1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren't activated, you aren't alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.
you have no problem with the Presidency having that kind of power?
I didn't answer the question the first time because it's another one of those silly ones. Our president does not have the same type of power Stalin had and never will.
Yet he has claimed the power to kill American citizens without a trial. (Which directly contradicts the Constitution.) That's a power that no American President has ever had, but Stalin did.
So when that power transfers to the next President - someone you don't trust and love with all your heart, what happens?
Yet he has claimed the power to kill American citizens without a trial.
So, have we come around to juris' way of thinking on this? I know that around half of Kevin's folks have no problem with this as we are taking out Al Qaeda agents.
Our president does not have the same type of power Stalin had and never will.
Killing someone just because a bureaucrat puts a name on a list - even for a citizen fully entitled to all of the protection our Constitution is supposed to provide?
I know that around half of Kevin's folks have no problem with this as we are taking out Al Qaeda agents.
A) What does it matter what "Kevin's folks" think? This isn't a poll.
B) Did you even read the link I posted yesterday analyzing President Obama's legal justification? Apparently not. Here it is again.
I'll sum up the most important part for you. Our Constitution (you know, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND) requires a trial by jury in open court for treason. (See Article III) Obama's legal fiction violates that check/balance/LAW.
Killing someone just because a bureaucrat puts a name on a list - even for a citizen fully entitled to all of the protection our Constitution is supposed to provide?
Over at TSM, Grumpy Old Fart accurately noted that Obama's "justification" makes it easier for our government to kill an American citizen than Khalid Sheik Mohammad. If that doesn't set off warning bells, nothing will.
Our Constitution (you know, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND) requires a trial by jury in open court for treason.
As I have told juris in the past, I think this point of view needs to be heard more often. I don't necessarily agree with it given the unique nature of our conflict with Islamic extremism but that doesn't mean I'm right. Both President Obama and President Bush could be in violation of the Constitution given they are simply killing American citizens without a trial.
But what is the alternative? Should we have captured al Awlaki? Put him on trial? How? Regardless, the questions still need to be asked and I respect both you and juris for continuing to ask them.
As I have told juris in the past, I think this point of view needs to be heard more often. I don't necessarily agree with it given the unique nature of our conflict with Islamic extremism but that doesn't mean I'm right.
So as I recall, you opposed the use of torture, did you not? Senator Obama said he did. Was that just because of who was President?
Tell me why you think our existential conflict with Islamic extremism justifies self-destroying our govt? When the govt does not abide its most fundamental rules - what exactly are we gaining? A little temporary safety?
Both President Obama and President Bush could be in violation of the Constitution given they are simply killing American citizens without a trial.
False equivalence. Only one of them ordered drone strikes that killed Americans in foreign lands.
Should we have captured al Awlaki? Put him on trial?
On trial for what? What crime was his son accused of?
Maybe instead of believing the bullshit about the War on Terror, you should stop being manipulated by fear and religious zealotry.
When do you think you are going to go beyond appreciating someone else's questions about this? You sure didn't have a problem questioning the last Administration, did you? I guess in 4 years when the Obamessiah is no longer president you might find your spine and moral center.
I don't necessarily agree with it given the unique nature of our conflict with Islamic extremism
I've been after you to give a reason why tyranny cannot happen in this country. Recently you finally gave an answer. Your answer was:
The best insurance we have is our system of checks and balances.
Congratulations, by giving a justification for undermining this crucial check and balance in the Constitution, you have given a type of justification that can be used to undermine every check and balance in the Constitution.
So given your reasoning that any "inconvenient" check and balance can now be discarded to deal with the current crisis du jour, what makes tyranny Not Possible in this country?
you have given a type of justification that can be used to undermine every check and balance in the Constitution.
You're assuming that members of Congress are against the drone attacks. They aren't and, in fact, give their support because it's an issue of national security and don't want to appear weak. Believe me, if the Republicans in the House saw a chance to impeach the president, they would. But they don't because they approve of what he is doing.
19 comments:
Obama has not … yet …
Wow, that's some argument! NOT!
So M, you have no objection to Obama having the same power vested in him as Stalin did - because you trust Obama.
Fine. Now what happens when that power transfers to the next President - someone you don't trust and love with all of your heart?
FWIW, Stalin had a lot of people that adored him too.
It also took him 9 years to get to the famines from when he took office. And that was in a country where he experienced a lot less resistance.
So, are you saying that Obama is Stalin? Or that he might become like Stalin?
http://www.straight.com/news/dr-cynthia-boaz-14-propaganda-techniques-fox-news-uses-brainwash-americans
1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren't activated, you aren't alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.
Well, Obama only has 4 years left, so if he is going to top Stalin he better move fast.
So M, again I ask - you have no problem with the Presidency having that kind of power?
you have no problem with the Presidency having that kind of power?
I didn't answer the question the first time because it's another one of those silly ones. Our president does not have the same type of power Stalin had and never will.
Yet he has claimed the power to kill American citizens without a trial. (Which directly contradicts the Constitution.) That's a power that no American President has ever had, but Stalin did.
So when that power transfers to the next President - someone you don't trust and love with all your heart, what happens?
Yet he has claimed the power to kill American citizens without a trial.
So, have we come around to juris' way of thinking on this? I know that around half of Kevin's folks have no problem with this as we are taking out Al Qaeda agents.
Our president does not have the same type of power Stalin had and never will.
Killing someone just because a bureaucrat puts a name on a list - even for a citizen fully entitled to all of the protection our Constitution is supposed to provide?
I can't think of much that is more Stalinesque.
Just to be clear, the difference between Obama's take on Presidential power and Stalin is, to date, scale.
So perhaps some lefty here will explain to me why torture is wrong but extra-legal killing is okey-dokey?
I know that around half of Kevin's folks have no problem with this as we are taking out Al Qaeda agents.
A) What does it matter what "Kevin's folks" think? This isn't a poll.
B) Did you even read the link I posted yesterday analyzing President Obama's legal justification? Apparently not. Here it is again.
I'll sum up the most important part for you. Our Constitution (you know, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND) requires a trial by jury in open court for treason. (See Article III) Obama's legal fiction violates that check/balance/LAW.
Killing someone just because a bureaucrat puts a name on a list - even for a citizen fully entitled to all of the protection our Constitution is supposed to provide?
Over at TSM, Grumpy Old Fart accurately noted that Obama's "justification" makes it easier for our government to kill an American citizen than Khalid Sheik Mohammad. If that doesn't set off warning bells, nothing will.
Our Constitution (you know, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND) requires a trial by jury in open court for treason.
As I have told juris in the past, I think this point of view needs to be heard more often. I don't necessarily agree with it given the unique nature of our conflict with Islamic extremism but that doesn't mean I'm right. Both President Obama and President Bush could be in violation of the Constitution given they are simply killing American citizens without a trial.
But what is the alternative? Should we have captured al Awlaki? Put him on trial? How? Regardless, the questions still need to be asked and I respect both you and juris for continuing to ask them.
As I have told juris in the past, I think this point of view needs to be heard more often. I don't necessarily agree with it given the unique nature of our conflict with Islamic extremism but that doesn't mean I'm right.
So as I recall, you opposed the use of torture, did you not? Senator Obama said he did. Was that just because of who was President?
Tell me why you think our existential conflict with Islamic extremism justifies self-destroying our govt? When the govt does not abide its most fundamental rules - what exactly are we gaining? A little temporary safety?
Both President Obama and President Bush could be in violation of the Constitution given they are simply killing American citizens without a trial.
False equivalence. Only one of them ordered drone strikes that killed Americans in foreign lands.
Should we have captured al Awlaki? Put him on trial?
On trial for what? What crime was his son accused of?
Maybe instead of believing the bullshit about the War on Terror, you should stop being manipulated by fear and religious zealotry.
When do you think you are going to go beyond appreciating someone else's questions about this? You sure didn't have a problem questioning the last Administration, did you? I guess in 4 years when the Obamessiah is no longer president you might find your spine and moral center.
I guess in 4 years when the Obamessiah is no longer president you might find your spine and moral center.
Except a moral relativist has no moral center.
I don't necessarily agree with it given the unique nature of our conflict with Islamic extremism
I've been after you to give a reason why tyranny cannot happen in this country. Recently you finally gave an answer. Your answer was:
The best insurance we have is our system of checks and balances.
Congratulations, by giving a justification for undermining this crucial check and balance in the Constitution, you have given a type of justification that can be used to undermine every check and balance in the Constitution.
So given your reasoning that any "inconvenient" check and balance can now be discarded to deal with the current crisis du jour, what makes tyranny Not Possible in this country?
you have given a type of justification that can be used to undermine every check and balance in the Constitution.
You're assuming that members of Congress are against the drone attacks. They aren't and, in fact, give their support because it's an issue of national security and don't want to appear weak. Believe me, if the Republicans in the House saw a chance to impeach the president, they would. But they don't because they approve of what he is doing.
You're just proving my point for me, Mark.
Except a moral relativist has no moral center.
True, but a partisan hack always knows when to oppose something.
Post a Comment