Amazon 7 #26 April 10, 2007 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will lay you odds, that there are those in the Administration who are hoping for a really devastating attack from the evil doers so they can declare martial law and get away with these pesky elections where the lower classes can make their feelings known.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What odds? How much are you willing to wager? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Careful there, some of those boys are on record saying that they may not be able to achieve the changes they want without some sort of "Pearl Harbor like event". I may get in on this action. Daddy needs a new pair-a-chute. Save your time... the righties here will ALWAYS come up with one kind of excuse or another of why anyone not in lockstep with the fascist drumbeat is wrong.. only the RIGHT can ever be RIGHT... in their feeble minds... just look at what it takes to get into any right wing political function anyone from the administration goes to. Kinda looks like the big rallies you see in the news reels at Nuremburgh in the 1930's Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #27 April 10, 2007 Nice back pedal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #28 April 11, 2007 QuoteGenerally speaking, the burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation.... especially when it's as absurd as the one in question. "No, seriously. They want to implement martial law and completely scrap the Constitution! It's true I tell you" I'm not saying that they're going to do it, but it's not absurd to think that they might be thinking about it, considering that they laid the ground work recently. http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=117&a=1431 "Hoping" for it however is more difficult to call Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #29 April 11, 2007 I loved the conclussion: QuoteThe Bush Regime's preparations for martial law are part of an extreme agenda. This is a regime that is setting out to create a world empire that is unchallenged and unchallengeable and has embarked on an endless war to bring this about. Along with this, they aim to restructure social relations in the U.S., doing away with many of the social and economic institutions that have characterized U.S. society since World War 2. Because of this extreme agenda, the Bush regime takes very seriously the possibility of jolts and ruptures and resistance and are preparing very extreme measures to deal with this. On February 27, 1933, a fire broke out in the Reichstag (government) building in Germany. The next day Hitler and his Minister of the Interior Hermann Goering drafted the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended civil liberties and gave the central government total power. The decree was signed into law within days. After that point, opposition to Hitler became MUCH more difficult. In the U.S. today, extreme measures much like the Reichstag Fire Decree are already being put into place--making it even more urgent that a determined struggle be waged to drive out the Bush regime and reverse this dangerous trajectory. Hilter took complete control of Germany in a matter of months, yet people keep comparing Bush to Hitler. I don't get it. What did Germany look like after Hilter had been in power for six years? What are the similarities to present-day America? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #30 April 11, 2007 QuoteGenerally speaking, the burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation.... especially when it's as absurd as the one in question. The Bush administration has quite thoroughly done away with such legalistic archaisms. An allegation is all that's necessary to destroy lives in the post 9-11 era. Are you saying we don't all get to live by these new modern standards? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #31 April 11, 2007 QuoteAre you saying we don't all get to live by these new modern standards? Yup... in the Neo-Con newspeak....only those that spout the proper euphimisms of the fascist right are allowed to be heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #32 April 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteAre you saying we don't all get to live by these new modern standards? Yup... in the Neo-Con newspeak....only those that spout the proper euphimisms of the fascist right are allowed to be heard. Love the labels. they seem to work better than actual backing up your claims or admitting that they're nothing more than delusional fantasies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #33 April 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteGenerally speaking, the burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation.... especially when it's as absurd as the one in question. The Bush administration has quite thoroughly done away with such legalistic archaisms. An allegation is all that's necessary to destroy lives in the post 9-11 era. Are you saying we don't all get to live by these new modern standards? What are you talking about? Seems like Bush and Co. have been getting called on their actions, as well as mere claims, over the last few years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #34 April 11, 2007 QuoteSeems like Bush and Co. have been getting called on their actions, as well as mere claims, over the last few years. Doesn't seem to have stopped them -- or even slowed them down, really. It's far far too late for that. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #35 April 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteSeems like Bush and Co. have been getting called on their actions, as well as mere claims, over the last few years. Doesn't seem to have stopped them -- or even slowed them down, really. It's far far too late for that. Nice rhetoric. I'll ask again - What (specifically) are you talking about? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #36 April 11, 2007 QuoteNice rhetoric. I'll ask again - What (specifically) are you talking about? Ooooh, excellent invitation. I'd LOVE to go around the merry-go-round of the last 5000 speaker's corner threads again. Let me go catalog all those topics and get RIGHT back to you. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #37 April 11, 2007 QuoteLet me go catalog all those topics and get RIGHT back to you. Gee isnt that the amazing thing of having a LIFE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #38 April 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteNice rhetoric. I'll ask again - What (specifically) are you talking about? Ooooh, excellent invitation. I'd LOVE to go around the merry-go-round of the last 5000 speaker's corner threads again. Let me go catalog all those topics and get RIGHT back to you. Oh look . Another backpedal. How ironic that your Bush's alleged shallow thinking to justify Amazon's demonstrations of shallow thinking. Fixed it. Two peas in a pod - those two. Good stuff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #39 April 11, 2007 QuoteHow ironic that your Bush's alleged shallow thinking to justify Amazon's shallow thinking. I will reply just this once.... So far today you have accused me of having delusional fantasies.. and being shallow.. yet you are still posting... I did far less to you when I got banned for 56 days. I guess that is the modus operandi of the far right here... try to get people to make something you can go running to the mods with to get people who oppose your way of thinking... banned from the forum. But I guess you can do as you wish. DaVinci constantly accuses me of things like playing the player instead of discussing ... yet he is doing exactly that.. as do you.. then when it is even slightly returned your way after making these outrageous attacks.. you never get banned... I wonder why that is????? I did not enjoy your following me around from forum to forum and I did not want your PM's and have blocked you from sending them.. Please seek help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #40 April 11, 2007 Quote Hilter took complete control of Germany in a matter of months, yet people keep comparing Bush to Hitler. I don't get it. What did Germany look like after Hilter had been in power for six years? What are the similarities to present-day America? For me the similarities are the use of a national disaster as a symbol for which to rally around, increase a sense of nationalism, label everything as black/white or good/evil to identify an enemy or their "enablers" and then use all that as a means to create an authoritarian government. That aside, and ignoring any fluff or conclusions made in the piece, the legislation was still passed.. which was ultimately the point I was trying to make. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #41 April 11, 2007 "Gee I was always of the opinion that turn about is fair play" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #42 April 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteGenerally speaking, the burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation.... especially when it's as absurd as the one in question. The Bush administration has quite thoroughly done away with such legalistic archaisms. An allegation is all that's necessary to destroy lives in the post 9-11 era. Are you saying we don't all get to live by these new modern standards? What are you talking about? Seems like Bush and Co. have been getting called on their actions, as well as mere claims, over the last few years. Isn't it the case that an individual can be imprisoned indefinitely if G.W. Bush declares him to be an enemy combatant, without any proof being required?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #43 April 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteGenerally speaking, the burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation.... especially when it's as absurd as the one in question. The Bush administration has quite thoroughly done away with such legalistic archaisms. An allegation is all that's necessary to destroy lives in the post 9-11 era. Are you saying we don't all get to live by these new modern standards? What are you talking about? Seems like Bush and Co. have been getting called on their actions, as well as mere claims, over the last few years. Isn't it the case that an individual can be imprisoned indefinitely if G.W. Bush declares him to be an enemy combatant, without any proof being required? Are you talking about the rare cases of innocent Americans being detained or the general claim of "The Bush administration has quite thoroughly done away with such legalistic archaisms"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #44 April 11, 2007 QuoteSave your time... the righties here will ALWAYS come up with one kind of excuse or another of why anyone not in lockstep with the fascist drumbeat is wrong.. only the RIGHT can ever be RIGHT... in their feeble minds... just look at what it takes to get into any right wing political function anyone from the administration goes to. Kinda looks like the big rallies you see in the news reels at Nuremburgh in the 1930's For posterity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #45 April 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteGenerally speaking, the burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation.... especially when it's as absurd as the one in question. The Bush administration has quite thoroughly done away with such legalistic archaisms. An allegation is all that's necessary to destroy lives in the post 9-11 era. Are you saying we don't all get to live by these new modern standards? What are you talking about? Seems like Bush and Co. have been getting called on their actions, as well as mere claims, over the last few years. Isn't it the case that an individual can be imprisoned indefinitely if G.W. Bush declares him to be an enemy combatant, without any proof being required? Are you talking about the rare cases of innocent Americans being detained or the general claim of "The Bush administration has quite thoroughly done away with such legalistic archaisms"? Rare or commonplace is not relevant. Once is enough to prove the point.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #46 April 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteGenerally speaking, the burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation.... especially when it's as absurd as the one in question. The Bush administration has quite thoroughly done away with such legalistic archaisms. An allegation is all that's necessary to destroy lives in the post 9-11 era. Are you saying we don't all get to live by these new modern standards? What are you talking about? Seems like Bush and Co. have been getting called on their actions, as well as mere claims, over the last few years. Isn't it the case that an individual can be imprisoned indefinitely if G.W. Bush declares him to be an enemy combatant, without any proof being required? Are you talking about the rare cases of innocent Americans being detained or the general claim of "The Bush administration has quite thoroughly done away with such legalistic archaisms"? Rare or commonplace is not relevant. Once is enough to prove the point. What exactly is the point? That the exception proves that the norm has been quite thoroughly done away with? Getting back to the initial point in this bit of thread drift - Do you think the burden of proof should lie with the person making the claim? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #47 April 12, 2007 Quote Getting back to the initial point in this bit of thread drift - Do you think the burden of proof should lie with the person making the claim? Actually, if you read the last few posts on the thread, we never really let the thread drift off the point. The Bushies don't seem to feel the need to be burdened with providing proof for their claims. But I know that we're better than them so.....to return to the question, I still don't know how to prove what someone is hoping for unless they state it openly. And I can't say that they want to instill martial law but I did provide a link to show that the mechanism was put in place. Also, I did find the signing statement interesting, especially if it means what it's been interpreted to mean, that being that martial law can be enacted without any notification to Congress. I should probably find the original text and read it, but it's a busy day today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #48 April 12, 2007 You did post an interesting story. Unfortunately, it was produced by the "Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party,USA", which IMO screams extremist propaganda.... but that's just me. If some leftwing syndicated columnist made the same claims, I might question those claims, but at least I'd know the writer has some accountability. That's not really the case with the "Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party,USA". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #49 April 12, 2007 QuoteYou did post an interesting story. Unfortunately, it was produced by the "Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party,USA", which IMO screams extremist propaganda.... but that's just me. If some leftwing syndicated columnist made the same claims, I might question those claims, but at least I'd know the writer has some accountability. That's not really the case with the "Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party,USA". You're shooting the messenger. Just because the hardcore raise point it out doesn't mean it's not valid. Here's wiki's take: "expansion of the President's power to declare martial law under revisions to the Insurrection Act, and take charge of United States National Guard troops without state governor authorization when public order has been lost and the state and its constituted authorities cannot enforce the law;" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._5122 Lehey's take on it: "It also should concern us all that the Conference agreement includes language that subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law. There is good reason for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations." and "The changes to the Insurrection Act will allow the President to use the military, including the National Guard, to carry out law enforcement activities without the consent of a governor. When the Insurrection Act is invoked posse comitatus does not apply. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy, and it is for that reason that the Insurrection Act has only been invoked on three — three — in recent history. The implications of changing the Act are enormous, but this change was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals." http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html I'll get more if you would like to read them. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5122 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #50 April 12, 2007 Quote What are you talking about? Seems like Bush and Co. have been getting called on their actions, as well as mere claims, over the last few years. Isn't it the case that an individual can be imprisoned indefinitely if G.W. Bush declares him to be an enemy combatant, without any proof being required? Are you talking about the rare cases of innocent Americans being detained or the general claim of "The Bush administration has quite thoroughly done away with such legalistic archaisms"? Rare or commonplace is not relevant. Once is enough to prove the point. What exactly is the point? That the exception proves that the norm has been quite thoroughly done away with? "prove" in that context means "test", not "confirm". If someone finds a map that needs 5 colors, it won't confirm the validity of the 4-color theorem. Bush HAS trampled on the Constitution, and one example is enough to demonstrate it. Quote Getting back to the initial point in this bit of thread drift - Do you think the burden of proof should lie with the person making the claim? Yes, and that applies to the President of the USA too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote
NCclimber 0 #38 April 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteNice rhetoric. I'll ask again - What (specifically) are you talking about? Ooooh, excellent invitation. I'd LOVE to go around the merry-go-round of the last 5000 speaker's corner threads again. Let me go catalog all those topics and get RIGHT back to you. Oh look . Another backpedal. How ironic that your Bush's alleged shallow thinking to justify Amazon's demonstrations of shallow thinking. Fixed it. Two peas in a pod - those two. Good stuff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #39 April 11, 2007 QuoteHow ironic that your Bush's alleged shallow thinking to justify Amazon's shallow thinking. I will reply just this once.... So far today you have accused me of having delusional fantasies.. and being shallow.. yet you are still posting... I did far less to you when I got banned for 56 days. I guess that is the modus operandi of the far right here... try to get people to make something you can go running to the mods with to get people who oppose your way of thinking... banned from the forum. But I guess you can do as you wish. DaVinci constantly accuses me of things like playing the player instead of discussing ... yet he is doing exactly that.. as do you.. then when it is even slightly returned your way after making these outrageous attacks.. you never get banned... I wonder why that is????? I did not enjoy your following me around from forum to forum and I did not want your PM's and have blocked you from sending them.. Please seek help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #40 April 11, 2007 Quote Hilter took complete control of Germany in a matter of months, yet people keep comparing Bush to Hitler. I don't get it. What did Germany look like after Hilter had been in power for six years? What are the similarities to present-day America? For me the similarities are the use of a national disaster as a symbol for which to rally around, increase a sense of nationalism, label everything as black/white or good/evil to identify an enemy or their "enablers" and then use all that as a means to create an authoritarian government. That aside, and ignoring any fluff or conclusions made in the piece, the legislation was still passed.. which was ultimately the point I was trying to make. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #41 April 11, 2007 "Gee I was always of the opinion that turn about is fair play" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #42 April 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteGenerally speaking, the burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation.... especially when it's as absurd as the one in question. The Bush administration has quite thoroughly done away with such legalistic archaisms. An allegation is all that's necessary to destroy lives in the post 9-11 era. Are you saying we don't all get to live by these new modern standards? What are you talking about? Seems like Bush and Co. have been getting called on their actions, as well as mere claims, over the last few years. Isn't it the case that an individual can be imprisoned indefinitely if G.W. Bush declares him to be an enemy combatant, without any proof being required?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #43 April 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteGenerally speaking, the burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation.... especially when it's as absurd as the one in question. The Bush administration has quite thoroughly done away with such legalistic archaisms. An allegation is all that's necessary to destroy lives in the post 9-11 era. Are you saying we don't all get to live by these new modern standards? What are you talking about? Seems like Bush and Co. have been getting called on their actions, as well as mere claims, over the last few years. Isn't it the case that an individual can be imprisoned indefinitely if G.W. Bush declares him to be an enemy combatant, without any proof being required? Are you talking about the rare cases of innocent Americans being detained or the general claim of "The Bush administration has quite thoroughly done away with such legalistic archaisms"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #44 April 11, 2007 QuoteSave your time... the righties here will ALWAYS come up with one kind of excuse or another of why anyone not in lockstep with the fascist drumbeat is wrong.. only the RIGHT can ever be RIGHT... in their feeble minds... just look at what it takes to get into any right wing political function anyone from the administration goes to. Kinda looks like the big rallies you see in the news reels at Nuremburgh in the 1930's For posterity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #45 April 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteGenerally speaking, the burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation.... especially when it's as absurd as the one in question. The Bush administration has quite thoroughly done away with such legalistic archaisms. An allegation is all that's necessary to destroy lives in the post 9-11 era. Are you saying we don't all get to live by these new modern standards? What are you talking about? Seems like Bush and Co. have been getting called on their actions, as well as mere claims, over the last few years. Isn't it the case that an individual can be imprisoned indefinitely if G.W. Bush declares him to be an enemy combatant, without any proof being required? Are you talking about the rare cases of innocent Americans being detained or the general claim of "The Bush administration has quite thoroughly done away with such legalistic archaisms"? Rare or commonplace is not relevant. Once is enough to prove the point.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #46 April 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteGenerally speaking, the burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation.... especially when it's as absurd as the one in question. The Bush administration has quite thoroughly done away with such legalistic archaisms. An allegation is all that's necessary to destroy lives in the post 9-11 era. Are you saying we don't all get to live by these new modern standards? What are you talking about? Seems like Bush and Co. have been getting called on their actions, as well as mere claims, over the last few years. Isn't it the case that an individual can be imprisoned indefinitely if G.W. Bush declares him to be an enemy combatant, without any proof being required? Are you talking about the rare cases of innocent Americans being detained or the general claim of "The Bush administration has quite thoroughly done away with such legalistic archaisms"? Rare or commonplace is not relevant. Once is enough to prove the point. What exactly is the point? That the exception proves that the norm has been quite thoroughly done away with? Getting back to the initial point in this bit of thread drift - Do you think the burden of proof should lie with the person making the claim? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #47 April 12, 2007 Quote Getting back to the initial point in this bit of thread drift - Do you think the burden of proof should lie with the person making the claim? Actually, if you read the last few posts on the thread, we never really let the thread drift off the point. The Bushies don't seem to feel the need to be burdened with providing proof for their claims. But I know that we're better than them so.....to return to the question, I still don't know how to prove what someone is hoping for unless they state it openly. And I can't say that they want to instill martial law but I did provide a link to show that the mechanism was put in place. Also, I did find the signing statement interesting, especially if it means what it's been interpreted to mean, that being that martial law can be enacted without any notification to Congress. I should probably find the original text and read it, but it's a busy day today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #48 April 12, 2007 You did post an interesting story. Unfortunately, it was produced by the "Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party,USA", which IMO screams extremist propaganda.... but that's just me. If some leftwing syndicated columnist made the same claims, I might question those claims, but at least I'd know the writer has some accountability. That's not really the case with the "Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party,USA". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #49 April 12, 2007 QuoteYou did post an interesting story. Unfortunately, it was produced by the "Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party,USA", which IMO screams extremist propaganda.... but that's just me. If some leftwing syndicated columnist made the same claims, I might question those claims, but at least I'd know the writer has some accountability. That's not really the case with the "Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party,USA". You're shooting the messenger. Just because the hardcore raise point it out doesn't mean it's not valid. Here's wiki's take: "expansion of the President's power to declare martial law under revisions to the Insurrection Act, and take charge of United States National Guard troops without state governor authorization when public order has been lost and the state and its constituted authorities cannot enforce the law;" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._5122 Lehey's take on it: "It also should concern us all that the Conference agreement includes language that subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law. There is good reason for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations." and "The changes to the Insurrection Act will allow the President to use the military, including the National Guard, to carry out law enforcement activities without the consent of a governor. When the Insurrection Act is invoked posse comitatus does not apply. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy, and it is for that reason that the Insurrection Act has only been invoked on three — three — in recent history. The implications of changing the Act are enormous, but this change was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals." http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html I'll get more if you would like to read them. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5122 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #50 April 12, 2007 Quote What are you talking about? Seems like Bush and Co. have been getting called on their actions, as well as mere claims, over the last few years. Isn't it the case that an individual can be imprisoned indefinitely if G.W. Bush declares him to be an enemy combatant, without any proof being required? Are you talking about the rare cases of innocent Americans being detained or the general claim of "The Bush administration has quite thoroughly done away with such legalistic archaisms"? Rare or commonplace is not relevant. Once is enough to prove the point. What exactly is the point? That the exception proves that the norm has been quite thoroughly done away with? "prove" in that context means "test", not "confirm". If someone finds a map that needs 5 colors, it won't confirm the validity of the 4-color theorem. Bush HAS trampled on the Constitution, and one example is enough to demonstrate it. Quote Getting back to the initial point in this bit of thread drift - Do you think the burden of proof should lie with the person making the claim? Yes, and that applies to the President of the USA too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
