History never repeats?

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

i just remembered the nazi holocaust places in germany are now nothing but tourist locations that people visit.

babylon was the first world power,unstoppable in it’s time.it is now nothing.it fell in one night.it was the first world power,and so it should logically have taken over the world but it didnt.

the “russian empire” or whatever you want to call it,was feared during the cold war. now russia is not taken seriously.i belive they sell those old military hats as souvenirs now… they’re economy crashed according to the talk i hear.

after the power of a current empire passes away,it is remembered for it’s deeds first,and it’s power second.

wasn’t Nazi Germany strong?didnt they,though being just 1 little country forge powerful alliances, and push all the way to the Russian capital? and even invade other countries?(and this was after they lost WW1)
they are remembered for hitler first,and their military prowess second.

i just hope all the nefarious prisons,torture facilitys and other shamefull deeds become exposed to the world openly,and history remembers them for what they are.

2

One of the things that made america attractive was
morally. We did not torture, we held to a code and
the code (law) was upheld at all levels of government.
People were free to act as they chose, you were
free to make the life you want. We did not
come into a person house at 3 in the morning and
arrest you for some bogus crime. We had rules
and we obeyed those rules. We were a country of
laws, laws that were held sacred.

Now we are no better then the old soviet union,
we torture people, we no longer follow our treaties,
we act as if we can do anything we so choose, just
because we say so. We have lost the moral high
ground that was one of the trademarks of america.

I am ashamed it happened in my lifetime.
I have as we all have, let down those who died
for the freedoms and morals we hold so dear.

Soldiers are dying in Iraq for lies, we have
lost the moral high ground.

We have concentrations camps as the nazi’s and
the soviet union did.

We block american citizens from leaving or returning
to america just because of who they are related to.

The president breaks the law with impunity and
his apologist fall all over themselves to explain
how it is necessary for the president to be above
the law. Just as stalin apologist explained his need
to be above the law.

We have lost the moral high ground and are
not worthy of being the sole superpower.

It is a shame. I like this place, but we have
corrupted it almost beyond recognition.

Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves
agast at what their their children have done.

Kropotkin

3

-Imp

4
5

this in itself is history being repeated.an empire grows strong and develops power to protect itself and that empire falls from power due to corruption, this seems to be the continuing trend of world history. and just as each empire falls there are those to mend the gap and form a new empire that later falls upon corruption.

For some reason this Idea seems simple to me, and oddly, comforting.

there have allways been moral and immoral amoungst groups of people and saddly the whole is often judged by those in power. as the power shifts so does the worlds views of that country. this is sad but true, and now the american people are seen as Stupid and Religious by a good deal of people around the world. this too is sad, but to some extent undertandable.

Many Canadians view americans as rude and arrogant. Which from our point of view is not hard to beleive. But many others still know that though there are many amoung you who are arrogant the same could be said of ourselves.

Many people share this belief. so It dosent really matter in the end.

6

i am from alberta canada as well,(on hellearth of coarse) and i feel canada and us citizens are very similar. even the look and feel of our urban environments…

the late* TheAdlerian said something to the effect of"canadian politics are ignored compared to US politics". very true. i should have found that old thread and put that on the “best posts”** thread.

*banned…

**exact name escapes me at the moment.

7

Peter Kropotkin"]One of the things that made america attractive was
morally. We did not torture, we held to a code and
the code (law) was upheld at all levels of government.
People were free to act as they chose, you were
free to make the life you want.

IMP: unless you were female or black"

K: indicting the past with modern notions.
You cannot convict the past with idea’s they
didn’t have. We did have laws and they were
followed and you were free to make the life
you wanted, just because there notion is different
then ours does not invalidate the idea, for us or them.

K: We did not
come into a person house at 3 in the morning and
arrest you for some bogus crime. We had rules
and we obeyed those rules. We were a country of
laws, laws that were held sacred.

IMP: and I have this lovely bridge to sell you."

K: I am not interested in your bridges or your revision
of history.

K: Now we are no better then the old soviet union,
we torture people, we no longer follow our treaties,

IMP:ask any Indian if the US has ever followed a fucking treaty."

K: again indicting the past with modern notions.

K: we act as if we can do anything we so choose, just
because we say so.

IMP: no, we do as we do because we have the power to do so. period."

K: Once a long time ago, I believed as you did that the only
value worth having is power, today I see power for what it is,
a tool not the end all or be all, but only a tool, just like logic.

K: We have lost the moral high
ground that was one of the trademarks of america.

IMP: america never had any fucking moral high ground. america has always been about the strongest ruling over the weaker. wake up"

K: nope, America did not become a world power until
1905. The sailing of the ships around the world
as ordered by teddy Roosevelt.
And as far as the moral ground, I suggest you read some
books by handlin and balily? see how they put the revolutionary
war into context.

K: I am ashamed it happened in my lifetime.
I have as we all have, let down those who died
for the freedoms and morals we hold so dear.

IMP: which fucking “morals” are those? the moral that separated church and state?"

K: I have no interest in the morals of church in this regards.
If you properly understand the basis of America’s founding you would
understand this.

K: Soldiers are dying in Iraq for lies, we have
lost the moral high ground.

IMP: no, soldiers are dying in iraq because they follow orders. liberal name callers call bush a liar when they can’t win the debate."

K: We lied pure and simple. There were no WMD’S in Iraq,
it was not a threat, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and
bush has admitted this. this administration has lied.

K: We have concentrations camps as the nazi’s and
the soviet union did.

IMP: show us one.

K: try looking at the news occasionally, guantanamo bay!
We have admitted to secret prisons in poland and eastern
Europe.

K: We block american citizens from leaving or returning
to america just because of who they are related to.

IMP: we deny bail to criminals that are flight risks as well."

K: american citizens who only crime is to be related to someone.
You can’t even compare the two.
What was the charge for the two lodi men?
Wasn’t one and yet they were still not allowed into the U.S.
and one of them was born and raised here.

K: The president breaks the law with impunity

IMP:proof?"

K: impeachable offense pal.
Bush use of signing statements are impeachable offense.
In his signing statements, he decides which laws he will follow
and that is in violation of the constitution. He cannot pick
and choose which laws he will or will not follow. If he has
an issue with an law, he can veto it and that is certainly well
within his rights, but he cannot arbitrarily decide which laws
he can obey. Show me the place where he has, what is really
called line item veto over any law passed by congress. He doesn’t
have it. U.S constitution says in article 2, in his sworn oath,
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office
of the president of the united states and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect and DEFEND the constitution of the
united states.
in section 3 says this, he shall see that the laws be
faithfully executed.
The laws as passed by congress, not as he decides the
laws are meant to be, but as congress decides.
bush has committed impeachable offences by
his use of signing statements. and before you bring it up,
no one, I mean no one has ever used signing statement this
way before. Most of the time signing statement are used to
congratulate or thank supporters for the law being passed.

K: his apologist fall all over themselves to explain
how it is necessary for the president to be above
the law.

IMP: no one ever claimed bush was above the law"

K: anyone who says bush can arbitrarily ignored the
Geneva convention which is the law of the united states
and a treaty, means he again violated the constitution
and the law of america. Article 6 of the united states
constitution say that"
This constitution, and the laws of the united states which shall
be made in pursuance thereof: and all TREATIES made, or which shall
be made, under the authority of the united states, shall be the
supreme law of the land,…
thus I have him on TWO impeachable offences.

IMP:Just as stalin apologist explained his need
to be above the law.

K: you have nowhere to go, so you bring in some completely
unrelated point.

K: We have lost the moral high ground and are
not worthy of being the sole superpower.

IMP: there is no moral highground, and worthy has nothing to do with anything."

K: it is a shame you don’t see it.
It is a shame. I like this place, but we have
corrupted it almost beyond recognition.
Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves
agast at what their their children have done.

K: at some point in the future, you shall renounce
every single thing you have written here.
I hope you are still here to admit it.

Kropotkin

8

[size=200]VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!![/size]

-Imp

9

Impenitent:

What Kropotkin was talking about was not the presidential veto, but the adding of signing statements effectively nullifying an act of Congress by presidetial fiat, before signing it into law. The following link goes into this practice in more depth.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html

It’s perfectly clear that President Bush has the authority to veto acts of Congress, and that unless Congress overrides his veto, such acts cannot become law. But that is not what is happening. Bush is signing the acts, thereby making them law – but saying at the same time that he doesn’t believe he has to abide by them.

And that DOES mean he is setting himself above the law. And this is very arguably an impeachable offense.

10

thank you for the left wing propaganda from dean.

real simple: if the offense is impeachable, he isn’t “above” the law. I hope the democRATS run on the “impeach the president” platform.

-Imp

addendum:

writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary … kmiec.html

…"Presidential Signing Statements: Not a Power Grab, But An Effort to “Take Care” to Fully Execute the Law

The use of presidential signing statements can be traced back at least to 1830, when President Andrew Jackson employed the device to give his interpretation of a road appropriation. When Sam Alito and I served together as constitutional legal counsel to Ronald Reagan, the President likewise employed this tradition to improve his overall supervision of the executive branch.

While Congress is the principal lawmaking body, laws do not implement themselves, and much law employs, as a result of compromise, imprecise language. Vague terms create room for interpretation and discretion, and thus, the question becomes: Who will exercise that discretion?

President Reagan felt the initial executive effort to interpret a law was his, since he would be the one held electorally accountable for that law’s implementation. Were the President not to give direction as to the law’s implementation, Reagan reasoned, the task would fall to a far less accountable and visible federal bureaucrat. In short, Reagan’s purpose had nothing to do with wanting to substitute his judgment for that of Congress and the judiciary. His goal was to promote visibility and accountability in areas where interpretation is unavoidable - virtues that conservatives and liberals alike agree are central to our democracy. …

Chief Justice John Marshall started the American judicial enterprise in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison by observing that “an act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, is void.” His fellow justice, James Wilson, a principal drafter of the Constitution, likewise wrote that “the President of the United States could . . . refuse to carry into effect an act that violates the Constitution.”

Substantively, I suspect Senator Feingold might disagree. But certainly the clarity of these founding expressions is remarkable. But then, neither Marshall nor Wilson is seeking confirmation today."

11

Worked for the Republicans. I can understand your hate for Democrats, but what i can’t understand is how it manifests itself as love for Republicans.

12

no, the republicans came into power because they ran against hillary socialist health care in 1994- 4 years before clinton was impeached

-Imp

13

Well, while you’re at it, you might also want to check out this link as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Since we’re on a philosophy discussion board, I do think it behooves all of us to at least TRY to avoid logical fallacies, don’t you agree?

Well, let’s hope not. The point, though, is that he appears to think he is and behave as if he is.

Regarding your “addendum,” the problem with what Bush is doing is not that he is using signing statements but with what goes into them, namely the claim that he can set aside any law he wants to on his own authority.

Put aside the name-calling, the stupid partisan rants, and the childish use of logical fallacies for a moment, please, and tell us if you believe it’s a good thing for the president to be able to disregard any law he wants, as Bush apparently thinks he can.

14

No it’s more complex than that, it’s not because they ran against it, as the majority of americans supported the idea of universal health care in 1993 and 1994. The Republicans are very good propagandists.

15

Peter Kropotkin"]K: indicting the past with modern notions.
You cannot convict the past with idea’s they
didn’t have.

IMP: you claimed they were “attractive morally” -they were not"

K: given what was happening in other countries, yes they were.

K: We did have laws and they were
followed

IMP: unless the laws were made with Indians."

K: again trying to convict the past with modern ideal’s.
They didn’t consider Indians human, thus not within the
realm of treating decently.

K: and you were free to make the life
you wanted, just because there notion is different
then ours does not invalidate the idea, for us or them.

IMP: maybe if you were a white male… otherwise you were shit out of luck. that is history and no amount of liberal lies will change that"

K: Again, they didn’t consider blacks, women, Indians as being
as superior as white males. That is history. You can’t convict them
of their prejudices, we have them too and I hope history
isn’t too harsh with us.

K: I am not interested in your bridges or your revision
of history.

IMP: you are the only one revising history"

K: nope.

K: again indicting the past with modern notions.

IMP: no. you are claiming the past was idealic. the founders were greedy white male mysoginistic slave owners. you claim they revered the law. they did not."

K: The past idealistic? I never said that. I said this country was
based on law that was written down and followed.
Not based on a monarchy which created the law and was
changeable to moods and fancies. This system of democracy
is one of following the law. As for the founders, you are again
indicting them on modern ideal’s. they were who they were
given the times. They were far more progressives in their
times then most.

K: Once a long time ago, I believed as you did that the only
value worth having is power, today I see power for what it is,
a tool not the end all or be all, but only a tool, just like logic.

IMP: you only see liberal lies from the gospel of marx. and your faith exceeds that of most priests."

K: I have had several different political and philosophical changes
in my life. I have been a very moderate democrat, an anarchist, a
communist, a liberal. I have also been a follower of plato,
socrates, Descartes Nietzsche, and hume at various times.
At this time I am a liberal, not a communist or anarchist.
But tomorrow, who knows?

K: nope, America did not become a world power until
1905. The sailing of the ships around the world
as ordered by teddy Roosevelt.
And as far as the moral ground, I suggest you read some
books by handlin and balily? see how they put the revolutionary
war into context.

IMP: right after you prove how lying and stealing and owning slaves give anyone moral highground. I suggest you take a course on introduction to moral theory."

K: I have never said owning slaves was moral, but it did fit
in the prejudices of the times and our founding fathers
for better or worse, were men of their times. It doesn’t
make it right, just means there were men. You convict men
of being in their times.

K: I have no interest in the morals of church in this regards.
If you properly understand the basis of America’s founding you would
understand this.

IMP: the only one who doesn’t see the facts of america’s founding is you. but you refuse to see the founders for what they were."

K: they were men, not gods, they were imperfect and flawed and
as men, as any men, victims of their prejudices of their times.

K: We lied pure and simple. There were no WMD’S in Iraq,

IMP: I have linked to the evidence many times. your talking points are worthless."

K: as have I linked the evidence many times.
My talking points are facts and history will judge them
as such.

K: it was not a threat, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and
bush has admitted this.

IMP: no one ever made the case iraq was linked with 9-11. that liberal lie doesn’t work."

K: truthout.org
I have tried to link to it, its just my sheer incompetence that
prevent it.

Washington post monday september 29, 2003
Iraq, 9/11 still linked by cheney

(first paragraph) In making the case for war against Iraq,
Vice president cheney, has continued to suggest that an
Iraqi intelligence agent met with an sept. 11, 2001 hijacker
5 months before the attacks, EVEN AS THE STORY WAS
FALLING APART UNDER SCRUTINY BY THE FBI, CIA and
the foreign government that first made the allegation.

(It goes on showing how cheney has been trying to make
Iraq and 9/11 and this was in 2003.

K: this administration has lied.

IMP: proof?"

K: the above article is pretty clear.

K: try looking at the news occasionally, Guantanamo bay!
We have admitted to secret prisons in poland and eastern
Europe.

IMP: try reading the history of concentration camps"

K: I have read the gulag archipelago. I know what a concentration
camp looks like and abu ghrup and Guantanamo bay are
concentration camps.

K: american citizens who only crime is to be related to someone.
You can’t even compare the two.
What was the charge for the two lodi men?
Wasn’t one and yet they were still not allowed into the U.S.
and one of them was born and raised here.

IMP: " they are following the law."

K: feel free to show me what law these two men broke.
There only crime of any kind was to be related to a man
who was arrested and that is all the government had.

K: impeachable offense pal.
Bush use of signing statements are impeachable offense.

IMP: enumerate and elucidate.

K: I did.

In his signing statements, he decides which laws he will follow
and that is in violation of the constitution.

IMP: proof?

K: what the hell are talking about?
Wiretapping, concentration camps, the Geneva convention,
are all laws he has chosen to ignore in violation of the law.

K: He cannot pick and choose which laws he will or will not follow.

IMP: proof that he has broken any?"

K: yes, I just gave you two.

K: If he has an issue with an law, he can veto it and that is certainly well
within his rights, but he cannot arbitrarily decide which laws
he can obey.

IMP: intro to government 101."

K: again, what? He cannot decide for himself what law he
must follow. He doesn’t have that right. Only congress can
make laws and he must enforce the laws, and the judicial
decides which laws are constitutional. that is government 101.

IMP: “The president vetos BILLS not laws.”

K: and if he signs they become law and that is what he is
ignoring. He signs the bill, (a bill signed becomes law)
create a signing statement in which he says,
I am going to ignore provisions in this law.
Now if he doesn’t like the bill, which a signature away from
being law, then he can veto the bill.

IMP: Show me the place where he has, what is really
called line item veto over any law passed by congress.

K: I am sure it is my fault you are confused.
I shall try again to clear this up, so you can understand.
Congress passes bills. (leaving out a bit for simplification)
the bill comes to the president must sign the bill(which then becomes
law) or he vetos it and that means it goes back to congress.
He cannot accept parts of the bill, he cannot change parts
of the bill, he must accept the whole bill or reject the whole bill,
and that is the key point. Now legally he must enforce the whole bill,
(now law) he cannot pick and choose which parts he will enforce.
that would be similar to an line item veto ( which is to say,
he can pick and choose which parts he wants passed into
law that is not in the constitution nor is it in the law)
So what he does with signing statements, he says, I will
enforce this part of the law, but not that part, and that
is unconstitutional. Illegal and violates the law.
thus impeachable offenses. It is very clear and not hard
to figure out, unless one is rather slow.

IMP: show me where he has tried to exercise that veto"

K: I clearly showed what I meant above.
He doesn’t have it. U.S constitution says in article 2, in his sworn oath,
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office
of the president of the united states and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect and DEFEND the constitution of the
united states. in section 3 says this, he shall see that the laws be
faithfully executed. The laws as passed by congress, not as
he decides the laws are meant to be, but as congress decides.

IMP: government 101 lesson 2"
The congress passes bills which the president signs into law or he vetos the bill. the bills he signs become law. the congress can only enact a law autonomously (without presidential approval) with a 2/3rd super majority vote in both legislatures. this hasn’t been done for years and it hasn’t happened in the bush presidency. Bush has vetoed only one bill and that was for stem cell research.

K: Yes and? you are talking about one aspect and I am talking
about a different part of that aspect. The use of signing statements
to nullify parts of a law he doesn’t like and that is illegal.

K: bush has committed impeachable offences by
his use of signing statements.

IMP: this is bullshit. he has done no such thing"

boston.com/news/nation/artic … ushs_legal

K: the basis of this article is the board of governors of the American
bar association voted unanimously yesterday to investigate
whether bush, has exceeded his constitutional authority in
reserving the right to ignore more then 750 laws that have been
enacted since he took office. this was June 4th, 2006.
google aba and signing statements and it will come up.

K: and before you bring it up, no one, I mean no one has ever used signing statement this way before. Most of the time signing statement are used to congratulate or thank supporters for the law being passed.

IMP: signing statement? are you trying to claim that because bush vetoed stem cell research he should be impeached? you seriously need to learn about how the legislature and law creation works in america.[/b]

K: On purposely misunderstanding my point invites commentary
on your lack of truth-fullness.

K: anyone who says bush can arbitrarily ignored the
Geneva convention which is the law of the united states
and a treaty, means he again violated the constitution
and the law of america.

IMP: bush has not ignored the geneva convention."

K: he has torture people in a way that is a violation
of the geneva convention and the pictures from abu
ghrup proves it. Waterboarding is illegal in the geneva
convention and it is very common in gitmo."

Article 6 of the united states
constitution say that"
This constitution, and the laws of the united states which shall
be made in pursuance thereof: and all TREATIES made, or which shall
be made, under the authority of the united states, shall be the
supreme law of the land,…
thus I have him on TWO impeachable offences.

IMP: you don’t have him on shit. and your pissing about treaties proves my original treaty point that your founders who broke every treaty they ever made with any Indian are somehow morally superior is garbage."

K: alas the past belongs there. I suggest you come join
us in the 21st century and in the 21st century bush as violated
the geneva treaty and that is a violation of the law.
and thus impeachable.

K: you have nowhere to go, so you bring in some completely
unrelated point.

IMP: it wasn’t unrelated at all but you will keep apologizing for stalin."

K: I have has many problems with stalin as you do.
I am not a stalinist, but alas only by your fixation on this
point seems to make it so. The only person who thinks
I am a stalinist is you. I am a liberal democrat. It would
help you to understand that.

K: at some point in the future, you shall renounce
every single thing you have written here.
I hope you are still here to admit it.

IMP: nope. all I have stated is historical facts."

K: You are young. Someday you will.
And if the revolution comes, you will be the first
to regreat it. Because if you want revolution, you just
don’t understand what a revolution means. AS an
former anarchist, I do understand what it means.

Kropotkin

16

Navigator:Impenitent:
What Kropotkin was talking about was not the presidential veto, but the adding of signing statements effectively nullifying an act of Congress by presidential fiat, before signing it into law. The following link goes into this practice in more depth.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html
It’s perfectly clear that President Bush has the authority to veto acts of Congress, and that unless Congress overrides his veto, such acts cannot become law. But that is not what is happening. Bush is signing the acts, thereby making them law – but saying at the same time that he doesn’t believe he has to abide by them.
And that DOES mean he is setting himself above the law. And this is very arguably an impeachable offense."

K: I thank you for your help. I sometimes am not as clear as I should
be and I welcome the help to make clear what I am mangling.

Kropotkin

17

thank you, but I did not call anyone names.

the president isn’t disregarding any law. the left wing will make certain that he cannot.

-Imp

18

no, the fact is that the republicans came into power running on the contract with america. the majority of americans did not support socialist medicine then, nor do they now.

-Imp

19

Impenitent:
no, the fact is that the republicans came into power running on the contract with america. the majority of americans did not support socialist medicine then, nor do they now."

Universal health care will happen within a few years for a
very simple reason, doctors and those in the medical
industry know that the health care system is on
the verge of collapse. One of the major culprits
is the hmo’s. They are killing medical care in the U.S.
California idiot terminator just kill universal health care bill
in California, but it will be back.

Kropotkin

20

Do a quick google search about American Opinion polls on Universal Health care, you are wrong. It’s not just about helping the poor either, the fact is that even middle class families with decent insurance face financial ruin if they have moderate to major medical problems.