SIGN THE PETITION!: It's important (I might allow some SPAM)

smass · Post by **smass** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 7:40 am

*Resident conservative lurks by*

....the usual suspects....nothing to see here.

*Goes to bank to cash his federal child tax credit refund checks*

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 4:09 pm

Originally posted by smass
*Resident conservative lurks by*

....the usual suspects....nothing to see here.

*Goes to bank to cash his federal child tax credit refund checks*

*beer Toast @ Smass*

Originally posted by Gwalchmai
[Sean voice]What short of poshishuns did you have in mind, my dear?[/Sean voice]

Ohhh.....I was thinking of something 'commanding' where you would be 'on top' of the situation, with the matter at hand 'firmly' under your 'control'.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 4:58 am

Originally posted by smass
*Resident conservative lurks by*

I've maintained since Day One of his appointed presidency that Dubya wasn't a conservative, but a radical, and I mean that. His economic theories are the latest theories, and have failed thus far wherever chosen. And the US administration went on record during its early years as bieng opposed to precisely the "foreign adventures" that Dubya has pursued for just the reasons he's discovering: cost, being drawn into larger conflicts, threat of retaliation, etc. In fact, our second president, John Adams, repeatedly praised his successor, Thomas Jefferson, many years after both had retired, because the latter had (despite provocation) kept the US out of foreign wars during a period of great danger.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 11:31 am

Originally posted by Gwalchmai
Oh. I hope its not serious. I thought maybe she had had a stroke or some such (not a fate I would wish on anyone).

She did.

Hmmm, well the damn site won't load the petition for me to sign... but I did try, can I still spam here @Minerva?

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:11 am

Originally posted by Georgi
She did.

Hmmm, well the damn site won't load the petition for me to sign... but I did try, can I still spam here @Minerva?

Yes, you can.

*Wonders what else Georgi does in the SYM...*

I think more people spread words to give Tony bigger stage to act....

I didn't mean that literally.

BlackSheep · Post by **BlackSheep** » Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:16 am

So Min u still lead spam ??? u guys will never let it go

so whos Tony? and whos left from our days? i saw Mr.Sleep got to be in charge of something?????

smass · Post by **smass** » Thu Aug 07, 2003 10:25 am

@Fable: Funny - I am not surprised that you consider Bush to be a radical. I am sure you are not using the term radical in the traditional ideological spectrum:

Left......................................................Right

Radical Liberal Moderate Conservative Reactionary

When you say you consider him to be a radical - I assume you mean in relation to your own ideological views. I don't mean to argue semantics - but Bush is certainly no radical in his political ideology.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:04 pm

Originally posted by Minerva
*Wonders what else Georgi does in the SYM...*

Why would I need to do anything else?

Spamming is enough... now hush.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:58 pm

Originally posted by smass
When you say you consider him to be a radical - I assume you mean in relation to your own ideological views. I don't mean to argue semantics - but Bush is certainly no radical in his political ideology.

I wouldn't use myself as a reference point to tar anybody with the term "radical," because 1) my views don't fit neatly in a slot on the political spectrum (they really don't--I'm vigorously in favor of capital punishment and opposed to affirmative action, for instance, while being very anti-monopolistic and extremely pro-social spending), and 2) for such terms to have any meaning they should possess some point-of-reference outside personal opinions.

The term "radical" describes Bush's economic, personal rights and foreign policies nicely, because he is, both in a general and specific sense, implementing policies that have never been tried before in the US government, and that neither refer back to older conservative American value systems (as perhaps best exemplified by the Republican senator, Barry Goldwater), nor to liberal American ones (Ted Kennedy).

His combination of drastic tax cuts, an enormous expansion in government spending, and a foreign war has created the single largest hard currency deficit in US history--this, after his predecessor had finally, unequivocably, brought deficit spending under control. (For the record, as I've stated before, I really, really don't like Clinton. But he succeeded brilliantly in the economy; I give him that.) Typically, conservative and liberal approaches to US federal spending have varied on emphasis, but never on the need for a general sense of balance between revenues and expenditures. (We might make an exception here for the unilateralist changes in the first Reagan administration, but it could be said that they spent their way in defense out of inflation.) Bush is the first US president who has shown no concern for maintaining that balance.

On the foreign front, no American president has ever previously invaded a sovreign foreign nation without being in a declared war with it, rescuing US citizens under threat, or having a UN mandate. The US government has always lobbied for an international world court; now, for the first time, it has opposed the formation of such a body. The US government has never previously sought to barter immunity for its own politicians/military in foreign courts. The US has previously refused to fund publically funded US organizations that mentioned abortions in health education overseas, but never before has funding been refused (or in some cases, stopped) when such organizations simply mentioned condoms/safe sex. The US has previously had a mixed record on the support of UN-sponsored global environmental concerns. This is the first president under whom the complete slate of global environmental issues, forums, etc, have been refused. This is the first president who has led an administration that now actively lobbies against these environmental pacts. All of this relates back to the man in the Oval House, who sets both the tone and substance of dealings with foreign nations in the US.

On the personal liberties front, Bush is the first president to tighten restrictions on information access of government records to the public since Eisenhower in the 1950s. A host of new regulations now make it harder for the first time in half a century to gain access to relevant facts. For example, some fairly basic executive transcripts were previously accessible by all media, anywhere in the country. Now, there are ten locations where a media representative *most present themselves in person* to access this information, thus putting it outside the reach of many concerned citizens. Bush is also the first US president since Nixon to refuse to provide the US Congress with requested materials. He has done so repeatedly, and issued an executive order stating that no information shall go from any part of the Executive branch (this includes the Cabinet) to the Legislative without his final approval.

This is the first US president to set up and approve the creation of an enormous, expensive bureaucracy meant to investigate every single legal transaction and written communication by every single American. Bush has also approved that lists of purchased and library-loaned books by US citizens and foreign nationals in the US be documented and sent for investigation by the FBI. These are remarkable developments that would never have been contemplated by his predecessors. Whatever you may think of his reasons for doing this, it remains that nobody has tried it, previously.

This is a sampling of the reasons behind my terming Bush a radical. He is not conservative. No conservative would approve the destruction of America's history of personal liberties, which form the bulwark of our nation's heritage. He has caused a great deal of dismay among traditional conservatives in Congress, who have (in some unprecedented cases) taken the step of speaking out publically against many of Bush's fiscal and social policies. Bush is a radical, and a radical exists outside the rather simplistic line stretching left-to-right in day-to-day politics, IMO.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Fri Aug 08, 2003 2:20 am

Originally posted by James Mason
And guess what! Since our good friend Senator Hatch is trying to pass a bill allowing people not born in the United States to be president, Mr. Blair just might have a shot at it.

I hate to be nitpicky, but when you say "bill", what you really mean in this case is a constitutional amendment. Since the Constitution sets forth the requirements for the office of President, we would have to amend the Constitution to change those requirements, not simply pass a "bill". Senator Hatch couldn't do such a thing by himself.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Fri Aug 08, 2003 2:55 am

Originally posted by smass
@Fable: Funny - I am not surprised that you consider Bush to be a radical. I am sure you are not using the term radical in the traditional ideological spectrum:

Left......................................................Right

Radical Liberal Moderate Conservative Reactionary

When you say you consider him to be a radical - I assume you mean in relation to your own ideological views. I don't mean to argue semantics - but Bush is certainly no radical in his political ideology.

I think your assumption about Fable's use of the term "radical" is incorrect (Fable didn't have to use his own views as a point of reference), but I think you're correct when you say that Fable did not use the term "radical" in a way that is synonymous with (extreme) "leftist" or "liberal". When Fable called Bush a "radical", I think it's pretty clear that he meant "someone--perhaps an ideological extremist, but not necessarily a conservative--who is very aggressive about making sweeping, rapid changes to the system".

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Aug 08, 2003 7:42 am

Originally posted by VonDondu
I hate to be nitpicky, but when you say "bill", what you really mean in this case is a constitutional amendment. Since the Constitution sets forth the requirements for the office of President, we would have to amend the Constitution to change those requirements, not simply pass a "bill". Senator Hatch couldn't do such a thing by himself.

For a Constitutional amendment to succeed, according to US law, it must be adopted by two-thirds of the members in both houses of Congress or by a convention called by two-thirds of the states, and then ratified by votes held in three-fourths of the states. There have been more than 11,000 amendments offered, but to date, 27 have been ratified.

As a side note, the US did allow naturalized citizens at an early point in its history to become president. (This was in the period prior to changes that made presidential elections a matter of general voting in 1824, rather than voting in the US House of Representatives.) We actually came close to having the Swiss-born Albert Gallatin as President--at least, if you believe Henry Adams' detailed History of the US During the Administrations of Jefferson and Madison. According to Adams (who was himself the grandson and great-grandson of presidents), Gallatin has been a brilliant success as Treasury Secretary under Jefferson and Madison, serving a longer term than any other Trea. Sec. since, and his name was first among voting delegates; but those of his own state, Pennsylvania, had turned against him, and did all they could to throw weight behind James Monroe, instead.

It's been a point of speculation ever since how the nation might have differed if the clever, innovative Gallatin had taken the helm instead of Monroe, an affable man inclined to allow matters to drift in good times.

Latro · Post by **Latro** » Fri Aug 08, 2003 7:52 am

I will sign it immediatly... But can you take my countrys leader Göran Person as your new leader? A big man for a big Country (relativly speaking) and with a god complex to boot.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Aug 08, 2003 7:58 am

Originally posted by VonDondu
I think your assumption about Fable's use of the term "radical" is incorrect (Fable didn't have to use his own views as a point of reference), but I think you're correct when you say that Fable did not use the term "radical" in a way that is synonymous with (extreme) "leftist" or "liberal". When Fable called Bush a "radical", I think it's pretty clear that he meant "someone--perhaps an ideological extremist, but not necessarily a conservative--who is very aggressive about making sweeping, rapid changes to the system".

You mean I didn't make that clear when I wrote:

"I wouldn't use myself as a reference point to tar anybody with the term "radical," because 1) my views don't fit neatly in a slot on the political spectrum (they really don't--I'm vigorously in favor of capital punishment and opposed to affirmative action, for instance, while being very anti-monopolistic and extremely pro-social spending), and 2) for such terms to have any meaning they should possess some point-of-reference outside personal opinions." ...?

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Mon Aug 11, 2003 3:42 pm

Fable, did I say you didn't make yourself clear?

Actually, I said just the opposite. My whole point was, "What Fable said was clear, at least to me." Next time, I'll try to be more clear.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Aug 12, 2003 8:46 am

Originally posted by VonDondu
Fable, did I say you didn't make yourself clear?

Actually, I said just the opposite. My whole point was, "What Fable said was clear, at least to me." Next time, I'll try to be more clear.

Oh, okay. Glad we're clear about that.