OT: We The People...

[Lobby Dosser]

And we all know how well the planned economies have worked out.

[Lobby Dosser]

His employer. No idea who they are.

[HeyBub]

Yes, businesses have been seized before, but only under Democratic administrations (which demonstrates the Democrat's, if not tendency, at least their lack of aversion to socialism).

[Dave in Texas]

>>>>>>>>>>> As someone put it, "They say they intend to rule benevolently, but make >> no

I load MY own.

Dave in CZ-land

[Neil Brooks]

Enrolled in that Logic course, yet ?

Your need ... is apparent and emergent.

[HeyBub]

Hmm. The only businesses I recollect being seized were the steel mills under Truman (a Democrat). I though about the air traffic controllers under Reagan, but they worked for the government in the first place.

Actually, as a math major, I had two courses in symbolic logic (made an "A" in both) as an undergrad. 'Course that was many years ago, but I'm pretty sure my abilities in that regard wargarbeled.

Look! A squirrel!

[HeyBub]

Wanna have some fun?

1. Drill a hole (from the back) in a jacketed bullet almost all the way to the tip. Press fit a stainless steel rod of the correct length in the hole (Tungsten or depleted Uranium would work better). Use this cartridge to shoot a 1/4" steel plate, an old fire safe, or the side of an abandoned refrigerator.

1. Take a standard hollow-point and drill out the point a bit more. Fill with pistol powder. Press fit a large pistol primer on the end. Shoot a door or other wooden structure. It's like shooting monkeys in a barrel!

[Neil Brooks]

1) A moment's review points out that Truman sought to avert a steel mill strike ... during wartime ... in the interests of national security, no ?

Presumably, like the Conservatives do, with Obama, then -- they would simply have torn him a new one, whichever way he chose to proceed.

2) What were once called "Democrats" are now, in large numbers, conservative Southern Republicans, so ... the party of the President, in this case matters ... just about not at all (unless you're blindly partisan and an ideologue par excellence). 3) That this occurred ... in NO way demonstrates *anybody's* "lack of aversion to Socialism."

See:

it DOES, is -- to intelligent people -- prove MY point about YOUR "thought process," and the "thought processes of others, here.

If I dig ... will I find YOUR protestations against GW Bush's actions, during wartime ?

Why do I feel so confident that ... I wouldn't ?

Hmm.

Again: reasoning backward from partisan ideology....

The party that -- for all appearances -- would have you BELIEVE that its constituents are "principled ..." in fact ... couldn't give a SHIT about principle.

Just party ... or person ... or ... something.

Still not /quite/ sure ;-)

[J. Clarke]

As long as the BATmen don't get wind of it and stage Ruby Ridge III with you in the lead role.

[Markem]

1. Flatten the head of some nails like fins, harden them, coat with teflon lube, load into twelve gauge shells in place of shot. Find a cop with a vest.

Mark

[Mark & Juanita]

Well, it just hasn't been tried by the right bunch of people yet. i.e., the people currently espousing it of course. When *they* are in charge, it's going to work out just peachy, just give them a chance.

[Lobby Dosser]

That line has been going for something like 150 years!

All we are saying is give Communism a chance!

[HeyBub]

Well, see, that's the difference. Democrats (aka "progressives") believe the end justifies the means, that it's okay to violate the laws if the result is, on some scale, good. Republicans (aka "conservatives") hold that the process is crucial, that no good can come from an immoral (or illegal) act.

Of course, during wartime, the President may do as he thinks best under his Article II powers. I'm not criticizing Truman, just illustrating that it was a DEMOCRAT that did SEIZE an industry. Truman nationalized the steel industry April 8th, 1952. This would not have been in wartime had Truman not fired McArthur almost exactly a year earlier.

And look at the jobs that would have been created in decontaminating North Korea (and possibly parts of China)!

A couple of current examples: The Health Care law and the most recent Financial Reform Act. Both were multi-thousand page bills promoted by Democrats. The curious thing about the bills is that they were short on rules and long on results. By that I mean they each contained goals but are vague about implementation. Both bills are full of phrases such as "The Internal Revenue Service shall develop regulations to ... (make something happen)..."

So, next year, when you sell a gold coin to a stamp and coin shop, they've got to give you a 1099. Likewise Staples has to create a 1099 for your small business and report your purchases to the government (if in excess of $600).

Of course you wouldn't find my protestations. I approved of almost everything Bush did... but then he followed the law, even when Congress demanded that Fannie & Freddy raise their "disadvantaged" loan portfolios from 50 to 57% in 2007 (with predictable results).

Well, the party IS more important than the person. And I'm speaking as a once-upon-a-time professional. I've been to campaign management schools, held elective office, and served on the staff of a U.S. Senator.

While there are exceptions, once upon a time the party could discipline a member who strayed. Even today, a member must usually yield to the collective wishes of his peers.

And on the voter level...

The "independent" voter is actually the most dependent of all. He has no say in either party's eventual candidate, no input on the policies, platforms, or promises. Come election day, he has to choose between two people he never met. Even worse, AFTER the election, whether his choice won or lost, he has no influence over the elected official's advocacy.

[HeyBub]

No need. Flechette shotgun shells are commercially available.

[Neil Brooks]

No. What THAT is is pure, unmitigated bullshit, on your part.

It's also the sort of rank hypocrisy that I laugh and cry about, around here, and that comes so freely out of the mouths of most rabid and blindly partisan conservatives.

You're trying to have it both ways.

No "conservative" gave a SHIT about the FISA workarounds that Bush used, under the aegis of "national security."

And ... ironically ... it was JUST the KIND of transgression that true "conservatives" SHOULD abhor.

But ... as a group ... you're the biggest bunch of unprincipled hypocrites I've ever seen.

Party before principle. Person before principle. Party before country.

AGAIN: Democrat was a label. Most of his ilk now call themselves Republicans.

I presume the label is important to you. Let's not hesitate to look AT it, then.

And ... had my grandmother had balls (arguably, she did), we'd have called her my grandfather.

Hypothesis contrary to fact.

ibid.

I'm not sure what you're saying, or what you're getting at.

I have the distinct feeling that you don't, either, though, so ....

He did, huh ? He "followed the law ?"

I'd say you should START with the warrantless wiretapping case, and go from there, but ... you won't.

It's rather odd/funny/typical/disgusting that you make that claim, when it's patently bullshit.

It calls into question ... just WHY you think he "followed the law."

Confirmation bias is the first thing that comes to mind: if you didn't LIKE the truth, you simply ignored it.

That's NOT at all what I said. I said that folks like you put PARTY over principle, AND person over principle.

Now ... you were saying ... ?

Never mind. You went off on a false tangent, based on incorrectly reading what I stated so clearly.

[snipped]

[HeyBub]

Countries began been monitoring ("tapping") the enemies electronic communications since The Recent Unplesantness, sometimes called The Second War of Independence, when both the Union and Confederate forces intercepted each other's telegraphic messages. We broke the Japanese "Purple" code without a warrant and the British did the same thing with the Enigma Machine.

This IS following the law inasmuch as Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States..." "Commander in Chief" means the ultimate authority and he cannot be gainsaid by the Congress or the Courts when conducting military operations. This was affirmed in the "Prize Cases" during the Lincoln administration and has remained unsullied since.

If you believe that, say, the Congress can tell the president how to wage war, from a massive invastion to subtle surveillance, then I suggest you are mistaken (not that they haven't tried).

The only power the Congress has over war-making is the purse. It CAN cut off funds. In fact, the Congress did threaten to do so when Teddy Roosevelt laid plans to sail the White Fleet around the world as a demonstration of America's might and reach. When informed that the Congress would not appropriate the money, Teddy said: "I have enough money to send them HALF way around the world. Let's see if the Congress will pay to get them back."

He got the money.

Conversely, the Congress DID cut off (promised) funds to South Vietnam, allowing the North to subdue them. Tens of thousands died or were made homeless by the goddamn perfidious Democrats in Congress who sponsored and promoted that idea.

[Neil Brooks]

Here ya' go:

This IS following the law inasmuch as Article II, Section 2 of the

So you LIKE IT when Bush breaks the law, but ... when YOU use the example of what TRUMAN did, in the interests of national security, you call HIM a Socialist.

Got it.

I will, if you will.

Here ya' go:

snipped the rest. All you were doing is arguing against something that you -- apparently -- WISH I HAD said.

But I didn't.

[krw]

It worked out pretty well for Stalin. Why don't you think it'll work equally well for Obama?

[Mark & Juanita]

Hmm, using the argument of the Democrats however, IIRC, Korea was *not* a declared war, thus Truman was *not* exercising power during wartime.

[Mark & Juanita]

... snip

Well, OK it did work out really good for Stalin and also Castro and now going pretty well for Chavez. For the citizens of those countries, not so much.