing me of doing now :laugh: You yourself attempted to use your experiences to attack my opinion and now you are saying this is wrong.

You keep going in circles and you don't even realize it. So no, not angry in the least, amused yes.

I guess you just have reading comprehension problems. Do you understand what 'qualifying' your opinion means? If someone has a greater degree of knowledge about something than you do, it means their opinion is more valuable. My experience around the world has exposed me to many different types of societies with different attitudes towards governance and I've seen the results first hand. That's what seeing the real world means, and having done so makes my opinion stronger because it gives me a larger base of knowledge from which to draw my conclusions. They both referred to the same thing.

My argument isn't weak at all, in fact it relies on the exact same basis as last time when I demolished your appeal to authoritarianism. History clearly shows us the consequences of unchecked secrecy and power, as do numerous contemporary examples. You place implicit trust in government, and there are dozens, hundreds of examples of why this is a bad idea. You choose to ignore them at your peril.

Remember how everyone was dogpiling you in that other thread? You're doing the same thing again.

I'm not interested in another 3 page fagdance with you on the same subject. It's not even like you have an interesting opinion on it, you just have a dumb one. To be honest, I don't even think you really believe what you're saying... it's almost like you're playing a character at this point.

Who is angry now? :laugh: You are truly a riot. I am reminded of visions of the "social justice" individuals foaming at the mouth in half intellectual rants when they have run out of points.

You demolished my views on authoritarism? Actually you wrote long emotional rants of utter BS that were without any merit. In fact your entire approach to this subject is nothing but irational emotion of a kind that is akin to pure blind faith in a system that you don't even understand anything but the most basic functions of. Your ignorance on this issue is astounding for someone who feels they have a real grasp on it. As I said earlier though your idea that the system is what you think it is does nothing but reinforce my vision of a government which both secures the populace and keeps them happily ignorant. It is an amazing system we live in and you should be thankful for it.



But, since you have such a strong grasp on the subject, show me where in history secrecy had lead to authoritarianism and conciliation of power. A statement you enjoy making but I doubt you have any real knowledge on.


Let me say in advance, before you state the two most obvious (though you might not have!) Hitler and the Nazis, or Stalin and Russian Revolution were both extremely open about there intents and there goals of a totalitarian state. The populations actually wanted one. So there was no secrecy there to gain power, they were very open in there push for power. Though, I am sure someone with a grasp on this subject such as yourself knew this and I probably make myself look like a fool for assuming you would chose these two, but ah well I look forward to hearing your examples though.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Who is angry now? :laugh: You are truly a riot. I am reminded of visions of the "social justice" individuals foaming at the mouth in half intellectual rants when they have run out of points.

You demolished my views on authoritarism? Actually you wrote long emotional rants of utter BS that were without any merit. In fact your entire approach to this subject is nothing but irational emotion of a kind that is akin to pure blind faith in a system that you don't even understand anything but the most basic functions of. Your ignorance on this issue is astounding for someone who feels they have a real grasp on it. As I said earlier though your idea that the system is what you think it is does nothing but reinforce my vision of a government which both secures the populace and keeps them happily ignorant. It is an amazing system we live in and you should be thankful for it.

But, since you have such a strong grasp on the subject, show me where in history secrecy had lead to authoritarianism and conciliation of power. A statement you enjoy making but I doubt you have any real knowledge on.

You're mistaking contempt for anger. I have a 4 year degree from a university with a top 10 program in the subject, I have visited countries on every continent, and I've experienced societies with a wide spectrum of approaches to governance. You're a kid on the internet who thinks that we should live in what amounts to a benevolent dictatorship. You're right that one of us is ignorant on the subject though.

Of course everyone knows that someone can still be really really wrong on a subject no matter how experienced or educated they are on it. Then again, I'm arguing that unchecked power is abused, and you're arguing for the ability for people to wield unchecked power. I'm pretty confident on that one.

Finally, it's hilarious to me that you are literally trying to attribute the same incorrect assessment of my point in this thread as you did in the last one. You can't read and understand what other people write, you have ideas on government that seem to come from Saturday morning cartoons, and you consistently try to misrepresent other people's positions. (this could be deliberate or a by-product of your difficulty with understanding what you are reading)

I honestly believe that you just need to do some reading on this subject. Until you do that, there really isn't much point to this.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not going to go write a long essay on examples from history. As stated in a previous thread, the examples are everywhere. Go crack a book.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm not going to go write a long essay on examples from history. As stated in a previous thread, the examples are everywhere. Go crack a book.

I didn't ask for that. Just a few examples, or even the governments name, or even the country.

Or are you one of those people who enjoy using phrases like "I know a bunch of..." "history shows..." "statistics show..." without actually having examples?

I mean simplistically, give me one, just a government, country, leader. Like 10 words. That is all. I am sure you can do that, afterall history has many examples like you said right?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

Who is angry now? :laugh: You are truly a riot. I am reminded of visions of the "social justice" individuals foaming at the mouth in half intellectual rants when they have run out of points.

You demolished my views on authoritarism? Actually you wrote long emotional rants of utter BS that were without any merit. In fact your entire approach to this subject is nothing but irational emotion of a kind that is akin to pure blind faith in a system that you don't even understand anything but the most basic functions of. Your ignorance on this issue is astounding for someone who feels they have a real grasp on it. As I said earlier though your idea that the system is what you think it is does nothing but reinforce my vision of a government which both secures the populace and keeps them happily ignorant. It is an amazing system we live in and you should be thankful for it.

But, since you have such a strong grasp on the subject, show me where in history secrecy had lead to authoritarianism and conciliation of power. A statement you enjoy making but I doubt you have any real knowledge on.

You're mistaking contempt for anger. I have a 4 year degree from a university with a top 10 program in the subject, I have visited countries on every continent, and I've experienced societies with a wide spectrum of approaches to governance. You're a kid on the internet who thinks that we should live in what amounts to a benevolent dictatorship. You're right that one of us is ignorant on the subject though.

Of course everyone knows that someone can still be really really wrong on a subject no matter how experienced or educated they are on it. Then again, I'm arguing that unchecked power is abused, and you're arguing for the ability for people to wield unchecked power. I'm pretty confident on that one.

Finally, it's hilarious to me that you are literally trying to attribute the same incorrect assessment of my point in this thread as you did in the last one. You can't read and understand what other people write, you have ideas on government that seem to come from Saturday morning cartoons, and you consistently try to misrepresent other people's positions. (this could be deliberate or a by-product of your difficulty with understanding what you are reading)

I honestly believe that you just need to do some reading on this subject. Until you do that, there really isn't much point to this.

You have a lot of potential with your experiences and education, sad you don't put it to use anywhere and rely on it to back up your opinions when you have nothing else to back them up with.

As I said, one exampled of these multiple historical examples. As someone 3 years through a Poli Sci/History degree after 2 years of Liberal Studies (Though I am switching to BioChem this September, so maybe all this beautiful information is in 4th year?) I have yet to see one example, so perhaps my professors have all missed it? Like I said, one example, that is all. Just a name.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Every example you could give me I could find a reason it shouldn't have been brought to the light since the good the classified program did was not worth removing in exchange for bringing to light a few injustices that have no real place on the overall picture. You try to paint me as basing my views on ideology, but again, any "journalistic triumph in the name of transparency" has hurt someone somewhere if not directly than indirectly. Again show me your examples and I will show you who they put at risk.

I'm not going to begin to do justice to the topic of the countless thousands of stories that served the right of the citizenry to be informed and the benefits of that, both direct and preventive, something you don't believe in - it can hardly be summarized and do justice to the volume.

For just one example of information the government would rather have kept revealed but which became public, after Katrina and Rita, the government was in many neighborhoods giving out more grants than there were homes, for billions - they had a careless system that allowed fraud that wasted money. It was the FOIA that allowed hournalists the right to the data, and they then published the story, and the government then made reforms.

Feel free to show me who was hurt that made it not justified for that info to be made public.

We could take perhaps the most famous example: the Pentagon Papers.

For all the hysteria by secrecy lovers, the release of Robert McNamara's ordered 'honest history' of the early years of the war showed the public that they were being lied to about the war, and it better allowed them to form opinions on accurate information. During the trials, judges asked the government to show them the most damaging revelations - and found that there was not any real 'harm' done. Show me the *specific* harms caused by an item.

I'll also refer you to the comments by the head of the Associated Press on the FOIA, discussing many times when the government's desire for secrecy was a problem. Respond - but don't cherry pick with some throwaway line, respond to the good examples on why they would have better not become public. Say, the lead in childrens' lunchboxes.

Link

As far as "begging" for a government to lie to me, sometimes, the government needs to lie to the citizens. We elect these people to run the country, we are not a society of 300 million running the country, not every single person gets a voice besides a vote. If it turns out to be in the governments, societies or the countries best interests to lie to the people, than the people should be lied too.

If for the sale of argument I agreed there are a few rare times the government is justified in lying to its citizens, that's not near the wholesale massive lying you would cause to occur.

The policy you advocate would threaten the thing the founding fathers said is essential for democracy: an informed and vigilant citizenry.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RichardE

Every example you could give me I could find a reason it shouldn't have been brought to the light since the good the classified program did was not worth removing in exchange for bringing to light a few injustices that have no real place on the overall picture. You try to paint me as basing my views on ideology, but again, any "journalistic triumph in the name of transparency" has hurt someone somewhere if not directly than indirectly. Again show me your examples and I will show you who they put at risk.

I'm not going to begin to do justice to the topic of the countless thousands of stories that served the right of the citizenry to be informed and the benefits of that, both direct and preventive, something you don't believe in - it can hardly be summarized and do justice to the volume.

For just one example of information the government would rather have kept revealed but which became public, after Katrina and Rita, the government was in many neighborhoods giving out more grants than there were homes, for billions - they had a careless system that allowed fraud that wasted money. It was the FOIA that allowed hournalists the right to the data, and they then published the story, and the government then made reforms.

Feel free to show me who was hurt that made it not justified for that info to be made public.

We could take perhaps the most famous example: the Pentagon Papers.

For all the hysteria by secrecy lovers, the release of Robert McNamara's ordered 'honest history' of the early years of the war showed the public that they were being lied to about the war, and it better allowed them to form opinions on accurate information. During the trials, judges asked the government to show them the most damaging revelations - and found that there was not any real 'harm' done. Show me the *specific* harms caused by an item.

I'll also refer you to the comments by the head of the Associated Press on the FOIA, discussing many times when the government's desire for secrecy was a problem. Respond - but don't cherry pick with some throwaway line, respond to the good examples on why they would have better not become public. Say, the lead in childrens' lunchboxes.

Link

As far as "begging" for a government to lie to me, sometimes, the government needs to lie to the citizens. We elect these people to run the country, we are not a society of 300 million running the country, not every single person gets a voice besides a vote. If it turns out to be in the governments, societies or the countries best interests to lie to the people, than the people should be lied too.

If for the sale of argument I agreed there are a few rare times the government is justified in lying to its citizens, that's not near the wholesale massive lying you would cause to occur.

The policy you advocate would threaten the thing the founding fathers said is essential for democracy: an informed and vigilant citizenry.

Interesting examples and thank you, I will have to read them more in-depth.

I do not agree with your assumption my policy would destroy the foundation, I think the "snowball" effect is truly overrated. Again though, thank you for the examples I'll read into them.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Interesting examples and thank you, I will have to read them more in-depth.

I do not agree with your assumption my policy would destroy the foundation, I think the "snowball" effect is truly overrated. Again though, thank you for the examples I'll read into them.

FYI, I am not just criticizing - I see you as someone who is evolving, or hopefully evolving, your views. When I was a lot younger, my initial reaction to Daniel Ellsberg was that it was black and white: he lied, and so should be punished and was wrong, period. It really takes evolution of understanding the situation and issues to develop an appreciation for how things work to be able to at least consider why he might have made the right, the patriotic, the moral decision that was good for the country - why indeed he could be called a hero.

Imagine for a moment that people said "we're tired of all the lies in the media, and are going to ask government to step in for the worst lies and force the people to tell the truth."

That well-intentioned act would result in what, though? The moment the government had the power to dictate to the media what to say, it wouldn't be for the 'biggest lies to the public', it'd be for the most effective stories that were harmful to the government interest. I assume you can see that - but when it comes to classification, not having read the many studies showing the abuses, you for whatever reason assume the government will behave wonderfully in the public interest.

No one's saying not to classify *anything* - but I think informed people quickly reach the conclusion that the pendulum is far too much on the 'secrecy' side, and that sunshine does more good than harm in at least 9 out of 10 cases that there's an issue. But it's an educational process to understand that. But it's an important thing for our citizens to understand - if they don't, they won't value the liberties, and risk losing them.