| Should Obama be America's dictator? |
| Yes. |
|
16% |
[ 7 ] |
| No. |
|
83% |
[ 36 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 43 |
|
Mummy_of_Peanut
Countess de Noir
Joined: Feb 21, 2011
Age: 40
Posts: 3474
Location: Bonnie Scotland
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:16 am Post subject: |
 |
|
If a serious debate is to have any chance in this thread, we need to keep personal attacks (whether intended to be funny or not) out of it.
OP, what is the actual purpose of this thread? I seriously doubt there are many WP members who support dictatorships, no mattter who is in charge.
_________________
"We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiatic about." Charles Kingsley |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5177
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kraichgauer wrote: | | Dox47 wrote: | | as I think he's just another creeping authoritarian with better than average oratory skills. |
I have yet to see anything from Obama that would make him anymore of a "creeping authoritarian" than any other president in recent memory.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
Who said I thought he was different than the the others? I'd have thought the words in bold made my feelings fairly clear. I would, however, say that things like extra-judicial assassinations of American citizens, his ratcheting up of civil liberties abuses tied to both the wars on drugs and terror, and his willful characterization of basic Constitutional principles start to edge him into a company all his own, to say nothing of his executive power grab concerning Libya and war on whistle-blowers. But he talks a good game, and that seems to be all his fans really demand of him, so I suppose I can't knock his hustle too much.
I know you think that if you don't support him unconditionally, those nearly identical Republicans you fear so much might seize power and do... much the same, so don't let me stop you from keeping on toeing the party line.
_________________
Unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant
Any power that government has to do something you like will invariably be used for something you abhor
Murum aries attigit |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 34
Posts: 9770
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kraichgauer wrote: | | Dox47 wrote: | | This coulda been interesting Ragtime, if you'd phrased it a bit differently. I've seen a lot of people say that Obama's failings have less to do with him and more to do with congressional Republicans, so a hypothetical question about an unchecked Obama may have brought some good responses. As it is, it sounds trollish and is drawing the same. IMHO the worst things Obama has done have been the things he's done unilaterally so I wouldn't like to see him unrestrained, no matter how good a game he might talk, as I think he's just another creeping authoritarian with better than average oratory skills. |
I have yet to see anything from Obama that would make him anymore of a "creeping authoritarian" than any other president in recent memory.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
I believe people of your political stripe would vote to give Obama greater and greater power, by seemingly-small degrees at a time, and thus accidentally accomplish giving him too much power in the long run. You wouldn't achieve that end on purpose, but the point is you'd achieve it. You wouldn't see it coming. You can't draw back someone's power once they have too much, and that's the danger with repeatedly thinking, "Well, they don't have too much power, so what harm is there in giving them a little more?" When turning up the stove temperature one degree at a time, which degree is it that boils the frog? No one knows beforehand, and it's not a matter of a particular temperature anyway -- it's the cumulative effect of the upward creep in tempature that would cause it. If Obama did seize full power, you'd wonder, "Which of my side's votes was it that did it?" But you wouldn't be able to trace it to just one issue that was voted on. Some more than others, for sure, but no one issue-vote would be the sole cause of his eventual grab of full power.
Or, which straw is it that breaks the camel's back? None of them, and all of them. It's the act of continually adding straws that breaks the camel's back. Likewise, it's the act of always supporting a very powerful leader that can eventually give him too much power.
_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.
Last edited by Ragtime on Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:15 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
beers
Raven
Joined: Jan 30, 2012
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
The whole 'absolute power corrupts absolutely' applies to really anyone, although I am tangibly disgusted by the whole stonewalling-simply-because-are-affiliated-with-alternate-political-party mentality of our governing bodies as of late.
_________________
Your Aspie score: 131 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 62 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie |
|
| Back to top |
|
androbot2084
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 24, 2011
Posts: 3066
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| We should not have a president. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Raptor
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 09, 2007
Posts: 4449
Location: Southeast U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | | Kraichgauer wrote: | | Dox47 wrote: | | This coulda been interesting Ragtime, if you'd phrased it a bit differently. I've seen a lot of people say that Obama's failings have less to do with him and more to do with congressional Republicans, so a hypothetical question about an unchecked Obama may have brought some good responses. As it is, it sounds trollish and is drawing the same. IMHO the worst things Obama has done have been the things he's done unilaterally so I wouldn't like to see him unrestrained, no matter how good a game he might talk, as I think he's just another creeping authoritarian with better than average oratory skills. |
I have yet to see anything from Obama that would make him anymore of a "creeping authoritarian" than any other president in recent memory.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
I believe people of your political stripe would vote to give Obama greater and greater power, by seemingly-small degrees at a time, and thus accidentally accomplish giving him too much power in the long run. You wouldn't achieve that end on purpose, but the point is you'd achieve it. You wouldn't see it coming. You can't draw back someone's power once they have too much, and that's the danger with repeatedly thinking, "Well, they don't have too much power, so what harm is there in giving them a little more?" When turning up the stove temperature one degree at a time, which degree is it that boils the frog? No one knows beforehand, and it's not a matter of a particular temperature anyway -- it's the cumulative effect of the upward creep in tempature that would cause it. If Obama did seize full power, you'd wonder, "Which of my side's votes was it that did it?" But you wouldn't be able to trace it to just one issue that was voted on. Some more than others, for sure, but no one issue-vote would be the sole cause of his eventual grab of full power.
Or, which straw is it that breaks the camel's back? None of them, and all of them. It's the act of continually adding straws that breaks the camel's back. Likewise, it's the act of always supporting a very powerful leader that can eventually give him too much power. |
The left doesn't mind dictatorial power and/or corruption as long as it's one of theirs doing it. In fact, the more the better! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 12728
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Raptor wrote: | | Ragtime wrote: | | Kraichgauer wrote: | | Dox47 wrote: | | This coulda been interesting Ragtime, if you'd phrased it a bit differently. I've seen a lot of people say that Obama's failings have less to do with him and more to do with congressional Republicans, so a hypothetical question about an unchecked Obama may have brought some good responses. As it is, it sounds trollish and is drawing the same. IMHO the worst things Obama has done have been the things he's done unilaterally so I wouldn't like to see him unrestrained, no matter how good a game he might talk, as I think he's just another creeping authoritarian with better than average oratory skills. |
I have yet to see anything from Obama that would make him anymore of a "creeping authoritarian" than any other president in recent memory.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
I believe people of your political stripe would vote to give Obama greater and greater power, by seemingly-small degrees at a time, and thus accidentally accomplish giving him too much power in the long run. You wouldn't achieve that end on purpose, but the point is you'd achieve it. You wouldn't see it coming. You can't draw back someone's power once they have too much, and that's the danger with repeatedly thinking, "Well, they don't have too much power, so what harm is there in giving them a little more?" When turning up the stove temperature one degree at a time, which degree is it that boils the frog? No one knows beforehand, and it's not a matter of a particular temperature anyway -- it's the cumulative effect of the upward creep in tempature that would cause it. If Obama did seize full power, you'd wonder, "Which of my side's votes was it that did it?" But you wouldn't be able to trace it to just one issue that was voted on. Some more than others, for sure, but no one issue-vote would be the sole cause of his eventual grab of full power.
Or, which straw is it that breaks the camel's back? None of them, and all of them. It's the act of continually adding straws that breaks the camel's back. Likewise, it's the act of always supporting a very powerful leader that can eventually give him too much power. |
The left doesn't mind dictatorial power and/or corruption as long as it's one of theirs doing it. In fact, the more the better! |
And the right would never do that.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 12728
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | | Kraichgauer wrote: | | Dox47 wrote: | | This coulda been interesting Ragtime, if you'd phrased it a bit differently. I've seen a lot of people say that Obama's failings have less to do with him and more to do with congressional Republicans, so a hypothetical question about an unchecked Obama may have brought some good responses. As it is, it sounds trollish and is drawing the same. IMHO the worst things Obama has done have been the things he's done unilaterally so I wouldn't like to see him unrestrained, no matter how good a game he might talk, as I think he's just another creeping authoritarian with better than average oratory skills. |
I have yet to see anything from Obama that would make him anymore of a "creeping authoritarian" than any other president in recent memory.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
I believe people of your political stripe would vote to give Obama greater and greater power, by seemingly-small degrees at a time, and thus accidentally accomplish giving him too much power in the long run. You wouldn't achieve that end on purpose, but the point is you'd achieve it. You wouldn't see it coming. You can't draw back someone's power once they have too much, and that's the danger with repeatedly thinking, "Well, they don't have too much power, so what harm is there in giving them a little more?" When turning up the stove temperature one degree at a time, which degree is it that boils the frog? No one knows beforehand, and it's not a matter of a particular temperature anyway -- it's the cumulative effect of the upward creep in tempature that would cause it. If Obama did seize full power, you'd wonder, "Which of my side's votes was it that did it?" But you wouldn't be able to trace it to just one issue that was voted on. Some more than others, for sure, but no one issue-vote would be the sole cause of his eventual grab of full power.
Or, which straw is it that breaks the camel's back? None of them, and all of them. It's the act of continually adding straws that breaks the camel's back. Likewise, it's the act of always supporting a very powerful leader that can eventually give him too much power. |
But if that's true, what's keeping the right from doing the same thing?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
snapcap
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 13, 2011
Age: 31
Posts: 2328
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I couldn't say if it would be. Let's start off small by giving him the ability to assassinate anyone he wants, and letting him slowly kill off free speech, and slowly turning the US into Alcatraz. If that runs smoothly, then we can see what it's like when he kills off access to foreign news media, and giving him the ability to determine how the NCAA tournament will unfold.
Why should we go into it head first? Let's come to a slow boil.
_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*
some atheist to stick: "You're like me!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
AstroGeek
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 29, 2011
Age: 19
Posts: 1477
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Raptor wrote: | | The left doesn't mind dictatorial power and/or corruption as long as it's one of theirs doing it. In fact, the more the better! |
Um, have you ever talked to someone on the left? And I don't mean a hard-liner Marxist-Leninest--your criticism might be correct for them. But the he mainstream left tends to have similar opinions towards democracy as the mainstream right in their country. Its just that the party elites of both "left" (Democrats) and right (Republicans) in the USA seem rather unconcerned about democracy.
Most of the left today is watered down to the point that they are little more than yesterday's centrists. As such they lack the vision to change society in any fundamental way, including by instituting a dictator. Most of those who are more traditional left-wingers, such as myself, tend to believe that the transition to a more socialist society must be made with democratic consent. Otherwise it is doomed to fail, not to mention the fact that it would be morally wrong to make such a change without popular support.
By the way, in Canada it was the Conservative Party that looks suspiciously like it committed election fraud to help come to power. Not to say that the Liberals haven't had their scandals (and the NDP is too small a party to have had any major ones yet), but this tops them all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vigilans
Orgasm Donor
Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 12091
Location: La belle province
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | | Kraichgauer wrote: | | Dox47 wrote: | | This coulda been interesting Ragtime, if you'd phrased it a bit differently. I've seen a lot of people say that Obama's failings have less to do with him and more to do with congressional Republicans, so a hypothetical question about an unchecked Obama may have brought some good responses. As it is, it sounds trollish and is drawing the same. IMHO the worst things Obama has done have been the things he's done unilaterally so I wouldn't like to see him unrestrained, no matter how good a game he might talk, as I think he's just another creeping authoritarian with better than average oratory skills. |
I have yet to see anything from Obama that would make him anymore of a "creeping authoritarian" than any other president in recent memory.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
I believe people of your political stripe would vote to give Obama greater and greater power, by seemingly-small degrees at a time, and thus accidentally accomplish giving him too much power in the long run. You wouldn't achieve that end on purpose, but the point is you'd achieve it. You wouldn't see it coming. You can't draw back someone's power once they have too much, and that's the danger with repeatedly thinking, "Well, they don't have too much power, so what harm is there in giving them a little more?" When turning up the stove temperature one degree at a time, which degree is it that boils the frog? No one knows beforehand, and it's not a matter of a particular temperature anyway -- it's the cumulative effect of the upward creep in tempature that would cause it. If Obama did seize full power, you'd wonder, "Which of my side's votes was it that did it?" But you wouldn't be able to trace it to just one issue that was voted on. Some more than others, for sure, but no one issue-vote would be the sole cause of his eventual grab of full power.
Or, which straw is it that breaks the camel's back? None of them, and all of them. It's the act of continually adding straws that breaks the camel's back. Likewise, it's the act of always supporting a very powerful leader that can eventually give him too much power. |
Because Obama made the patriot act and controls the house!!! And liberals love Obama!!!
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do |
|
| Back to top |
|
Raptor
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 09, 2007
Posts: 4449
Location: Southeast U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AstroGeek wrote: | | Raptor wrote: | | The left doesn't mind dictatorial power and/or corruption as long as it's one of theirs doing it. In fact, the more the better! |
Um, have you ever talked to someone on the left? And I don't mean a hard-liner Marxist-Leninest--your criticism might be correct for them. But the he mainstream left tends to have similar opinions towards democracy as the mainstream right in their country. Its just that the party elites of both "left" (Democrats) and right (Republicans) in the USA seem rather unconcerned about democracy.
Most of the left today is watered down to the point that they are little more than yesterday's centrists. As such they lack the vision to change society in any fundamental way, including by instituting a dictator. Most of those who are more traditional left-wingers, such as myself, tend to believe that the transition to a more socialist society must be made with democratic consent. Otherwise it is doomed to fail, not to mention the fact that it would be morally wrong to make such a change without popular support.
By the way, in Canada it was the Conservative Party that looks suspiciously like it committed election fraud to help come to power. Not to say that the Liberals haven't had their scandals (and the NDP is too small a party to have had any major ones yet), but this tops them all. |
I keep it simple:
Conservative = right wing
Liberal = left wing |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 34
Posts: 9770
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kraichgauer wrote: | | Ragtime wrote: | | Kraichgauer wrote: | | Dox47 wrote: | | This coulda been interesting Ragtime, if you'd phrased it a bit differently. I've seen a lot of people say that Obama's failings have less to do with him and more to do with congressional Republicans, so a hypothetical question about an unchecked Obama may have brought some good responses. As it is, it sounds trollish and is drawing the same. IMHO the worst things Obama has done have been the things he's done unilaterally so I wouldn't like to see him unrestrained, no matter how good a game he might talk, as I think he's just another creeping authoritarian with better than average oratory skills. |
I have yet to see anything from Obama that would make him anymore of a "creeping authoritarian" than any other president in recent memory.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
I believe people of your political stripe would vote to give Obama greater and greater power, by seemingly-small degrees at a time, and thus accidentally accomplish giving him too much power in the long run. You wouldn't achieve that end on purpose, but the point is you'd achieve it. You wouldn't see it coming. You can't draw back someone's power once they have too much, and that's the danger with repeatedly thinking, "Well, they don't have too much power, so what harm is there in giving them a little more?" When turning up the stove temperature one degree at a time, which degree is it that boils the frog? No one knows beforehand, and it's not a matter of a particular temperature anyway -- it's the cumulative effect of the upward creep in tempature that would cause it. If Obama did seize full power, you'd wonder, "Which of my side's votes was it that did it?" But you wouldn't be able to trace it to just one issue that was voted on. Some more than others, for sure, but no one issue-vote would be the sole cause of his eventual grab of full power.
Or, which straw is it that breaks the camel's back? None of them, and all of them. It's the act of continually adding straws that breaks the camel's back. Likewise, it's the act of always supporting a very powerful leader that can eventually give him too much power. |
But if that's true, what's keeping the right from doing the same thing?
|
The right believes that the most effective way to curb government's destructive effects on our liberty as citizens is to decrease its size and power. That way, even if the government remains a selfish entity, as almost all entities are, its power to stomp on us will be kept in check. The left believes in growing government. If you listen to their answers on the subject carefully, you realize that they don't believe in any limit to the growth either. And I'm not talking about slow growth either, just to keep up with the size of the population, but just the opposite: as fast growth as possible. Do you know that Obama has expanded the size of the federal government by an unprecidented amount for any president in US history? And that he has added far more to the national debt than all the previous presidents did combined? Sudden surges in government size and power shouldn't sit well with any citizen who wants to remain as free as we currently are.
_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
androbot2084
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 24, 2011
Posts: 3066
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Freedom means free loading. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29284
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| androbot2084 wrote: | | Freedom means free loading. |
No it doesn't. The one who pays for the freeloader is far from free.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
