Not as Hopeful as it Sounds
to become law, [the bill] would need the support of the Senate and the House of Representatives and to be signed by the president himself.
Limiting executive-branch power just isn’t his style. It does look like we’re heading toward another unwinnable war (in a country which, like
And then the crickets chirp.
I’m going to sit on the floor in the corner, hugging my knees, rocking back and forth and whimpering “no no no no no” over and over again. That’s about as useful as anything else I can do at this point. Come and join me, if you wish. It's so calm and tranquil down here.
posted by Jennifer Abel at 5:19 PM
9 Comments:
Nothing like a good war to keep the masses in line, and get them to accept (even insist upon) sweeping expansions of government power.
Unfortunately for your typical fascist wannabe, losing wars are very bad for popularity and political stability.
Fortunately for Bush, it seems you can always start another war if the going gets tough.
Constitutionally, this shouldn't be possible - only Congress can declare war. However, as we have seen all too well, Congress has abdicated its responsibilities. The president seems to be able to declare war by fiat, with tacit approval from Congress.
I mean, really folks! Is it THAT hard to force Bush to pull out of Iraq? We technically are not at war, as Congress did NOT declare war on Iraq (nor against "Terrorism", for that matter). We may indeed be at war in Afghanistan (a lot of weasel-wording from congress here, too), but nobody's really complaining about that (nor even paying much attention to it).
Tell Bush to STOP FIGHTING AN UNDECLARED WAR! If he doesn't, impeach his @$$, and put him on trial for war crimes (as well as general mopery and dopery)!
Nothing like a good war to keep the masses in line, and get them to accept (even insist upon) sweeping expansions of government power.
Unfortunately for your typical fascist wannabe, losing wars are very bad for popularity and political stability.
Fortunately for Bush, it seems you can always start another war if the going gets tough.
Constitutionally, this shouldn't be possible - only Congress can declare war. However, as we have seen all too well, Congress has abdicated its responsibilities. The president seems to be able to declare war by fiat, with tacit approval from Congress.
I mean, really folks! Is it THAT hard to force Bush to pull out of Iraq? We technically are not at war, as Congress did NOT declare war on Iraq (nor against "Terrorism", for that matter). We may indeed be at war in Afghanistan (a lot of weasel-wording from congress here, too), but nobody's really complaining about that (nor even paying much attention to it).
Tell Bush to STOP FIGHTING AN UNDECLARED WAR! If he doesn't, impeach his @$$, and put him on trial for war crimes (as well as general mopery and dopery)!
Sorry about the repost - I thought I could erace the "Anonymous" one, after I posted in my own name. Naturally, it didn't occur to me that Anonymous posters must be prevented from erasing each other's posts...
*sigh*
Note that I did not post the second comment. I have no idea where it comes from, but it looks as if Jennifer's efforts to stimulate more-interesting Google Ads may be finally paying off.
We're attracting Pornographic Blog Spammers.
We're attracting Pornographic Blog Spammers.
As I said on the other thread, evil spawn of the googlebots have invaded. See what happens when you sell your soul for pennies?
Jennifer, they've caught up to the current day, dammit.
Damn. I've been getting spambots all long, but until recently they only posted their garbage in old threads. (For some reason, a post I made in September called "Posting Comments? You've got problems, son" REALLY sets them off; I was deleting two or three pieces of spam from that thread alone, each day.)
I just don't know what to do. To keep spambots out, my only two options are to either make it so that ONLY people with registered Blogger accounts can comment, or have it so that anybody can comment, but first you have to take one of those anti-bot "type the letters you see here" tests. Both options would be incredibly annoying for legitimate commenters.
Anne, from now on if you make a double post by accident, don't worry; I'll delete it when I see it. I'm just keeping your first "anonymous" post up now because otherwise, your second post will make no sense.
Damn, I hate spambots.
"We can’t! Our military's stretched as it is! We don't have the ability!"
It depends what we're trying to do. Do we need to conquer and rebuild Iran? Or do we just need to damage it a bit? Building an entire democratic nation is hard, but our military finds it pretty easy to hurt people and break things.
It depends what we're trying to do. Do we need to conquer and rebuild Iran? Or do we just need to damage it a bit? Building an entire democratic nation is hard, but our military finds it pretty easy to hurt people and break things.
Yeah, we never really got the hang of imperialism. The British got it right, back in the "good old days". When they invaded a country, they went in to stay. They set up profit-making quasi-governmental operations (British East India Company, Northwest Company, etc.), and totally restructured the invaded societies. While Britain was unabashedly raping its colonies economically, there can be little question that they generally left things "more civilized" and better governed than when they came.
Not that I'm promulgating imperialism and the "White Man's Burden" or anything. But, if we're going to act imperialistic, we should at least do it right, and learn from the historical masters.
"“We can’t! Our military's stretched as it is! "
Not really. We are smaller, but oh my oh my can we pack a punch when needed. Too bad we no longer have the guts to show we will indeed punch back and by gawd it will hurt!
BTW in WWII we fought major armies all across the world! AT the same time! We were a much smaller country then as well, by about 1/2 our current population!
Post a Comment
<< Home