Reply With Quote
I'm not a supporter of many of Bush's policies and ideas, but I don't think I've ever heard him refer to anyone of his dissenters as a traitor.
I've never heard him call any dissenter a traitor or un-American. If you look back at his speeches, he vehemently disagrees with those would dissent but acknowledges their right to do so...he just disagrees with them.
Besides, even if what you said were true, calling him a dictator based on his "name-calling" is idiotic. Throwing a whole race of people into concentration camps becuase their indigenous land bombed Pearl Harbor is a dictatorial move. Creating social programs out of whole cloth is dictatorial.
I'm not a supporter of many of Bush's policies and ideas, but I don't think I've ever heard him refer to anyone of his dissenters as a traitor.
You're right, it's not. It's just one of the examples of FDR's dictatorial style.
I will say this, I believe he only did what he thought was right for the country but that didn't make his actions any less extra-cons utional.
Ah, yes. I forgot about that one. And we paid reparations.Throwing a whole race of people into concentration camps becuase their indigenous land bombed Pearl Harbor is a dictatorial move.
You haven't, that's just the popular Liberal narrative.
Denying habeus corpus to suspects based on their indigenous land is dictatorial. Creating "intelligence" out of whole cloth to justify war is dictatorial.
I'm sure that in 40 years we'll be able to draw a comparison between the uncons utional actions of FDR and Bush Jr. and place them in the "did what he thought was right for his country" argument. Or not, depending on how courts decide the impending lawsuits regarding measures that President Bush and his administration have taken to protect the presidency.
I doubt he'd be nearly as effective as FDR, for many of the reasons you lay out, although the economy is going to suck, 1981-style, for the first two years of the next President's term, which will soften up the electorate to left-wing economic reform.
First of all, you'll have to name an uncons utional action taken by President Bush that is comparable to those taken by FDR. Just one.
I can't. I'm not a cons utional scholar or a judge. But there are many who argue that he has taken measures they consider to be uncons utional to protect his policies and time will tell if they are or it they are not depending on how they're ruled upon. Signing statements, habeas corpus, refusing subpoenas....
Edit:
Not that the actions themselves would be comparable, but the reasons for the actions taken.
It also comes from people like Yonivore, xray, insHannity, Rush Limpballs, Savage and all the other conservative pundits.
Rush LimpballsBalls are supposed to be limp and loose, right?
Yeah but he's such a head who the knows.
You Argentines sure know how to have a blast.
So why make the statement?
None of the three you mentioned are even being litigated so, unless someone with standing files suit pretty quick, there will never be a determination on the cons utionality of signing statement (which, by the way, were used by Clinton and other presidents before him), habeas corpus (and, I think there's a distinction to be made between detained combatants and American citizens), and refusing subpoenas (if you're talking about Congressional subpoenas of executive branch officials over matters under the exclusive purview of the executive branch, there's a larger school of thought that the subpoenas, themselves, are uncons utional; but, again, not being litigated.)
Don't make a statement you can't support.
Yes, but American citizens have been detained without charge and our executive branch has lost three(?) bouts with the courts on the issue. So, that has been litigated. Statement supported.think there's a distinction to be made between detained combatants and American citizens
I assumed that with all the uproar over President Bush's signing statement and the Bar Associations criticism of it that some litigation had been attempted or comtemplated. Ass-u-me.
Don't make a statement you can't support.
Good speech by Barack.
Extra Stout, do you have a PhD in theological history or what? lol not being a , just curious.
Interesting take on political distinctions in black political philosophies, and what seperates Obama from Wright.
Black Conservatives in Large and Small Caps
......
Black Conservatism essentially operates off the premise that racism is an ingrained and potentially permanent part of White-dominated ins utions. As a result, Black Conservatives essentially tell Blacks they can only rely on themselves to get ahead in America -- counting on White people to be moral or "do the right thing" is a waste of time. Politically, this means building tight-knit communities that emphasize the patronizing of identifiably Black ins utions, with the end result being social independence from White America. In this, it mixes at least partial voluntary self-segregation with a significant aversion to external dependency, with Whites and White ins utions being defined as outsiders who can't be trusted. Every dollar that flows out of the Black community and into the hands of White America is a dollar that is in the control of a group that, at best, has a unique set of interests that can't be counted on to converge with those of Black people. Contained within this school are thinkers as far-ranging as Derrick Bell, Booker T. Washington, Marcus Garvey, Clarence Thomas, Huey P. Newton, and Malcolm X. Black groups and leaders who were/are not Black Conservatives include W.E.B. Du Bois, Martin Luther King, the NAACP, Thurgood Marshall, and yes, Barack Obama.
........
Virtually all the controversial statements said by Rev. Wright make the most sense as expositions on Black Conservative ideology. His disclaimer of the pursuit of "middle-class-ness" is a term of art; he's flaming Black people who are more concerned about looking good to White people than they are about insuring the health of their own community -- including those who haven't yet moved up the ladder. His extraordinarily grim predictions about the state of racism in America are textbook Black Conservative arguments, as are his efforts to break down the idea that America is a particularly moral government that can be trusted (rightly, when he notes that America too has engaged in state-sponsored terrorism in Latin America and supported it in South Africa; wrongly when he alleges that we infected Black folk with the AIDS virus).
I'm not saying I agree with all of his points -- I'm not a Black Conservative, and as I outlined in the Thomas post, I'm not sure that a White person can morally adopt the premises of Black Conservatism. But we can't understand what we're yelling about until we properly position it within its philosophical school. This is why I feel confident in asserting that Obama and Wright are not of a political kind -- they operate from totally different ends of the Black Conservative spectrum. Obama is an integrationist, the very act of running for President means that he believes that there is a space for Blacks in our hitherto White-dominated government, and all of his speeches, policies, and writings have indicated he believes that there is hope for an America that is not separated and divided on racial lines. All of these positions would be derided as doe-eyed idealism by a true Black Conservatism. And if there is one thing Obama can't be accused of, it's of being too much of a pessimist.
......
No, but now that you've asked, I need to say something emotional and half-baked in order to self-level. Expect it within 48 hours.Good speech by Barack.
Extra Stout, do you have a PhD in theological history or what? lol not being a , just curious.
If you say so . . .
He can be taken out with the ethnohistory of North and Central America
Oh and...
I guess he didn't want Uncle Pasty to get upset.
Obama hates America...period.
He's considers himself a citizen of the World type...they always hate America.
If I had to guess, I would guess that Barack Obama has fashioned a sort of American liberation theology which re-examines traditional liberation theology through the prism of the American political idiom of classical liberalism, anti-communism, and non-violent change.
Remember that liberation theology has nothing to do with orthodox Christianity. It is a type of postmodern theology which denies the historic doctrines of the faith, but seeks somehow to make the themes of Christianity relevant to the modern world in different ways. These theologians usually refashion Jesus in terms of whatever person or group of people they are trying to speak to.
Liberation theology originally was a fusion of Roman Catholicism with Marxism among the poor in Latin America. Since then, it has spawned feminist theology, where Jesus is viewed through the perspective of the woman's experience, black theology, which we've covered in this thread, gay theology, Palestinian theology, etc. Really, anybody can identify some group as victims and construct for them a liberation theology.
In this view, the ministry of Jesus would be reinterpreted through the experiences of the ordinary American worker. The ordinary American worker is the oppressed Judaean whom Jesus is coming to liberate. The greedy corporate executive, the lobbyist, the rapacious capitalist, is the Roman oppressor, Pontius Pilate, the Pharisees, etc. Jesus' crucifixion is recast as the slow asphyxiation of the middle and working classes. Sin is the pursuit of ill-gotten gain through corruption of the markets, lobbying abuses, pork, illegal wars, etc. Death is grinding poverty and violence in America and throughout the world. America as a collective becomes the body of Christ, responsible for each part to work together and lift the other up, and to use its bounty to minister to the world.
God becomes the agent of change to liberate the working classes from economic bondage. God's love is the act of that liberation. Faith becomes an affirmation of the history of American progressivism. Hope becomes confidence that the future will bring this change.
Once you start down this road and establish this dialectic, Marxism is not far away, since we know from Scripture that all the early believers held everything in common, and that Paul exhorted the more prosperous churches to keep only what they needed, and give the rest to the less prosperous churches.
In sum, this turns America into a neoliberal theocracy, which of course is a delicious irony for the secular left. America becomes the Chosen People of God and the Church, though only in a symbolic sense.
Don't take this intellectual exercise as any kind of affirmation of this ideology/theology, which of course would wreck the country. It is interesting that in this framework, Obama's langauge makes a great deal more sense, as does the messianic overtone of his campaign. These themes are clear in his speech yesterday, for example, where he connects the experience of the immigrant working class to that of the black man. He probably belongs at an egghead university instead of the White House.
In PA, Hillary is now up 56-30, and Obama's support among blacks has eroded to 63-27, so there's really no evidence that the speech yesterday stopped the bleeding.
This is my favorite part of his speech
that's rich. he's comparing people that protect their land when attacked to people that strap on bombs to their kids, mothers, fathers, and more recently, literally re ed people to blow up and KILL people for their "cause". he's justifying his pastor's stance. jews are no better or worse than terrorists. great job.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
