OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[Bwaha]

I was listening to NPR and they said our dear congress is planing on making the Patriot Act permanent. Please call your congress person and tell them your against this. Please don't let this slide. For your children if nothing else. If we don't stand together on this issue we will truly regret it.

[Tifone]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

[...]granting terrorists the rights of us citizens is appauling. [...]

Yeah, you should turn down the right of an equal trial to whoever is accused of being a terrorist. And any other right you don't like.

Let me play with Godwin's Law too!

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

[Martin Niemöller]

[thejeff]

Nobody is "granting terrorists the rights of us citizens."

Simply saying that the US government does not have the right to detain whoever it feels like for as long as it wants without even having to make a case to the judicial branch.

[Bwaha]

Thats what is happening right now to us, American citizens. Guys and Gals now is the time to speak out. Before we lose that right. Turn your radio to NPR, listen to the tragedy thats unfolding before us right now. Don't blow this, it could be the last gasp of our Republic. I'm not joking, I'm afraid.

[Gregstrom]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Well, Rome was quite proud and wealthy, but the ultimate power was more of an Aristocracy than anything. They had a rather effective means of keeping public favor, by involving the plebes to a degree, essentially letting them deal with petty affairs, while the wealthy elite maintained their own agendas - funded by the state.

I sort of hinted at that in my post. And IIRC a lot of the public favour bit was arranged by throwing circuses, providing food and having lots of public holidays. Elections were often bought through family wealth, or just won on the basis of family reputation.

It's not exactly as if various wealthy families in the States don't get more than their fair share of political power, after all. That's getting close to aristocracy if you ask me.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Great Britain is not really a good example though. The map that I saw that seemed unreasonably comprehensive - actually was. It seemed to simply highlight every piece of land that Britain ever "claimed". Bear in mind, there are miles of grey area between "claiming" something, and actually governing or administering to it.

Here's a (arbitrarily chosen) map from 1897, showing British territories at that point only. Is that slightly clearer? As per most empires, governors and garrisons were appointed to claimed territories. Other local governmental and social structures were left mostly intact. It's what Alexander and Rome did, so you can hardly quibble on that point.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

For example, Australia was largely a penal colony.

For the sake of being argumentative: At the point the map linked above was made, transportation had been discontinued for 45 years. Convict labour had ended 30 years previously. Australia was being mined for gold and opals (and other minerals), forested for hardwoods, and probably several other things I don't know about.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

I am not really looking to do a comprehensive search on the rest, but I would postulate that many of the regions of Africa that Britain "claimed", it also simply did so in the absence of any other "claimant" with world power, and they similarly did little with that claim other than show it on maps - for later of course, I'm sure.

How about gold and diamond mining, rare hardwoods and other natural resources? Africa was something of a feeding trough at the time, and European nations were all pushing for their share of it. There was hardly an absence of claimants for African land - it's very likely one of the reasons modern African governments don't like non-African nations interfering with their political problems. And of course, for an empire with a heavy reliance on sea trade and naval power there's a very good reason to keep hold of and use sea ports and islands. Britain had a strong tendency to go to war rather than lose territory, which is why their claims were taken seriously.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by thejeff

Nobody is "granting terrorists the rights of us citizens."

Simply saying that the US government does not have the right to detain whoever it feels like for as long as it wants without even having to make a case to the judicial branch.

Actually, they are, that is the thrust of Obamas decision, at least as floated at trial balloon.

First, let me say that I am not in favor of indefinite detentions. However, giving enemy combattants lawyers, and flying them to the united states and trying them in court is - lunacy. In the same article it said 250 of these were waiting to be released - but their home countries wouldn't take them.

Now, we bring them into the US and what happens next - we give them resident alien status? That is sheer.. brilliance. Yep, take terrorists that demonstrate a willingness to blow themselves up, and bring them to the united states.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Bwaha

Thats what is happening right now to us, American citizens. Guys and Gals now is the time to speak out. Before we lose that right. Turn your radio to NPR, listen to the tragedy thats unfolding before us right now. Don't blow this, it could be the last gasp of our Republic. I'm not joking, I'm afraid.

Just curious, there are ten sections to the Patriot act. What is the wording that you are opposed to in it? Can you quote any of it? Can you explain what it supplanted? Or is this just a blanket "I hate everything connected with Bush"?

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

For someone who argues for the validity of extraneous circumstances, it seems like there is an incredibly thin comparison between current United States, and Germany between WW1 and WW2. That said, -your- description of the problems that Germany was facing, does very much sound like the America that GW Bush has gifted us all with.

Simply breathtaking.

You compare an america with unemployment of 6.7% or so with the weimar republic where it was north of 25% You compare a place with hyperinflation measuring in the thousands of percent to a country with 3%. You compare a place where they had lost a war and suffered 50,000 people dead in one battle (Verdun) to where we are winning a war and the deaths are less than 5,000.

And you really think the circumstances are similar? See I think this is part of the problem Jim. Partisanship to such an extreme level that one simply can't be objective.

The sun still rises. Mail is still being delivered. Farmers grow food. We stil have an amazing university system- we still have the ability to worship as we chose, to vote, to assemble. We still have the right of free speach. We still have the ability to get ahead in life if we work hard. And on top of that, there's Dominions.

Most of the people in the world would die to come here.

[sum1lost]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Actually, they are, that is the thrust of Obamas decision, at least as floated at trial balloon.

First, let me say that I am not in favor of indefinite detentions. However, giving enemy combattants lawyers, and flying them to the united states and trying them in court is - lunacy. In the same article it said 250 of these were waiting to be released - but their home countries wouldn't take them.

Now, we bring them into the US and what happens next - we give them resident alien status? That is sheer.. brilliance. Yep, take terrorists that demonstrate a willingness to blow themselves up, and bring them to the united states.

You know, McCain was suggesting the exact same thing, oddly enough. You try them before deciding that they are terrorists, instead of jailing them.

[lch]

Maybe he remembers a thing or two from being a P.O.W.