Centrist Democrats fear party losing middle class

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I must ask, why? This really makes no sense to me, the whole attitude that the government picking up the slack in a 'safety net' health care system is somehow evil. Assuming someone finally just shoots the fucking lawyers to drop healthcare costs, it shouldn't cost much more than current taxes relating to Medicare/Medicaid. Please do explain, Stravo, I'm curious.

It's not in the constitution. Let the individual states do it if they want to carry the burden. And we should get rid of Medicare/Medicaid while we're at it!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So what is Dean's supposed 'moderate' gun control stance? How about his stance on the Space Program? Extending the military on Globocop missions?

Gun policy: The Federal government should enforce but not expand current gun laws and further gun legislation should be left to the individual states.

Dr. Dean's gun policy plank

Anyone who supports the Assault Weapons Ban is a tyrant. That includes Bush, of course, but at least he's from the party which is going to kill it in Congress--and I do have some concept of party-line loyalty which makes me think he's a better choice than a creature associated with the democrats.

National/World security and Foreign Policy:

"Our foreign and military policy must be about the notion of America leading the world, not America against the world."

A New Direction for American Foreign Policy

What do you think we're doing right now, Mark? We are leading the world. We're grabbing the reigns which Britain dropped when she was exhausted by them. We've got no choice in and we'll have to grasp them very tightly, but it is our duty, and so we must go forth. It's all just codewords for a democrat policy that would let chaos build, and our hegemonic position be cast down--which would invariably be very, very bad.

Dean is in a sense the inverse of Goldwater. A mix of an occasional good idea, I grant, with a sheer overload of pure socialism. I shudder to even use his name with Goldwater's--that hero of the Republic doesn't deserve it--but the situation is broadly analogous. We'll have more to worry about from the contender in '08; Dean can only serve to give Glorious Victory to Bush the Younger.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Um... Dutchess... How can you support Bush's position on various social issues?

[Iceberg]

I must ask, why? This really makes no sense to me, the whole attitude that the government picking up the slack in a 'safety net' health care system is somehow evil. Assuming someone finally just shoots the fucking lawyers to drop healthcare costs, it shouldn't cost much more than current taxes relating to Medicare/Medicaid. Please do explain, Stravo, I'm curious.

It's not in the constitution. Let the individual states do it if they want to carry the burden. And we should get rid of Medicare/Medicaid while we're at it!

So? It's basic human decency not to let somebody die when you have the power to save their life. But of course, basic human decency isn't in the Constitution either.

If you have a chronic or terminal condition, no private payer in the world will insure you (my family knows this from bitter experience). A federal payer would be required to provide coverage to chronic patients; they cannot require private payers to provide coverage to anybody they don't want to cover.

If you have a family history of a disease (such as cancer or hemophilia), you will pay very high premiums - if you can get coverage at all. Again, a federal payer would be required to provide coverage at the same rate as any other citizen.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Um... Dutchess... How can you support Bush's position on various social issues?

Because I am far more confident in certain basic concepts of liberty that the Republican party defends more staunchly than those socialists of the left ever have; or, quite simply--better to hold the course and preserve for the long term victory, than be deceived by the promises of those who say they shall make things better, when in truth they lead us down dark and uncertain paths.

[Coyote]

Thanks for the info, Ice. If that is, indeed, Dean's stance on gun control I may have to pay more attention to him in other issues-- the typical Democrat party line is that any ban is a good ban and it is odd that the man branded as an 'uberleftist' would be willing to go so much against the grain-- and still garner broad support.

Space Programs are always neglected by candidates, a pity. They never really think about it until they get in and find NASA sitting on the doorstep. Were I running for a high office, I would at least outline a policy of some sort.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Um... Dutchess... How can you support Bush's position on various social issues?

Because I am far more confident in certain basic concepts of liberty that the Republican party defends more staunchly than those socialists of the left ever have; or, quite simply--better to hold the course and preserve for the long term victory, than be deceived by the promises of those who say they shall make things better, when in truth they lead us down dark and uncertain paths.

Could you provide examples please?

I understand, but dont aagree with the economic stuff. But as a libertarian IIRC arent you appalled at something as horendous as the PATRIOT ACT? I am. And I am a bit of a socialist. Doesnt something like that spit in the face of the 4th ammendment?

[Col. Crackpot]

Can I ask you a personal question, if you don't mind? What do you do for a living? This is relevant because I need to know where you are coming from before I respond to your comment here in entirely.

um, sure. I'm the quality assurance manager for a plastics manufacturing firm.

Secondly, immigrants generally don't come to this country without speaking some English, penniless, and yet still can work two jobs and go to college at the same time. They work those two jobs to be able to afford a rat hole apartment and pay for food, not go to college. Generally, immigrants come with a bit of money that they'd been saving for the trip and know a bit of English before they came. Also, do you honestly think that they are paying the full price of admission to college? I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but a foriegn national can get significant scholarships and grants to study in America if they fill out their forms right. I knew an eastern European kid named Alex when I went to the Art Institute that was practically being paid to go there for photography because of this.

granted, often times there is no money for college for themselves, but you can be damn sure that there children are going to be pushed down the path of education. Back to the issue of health care, with the current system (granted, a few reforms are needed) you can be sure that those that get the shit end of the stick now, will work to attain a place in society where they will have the ability to both provide for themselves, and give back to those who don't.
Vorlon made a complaint about how the taxes eat up such a godawful portion of his family's income. How is incresing government spending and creating the need for more taxes going to help alleviate that? hmmm?

sorry i took so long to respond. i had a lot of work to do yesterday, and i was just getting myself worked up. I knew I wouldn't get much work done i pissed off political rant mode, so i set it aside.

[Edi]

Just an observation: Based on what I've heard of the American health care system, it seems to be in need of a ground-up structural reform that entails tearing the current system up by root and branch and building a new one that is efficiently managed. Public health care systems can be built so they work, they just need to be well designed and kept ruthlessly free of special interest group pressure. When done properly, it doesn't take all that much money and works quite well.

I've heard that France has a good model for a public health care system, some Finn who lived there wrote a lengthy opinion to one of our newspapers about it after he'd heard from relatives of his how shitty ours is (it works squeakily, but is riddled with bureaucracy and inefficiency and needs to be reformed, which is fortunately in the works). What he described seemed to be, if it's accurate, quite ideal.

Edi

[Col. Crackpot]

I've heard that France has a good model for a public health care system, some Finn who lived there wrote a lengthy opinion to one of our newspapers about it after he'd heard from relatives of his how shitty ours is (it works squeakily, but is riddled with bureaucracy and inefficiency and needs to be reformed, which is fortunately in the works). What he described seemed to be, if it's accurate, quite ideal.

the thing is though, Americans will never tolerate the tax burden needed to implement the French model. People here love to bitch and moan about the lack of social services funding, but when the see how much a plan to change healthcare, welfare etc. costs, you find many of the same people screaming bloody murder about how 'the man is bleeding them dry'.

[Iceberg]

Marina, given your open aspirations to Empire (not just global political-economic dominance but an actual sovereign American Empire), your idolization of the Reagan and Bush (I and II) Administrations unto the point of near-deification and your equally open disdain for the ability of the people to exercise the sovereign franchise with which we have been entrusted, I think you're about the last person who should be accusing anybody of being a tyrant. (and my inner writer screams at that paragraph-long sentence but I can't think of a good place to break it up)

The world is not better off for American powermongering in the last three years, nor is America. The world political situation is visibly less stable than it was three years ago, our military is drained near the breaking point from occupation efforts in two foreign countries, and we're so spread out thanks to George Dubya that we have virtually no remaining power projection capability. 2/3 of the Army's combat forces are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with significant portions of the Air Force and Marine Corps; Liberia is another Somalia just waiting to develop, and North Korea is waving nukes around under our noses and there's not a damn thing we can do about it because nine of our carriers are going to be unavailable for the next nine months, and President Bush refuses to speak with Kim Jong-Il, creating little incentive for the North Korean leader to participate within the international system. At the same time, we have alienated all of our traditional allies in NATO except for the United Kingdom, and that's only because Tony Blair's political opponents are even more wretched than he is; and opted out of the United Nations system that served our interests for fifty years by keeping the third world placated.

That is the reality of George W. Bush's foreign policy, and it is an utter disaster. Far from strengthing America's position in the world, he has weakened us with occupation missions and a "war on terrorism" that will sap our strength for years to come - a third Vietnam, in addition to the second Vietnam that is the War on Drugs, and made our world less secure by marginalizing the UN, forcing those brutal third-world dictatorships to find other ways of securing a sense of dominance, like funding international terrorism. Additionally, President Bush has broken faith with powerful nations that were staunch friends just thirty-six months ago, ensuring that these countries will seek military parity or superiority with respect to the United States, and probably will seek conflict with us, sooner than they otherwise would have. Good God, CANADA! What possible geopolitical gain could the President realize from antagonizing CANADA, the country that is our closest ally of all, and shares with us the world's longest undefended border!? The list of disgruntled allies and former allies grows almost by the day, Marina. Now, remind me in what way has President Bush enhanced American political and military security, again?

President Bush has blatantly violated Henry Kissinger's famous maxim of realism geopolitics, which is "never make yourself weaker." What's worse is that he's done so while creating the illusion of strength.

[LadyTevar]

Someone please split the discussion on Gun Control to another thread?


Now, about the other topics on this thread...

Medicare/Medicaide is a necessary evil, especially if you have a two working parents with children under the age of six. Kids are expensive enough without worrying about the cost of the ER visit because the baby has had diarrhea for two days and is dehydrated. Or the cost of the doctor visit when the child has asthma, or an ear infection... ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

Foreign Policy: Do we really want to be Imperial America, taking over Britain's place?

[Worlds Spanner]

Excellent analysis Iceberg!

[Bob McDob]

Um... Dutchess... How can you support Bush's position on various social issues?

Because I am far more confident in certain basic concepts of liberty that the Republican party defends more staunchly than those socialists of the left ever have; or, quite simply--better to hold the course and preserve for the long term victory, than be deceived by the promises of those who say they shall make things better, when in truth they lead us down dark and uncertain paths.

What? :~(

[Bob McDob]

Incidently, I agree with Howard Dean's foreign policy 100% and would be glad to back him in his bid for the presidency, even though I am far too ignorant about the other issues.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Could you provide examples please?

I understand, but dont aagree with the economic stuff. But as a libertarian IIRC arent you appalled at something as horendous as the PATRIOT ACT? I am. And I am a bit of a socialist. Doesnt something like that spit in the face of the 4th ammendment?

Well, for example, the first bill which will repeal part of the Patriot Act was sponsored by a Republican. Also, did you know that there was a Secret Appeals Court in which the government has argued the legality of the Patriot Act? Both sides of the argument have been argued by the same government arbiter and the deliberations are sealed. This Secret Appeals Court was created in the 70s by a Democratic proposal. I am much more worried by it than by the Patriot Act, which will likely expire and not be added to.

I actually think martial law is fine in wartime--it's necessary, in fact. We need to distinguish between the freedom of peacetime law, and the discipline of wartime law, and the fact that discipline in war is needed, and that both can be had, and function safely, in a constitutional Republic. The Romans understood this; they elected a Dictator for a sixth-month term during emergencies in War, after all. In the same way, there are situations where martial law is necessary and perfectly acceptable. If the President had declared Martial Law on September 12 this would have been just fine.

My problem with the Patriot Act is in fact that it was a peacetime law, one entered into the books, instead of a temporary wartime measure. Fortunately, it shall likely expire, and Patriot II die; and so disaster be averted, the Legislature rebelling against the Executive branch and our division of powers saving us once again.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Marina, given your open aspirations to Empire (not just global political-economic dominance but an actual sovereign American Empire),

I have no desire for America to rule foreign territory. I simply believe the following maxim:

We are a trading power, and democracies making good trading partners, so we should logically try to spread democracy wherever possible, as this can only improve our own riches.

your idolization of the Reagan and Bush (I and II) Administrations unto the point of near-deification

Actually, I never idolize Bush the Elder or Bush the Younger, I just refer to them in a Roman fashion for Father/Son inheiritance of leadership posts. Ronaldus Magnus, having defeated the greatest land empire of the industrial empire, however, deserves I think at least the same title as Pompey Magnus--sheesh, what is it with you people? So stinting about politicians, but you must fawn over movie-stars and singers..

and your equally open disdain for the ability of the people to exercise the sovereign franchise with which we have been entrusted, I think you're about the last person who should be accusing anybody of being a tyrant. (and my inner writer screams at that paragraph-long sentence but I can't think of a good place to break it up)

I am an Optimati, and I can certainly accuse people of being tyrants--it was ultimately the Roman Optimates who were slaughtered, defending the Republican ideal, against men, the Populists, who would set themselves up as Dictator by manipulating the urban poor, and I can smell the modern version in the air. Remember, Mark, that I have never advocated more than balancing the system.

The people of this country were never given more rights than the ones I want them to have--the voting for the Senate is an artificial extension--and in fact I have advocated providing a recall mechanism for Representatives, which would make the House which the People can vote for even more accountable. That's hardly so tyrannical, now, is it? It's just that I want that balanced out by an appointed Senate which can check that power with a more stable and considerate one, interested in the rights of States first, and the dispersal of interests.

The world is not better off for American powermongering in the last three years, nor is America.

Yes, it is. We are taking up the mantle of Empire, and with it we are restoring peace and order to the world. This current period is simply a matter of lancing the boils that were allowed to fester in the past decade, and clean up a few of the ground remnants of the prior bipolar order.

The world political situation is visibly less stable than it was three years ago,

No, it is not. The American Hegemony is exerting strength in such a way that threats to global commerce are being reduced and a central Imperial power is restoring an ordered world for general international trade. This is vital to a peaceful world. All of the situations we are dealing with existed in the 90s; they were simply ignored and allowed to gain strength.

our military is drained near the breaking point from occupation efforts in two foreign countries,

Then increase the military budget and issue a call for volunteers. We should have issued a call for volunteers on September 12, actually; it was one of the more foolish things that Bush failed to do. A million volunteers! We need to clean up that entire region and it shall take a much larger force, but we obviously can't resort to the draft. Even now we could get a hundred thousand if he simply asked for them. Remember the Hard Hat Riots? Everyone underestimates the spirit of the American people.

2/3 of the Army's combat forces are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan,

And we have been so hesitant in calling up the National Guard, and finally acknowledging the fact that in reality it is simply the second-line army reserve. The States should increase their State Guards to do National Guard tasks and the National Guard fully freed for army duty.

Liberia is another Somalia just waiting to develop,

Somalia was, what? A rather glorious defeat? A bit like Isandlwana, really, thousands of natives charging into our guns and being slaughtered and slaughtered and slaughtered in unending numbers, brave but helpless fanatics all, but the proper support wasn't provided through incompetency, so we lost, and our men died. Oh well; that happens in Empire. Then the President, that Clinton, proved himself a spineless coward by not going in and defeating the Somalis and restoring order there in revenge for our defeat. The whole nation would have supported him--it was a loss of Presidential Will, not National Will. Liberia can be nothing like it, as whatever else you think of Bush the Younger, he will at least not shirke from a fight.

and North Korea is waving nukes around under our noses and there's not a damn thing we can do about it because nine of our carriers are going to be unavailable for the next nine months,

Ever heard of Guam before? Or our airbases on Japanese soil? The DPRK should rightly be afraid of B1s and Spirits just as much as our carriers; if the DPRK goes south they'll die even if every single one of our carriers is out of action and it'll just be the USAF getting the accolades instead of the USN. And if we decide for a preemptive strike, it would be B-2s doing the work, anyway, not a carrier strike.

and President Bush refuses to speak with Kim Jong-Il, creating little incentive for the North Korean leader to participate within the international system.

Kim Jong-il, the madman who's only goal is self-sufficiency for his nation and who probably uses astrology to plan his foreign policy? What would be the bloody point? Besides, all he does is manipulate diplomatic negotiations; part of the international system is a willingness to work in it, which both sides must have. Quite simply, the reality of the DPRK is that it either collapses quietly, and the sooner we make that happen the better, so choking it is the best thing to do for it then, or it collapses hard--and then we have to fight, and as I said, we can give them a good fight with or without carrier battlegroups.

At the same time, we have alienated all of our traditional allies in NATO except for the United Kingdom,

Our enemies, now. The EU is going to be our long-term enemy, Mark, and one must recognize this to seriously plan for the future. They are the only serious economic competitor we have, and the economic titans are the economic rivals for hegemony. The idea of cooperative trade is a farce; we are too far apart on many issues, not just in policy but even culturally now, and even countries which shared such points of contact, and had reasons for peace, have fought--witness the Anglo-Dutch Naval Wars. Rivalry is inevitable there, and we need to recognize it and prepare for it. My only sadness is that it is probably too late to do anything to try and foil the annexations of the eastern european countries in '04 into the EU, but perhaps we can save Bulgaria and Rumania. Certainly, now, Russia is a better ally than any of the EU countries--because we share a common potential foe. Russia needs to be cultivated, and the old NATO countries (except for ones like Norway and Iceland not in the EU yet) forgotten.

That is the reality of George W. Bush's foreign policy, and it is an utter disaster.

It has not been very subtle--unless it is far more subtle than I imagine--and it has sometimes blundered, but it has been far more assertive and awakening to the realities of the world than I could have hoped for. Now we use our power! Now we calm the waters, now we stand against the tide! Chaos can only be held back by a thin line of bayonets, and those must be held by American troops. We are, by virtue of our economic power, the rulers of the whole world, whether we like it our not. This is not intentional nor due to any plan, but a simple fact that is caused by our inner strength and success, and the fortunes of certain aspects of our history. Now, we have a chocie--we can use this strength with the goal in mind of sustaining it for as long as fate wills it to be sustained, or we can ignore it, and see other eager countries race to the fore and challenge our inattentiveness, and throw us down. And let me assure you that if they do that, we shall fall very hard, and very brutally, indeed.

a third Vietnam, in addition to the second Vietnam that is the War on Drugs,

Vietnam was a victory that was lost politically and shares nothing with the War on Drugs, and the only way we can lose this war is if people like you lose it for us as well.

and made our world less secure by marginalizing the UN,

The sooner the U.N. is destroyed the better, as politics are naturally in a safer and more effective realm with it gone, where the rogue and minor nations are marginalized as they should be, and the greater countries can deal directly with each other. The U.N. is actually a destabilizing influence by the power it gives to weak and irrational countries.

forcing those brutal third-world dictatorships to find other ways of securing a sense of dominance, like funding international terrorism.

International terrorism--simply a byword for irregular warfare--existed long before Bush and will exist long after he is dead; this is really quite an irrational statement.

Additionally, President Bush has broken faith with powerful nations that were staunch friends just thirty-six months ago,

He has simply acknowledged the realities of the world situation.

ensuring that these countries will seek military parity or superiority with respect to the United States,

They can only do that as a unified EU, and that was going to come on anyway. Better that we recognize the threat it poses and prepare for it as soon as possible, which he has set us down the course towards.

Good God, CANADA! What possible geopolitical gain could the President realize from antagonizing CANADA, the country that is our closest ally of all, and shares with us the world's longest undefended border!?

Canada antagonized us through the sheer incompetency of its leadership.

The list of disgruntled allies and former allies grows almost by the day, Marina.

Hardly. It has lessened as the application of American power has been shown right. Now even Chretien works to repair relations, at least in face, with the U.S., and make all the right noises. Things appear normal; they will, for a while, too, but the situation has changed. A great sea change, I think, for order shines out of chaos, if we but hold steady on the course.

Now, remind me in what way has President Bush enhanced American political and military security, again?

Fight.

President Bush has blatantly violated Henry Kissinger's famous maxim of realism geopolitics, which is "never make yourself weaker."

Consider this:

We had great strength; it was used in a great onrush. Now we are coiled, rebuilding. Our enemy is devastated at several points. We have a massive reserve of strength--our industrial, our economic strength. This has not been touched, in truth, and the only economic indicators really weak are those for unemployment even besides (but I speak of greater and longer-term economic strengths)--in immediate terms, however, we can certainly sustain extended conflict if necessary. But it is not coming like that. It is coming in pulses. Bursts of activity. Afghanistan. Then Iraq. Each time the enemy has not recovered. Each time we do recoup our strength, rest our troops, rebuild our arsenals--and foil the enemy's plots against us. The wait shall be longer now, because Iraq was a greater feat.

But next time the blow, perhaps, will be greater, too. We are taking out their centres of strength, Mark, and they are not being rebuilt. We are indeed growing stronger; and in a relative sense. As we do, we leave in our wake seeds--seeds of a concept which will only make us stronger in an absolute sense. Oh yes, we grow stronger. Silently we sow, and wait, and reap, and steadily we are establishing the same sort of power which served us so well in our long, last century's struggle.

[Gil Hamilton]

George Bush with absolute executive power with no checks or balances and the suspension of all rights for citizens... gee, Marina, where's the down side to that? I'm sure we all need to live in a country where if anyone makes a peep against the supreme authority, they can be executed for it without trial.

Seriously, the events of 9/11 did not require the White House to declare Martial Law. A simple review of the last almost two years will clearly show that we kicked Al-Qaedas ass brutally, along with the Taliban in the same incident, without any rights being revoked or the president getting any significant emergency powers. It's bad enough as it is that the incident scared Congress into signing the Patriot Act, we really didn't need Ashcroft and gang to be able to mass arrest anyone they want with no due process. We Americans don't take too well to dictatorships from other countries, let alone our own. I know you entertain starry-eyed fantasies of benevolent dictatorships that don't end up being brutal thugs, but your love of dictatorships doesn't translate to the real world, I'm very glad to say.

And I might want to point out that America isn't the Roman Republic or Empire, and there are loads and loads of significant differences. I swear to Jupiter that you just make references to ancient and dead nations just to try and make yourself sound smarter. After all, us peons wouldn't think about questioning the superior intelligence of a person who arbitrarily sticks in references to obscure Chinese dynasties or the Roman republic, right?

[Steve]

I think, Gil, that you have the idea all wrong.

[Gil Hamilton]

I think, Gil, that you have the idea all wrong.

Could you put your reasoning for calling me all wrong in a form of type my computer could read? Or are you just mindlessly being Marina's little lap dog again?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

George Bush with absolute executive power with no checks or balances and the suspension of all rights for citizens... gee, Marina, where's the down side to that? I'm sure we all need to live in a country where if anyone makes a peep against the supreme authority, they can be executed for it without trial.

Seriously, the events of 9/11 did not require the White House to declare Martial Law. A simple review of the last almost two years will clearly show that we kicked Al-Qaedas ass brutally, along with the Taliban in the same incident, without any rights being revoked or the president getting any significant emergency powers. It's bad enough as it is that the incident scared Congress into signing the Patriot Act, we really didn't need Ashcroft and gang to be able to mass arrest anyone they want with no due process. We Americans don't take too well to dictatorships from other countries, let alone our own. I know you entertain starry-eyed fantasies of benevolent dictatorships that don't end up being brutal thugs, but your love of dictatorships doesn't translate to the real world, I'm very glad to say.

I'm saying that if martial law had been declared, they could have done the same things that the Patriot Act had done, and then stopped doing them when the emergency situation was clearly over, instead of putting them into the law code! Since when has Congress ever been suspended in the USA, or elections, or anything severe like that, which happened in the UK during WWII (and their system resumed afterwards)? There were fears, during the Civil War--which proved unfounded. Our system can handle far more restrictive measures than those of the Patriot Act, if they are in the context of Emergency Wartime measures.

My concern is that the Patriot Act was put actually into the law code, and might have (and there is still the disturbing if more remote chance) that it could be made permanent. But certainly in wartime extreme measures must, and have, be (and have been) taken, without any of the things happening that you postulate--and certainly without making the President a dictator like you worry over.

And I might want to point out that America isn't the Roman Republic or Empire, and there are loads and loads of significant differences.

Which don't change the inherent similiarities in the situations. They are not, of course, exactly the same, but one can draw a comparative synthesis from them.

I swear to Jupiter that you just make references to ancient and dead nations just to try and make yourself sound smarter. After all, us peons wouldn't think about questioning the superior intelligence of a person who arbitrarily sticks in references to obscure Chinese dynasties or the Roman republic, right?

Most assuredly not. I do in fact subscribe to the school of thought that important comparative lessons can be drawn from the actions of historical States, because human nature is a constant, leading people to react to broadly similiar circumstances in broadly similiar ways.

[Gil Hamilton]

I'm saying that if martial law had been declared, they could have done the same things that the Patriot Act had done, and then stopped doing them when the emergency situation was clearly over, instead of putting them into the law code! Since when has Congress ever been suspended in the USA, or elections, or anything severe like that, which happened in the UK during WWII (and their system resumed afterwards)? There were fears, during the Civil War--which proved unfounded. Our system can handle far more restrictive measures than those of the Patriot Act, if they are in the context of Emergency Wartime measures.

My concern is that the Patriot Act was put actually into the law code, and might have (and there is still the disturbing if more remote chance) that it could be made permanent. But certainly in wartime extreme measures must, and have, be (and have been) taken, without any of the things happening that you postulate--and certainly without making the President a dictator like you worry over.

Problem is that under martial law the President would have absolute authority. He could easily do things a hundred times worse than the Patriot Act (which will go away eventually) and it would be nice and legal for him. Point is that we didn't need actual martial law to be declared and did fine without it, depsite your claims that it would have been A-OK.

Which don't change the inherent similiarities in the situations. They are not, of course, exactly the same, but one can draw a comparative synthesis from them.

Rome didn't have a written Constitution to trample, unlike us. Rome occasionally was in danger of being sacked (and was sacked, on occasion) thus requiring martial law, America doesn't have that danger and didn't have that danger on 9/11. Rome didn't have the benefit of knowing it's own history, and that some times Tribunes of the People don't step down and thus become Emperors.

Most assuredly not. I do in fact subscribe to the school of thought that important comparative lessons can be drawn from the actions of historical States, because human nature is a constant, leading people to react to broadly similiar circumstances in broadly similiar ways.

Oh, quit yer bullshit, Marina. Fess up, it's not possible to be as pedantic as you are without doing it on purpose. You remind me of anime nerds that say the titles of cartoons in Japanese to show what a huge otaku they are.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Problem is that under martial law the President would have absolute authority. He could easily do things a hundred times worse than the Patriot Act (which will go away eventually) and it would be nice and legal for him. Point is that we didn't need actual martial law to be declared and did fine without it, depsite your claims that it would have been A-OK.

Incorrect.

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 34 > SUBCHAPTER IV > SEC. 1641.

(a) Maintenance of file and index of Presidential orders, rules and regulations during national emergency



When the President declares a national emergency, or Congress declares war, the President shall be responsible for maintaining a file and index of all significant orders of the President, including Executive orders and proclamations, and each Executive agency shall maintain a file and index of all rules and regulations, issued during such emergency or war issued pursuant to such declarations.

(b) Presidential orders, rules and regulations; transmittal to Congress



All such significant orders of the President, including Executive orders, and such rules and regulations shall be transmitted to the Congress promptly under means to assure confidentiality where appropriate.

(c) Expenditures during national emergency; Presidential reports to Congress



When the President declares a national emergency or Congress declares war, the President shall transmit to Congress, within ninety days after the end of each six-month period after such declaration, a report on the total expenditures incurred by the United States Government during such six-month period which are directly attributable to the exercise of powers and authorities conferred by such declaration. Not later than ninety days after the termination of each such emergency or war, the President shall transmit a final report on all such expenditures

Congress retains oversight authority in national emergencies.

Rome didn't have a written Constitution to trample, unlike us. Rome occasionally was in danger of being sacked (and was sacked, on occasion) thus requiring martial law, America doesn't have that danger and didn't have that danger on 9/11.

There has been a constant danger which has only been averted by the arrest of large numbers of persons and some military action. Now, the question is if we could have done it without those laws--of course. But could we have done it without those laws and without a state of emergency? Not sure.

Rome didn't have the benefit of knowing it's own history, and that some times Tribunes of the People don't step down and thus become Emperors.

You're thinking of Sulla, who did in fact step down after changing certain portions of the law after his tenure as dictator. None of the Roman dictators attempted to establish themselves for life until Caesar.

Oh, quit yer bullshit, Marina. Fess up, it's not possible to be as pedantic as you are without doing it on purpose. You remind me of anime nerds that say the titles of cartoons in Japanese to show what a huge otaku they are.

This line of contention is simply being pursued in a rather weak effort to discredit my analysis.

[Gil Hamilton]

Incorrect.

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 34 > SUBCHAPTER IV > SEC. 1641.

(a) Maintenance of file and index of Presidential orders, rules and regulations during national emergency



When the President declares a national emergency, or Congress declares war, the President shall be responsible for maintaining a file and index of all significant orders of the President, including Executive orders and proclamations, and each Executive agency shall maintain a file and index of all rules and regulations, issued during such emergency or war issued pursuant to such declarations.

(b) Presidential orders, rules and regulations; transmittal to Congress



All such significant orders of the President, including Executive orders, and such rules and regulations shall be transmitted to the Congress promptly under means to assure confidentiality where appropriate.

(c) Expenditures during national emergency; Presidential reports to Congress



When the President declares a national emergency or Congress declares war, the President shall transmit to Congress, within ninety days after the end of each six-month period after such declaration, a report on the total expenditures incurred by the United States Government during such six-month period which are directly attributable to the exercise of powers and authorities conferred by such declaration. Not later than ninety days after the termination of each such emergency or war, the President shall transmit a final report on all such expenditures

Congress retains oversight authority in national emergencies.

And that contradicts the fact that if martial law was declared, the government could do things a hundred times worse that the PATRIOT act how?

There has been a constant danger which has only been averted by the arrest of large numbers of persons and some military action. Now, the question is if we could have done it without those laws--of course. But could we have done it without those laws and without a state of emergency? Not sure.

But we did do it. Al-qaeda has been destroyed, along with the guys they were shacking up with. They lost, we won, and it didn't take Bush becoming dictator-for-the-month to do it.

You're thinking of Sulla, who did in fact step down after changing certain portions of the law after his tenure as dictator. None of the Roman dictators attempted to establish themselves for life until Caesar.

Actually, I was refering to Caesar.

This line of contention is simply being pursued in a rather weak effort to discredit my analysis.

No Marina, you do a good enough job discrediting yourself than I could ever do. I'm just saying that it's impossible to constantly and obstinantly make reference to dead states and people even in discussions that have nothing to do with them without seriously working at it and that people who do it generally do it to make themselves look smart.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And that contradicts the fact that if martial law was declared, the government could do things a hundred times worse that the PATRIOT act how?

The PATRIOT Act is far worse because it is in the law code, and exists as part of the legal process; it can be extended, or made permanent (and I believe some sections are, while only some sunset), while a national emergency is most definitely not permanent--it is a State, as opposed to a Law.

Furthermore, you seriously exagerrate a declaration of national emergency, which has happened before and not resulted in a loss of freedom, or even in a reduction of freedom comparable to the state of society like we lived in before 9/11.

But we did do it. Al-qaeda has been destroyed, along with the guys they were shacking up with. They lost, we won, and it didn't take Bush becoming dictator-for-the-month to do it.

But it did include the PATRIOT Act, and various other restrictive provisions that may have long-lasting effects on our society that we cannot yet quantify. We cannot tell if we would have avoided other attacks without them, and yet at the same time were they really worth it, when a state of national emergency could have instead been declared?

Actually, I was refering to Caesar.

He was never elected Tribune. *crooked grin* He was, however, elected Aedile in 65 B.C.

No Marina, you do a good enough job discrediting yourself than I could ever do. I'm just saying that it's impossible to constantly and obstinantly make reference to dead states and people even in discussions that have nothing to do with them without seriously working at it and that people who do it generally do it to make themselves look smart.

I think we are misunderstanding each other. Of course I seriously work at it, Gil. But I do it for a purpose--I am analyzing those events and comparing them to the present, because I believe that, human nature being constant, important lessons can be learned from such comparisons. I object simply to the contention that I'm only do it to add some aura of intelligence.