If Obama had absolute power would US be wonderful?
16 Apr 2012, 10:13 am
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
16 Apr 2012, 10:48 am
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!
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
16 Apr 2012, 10:54 am
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
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
16 Apr 2012, 10:55 am
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
16 Apr 2012, 11:06 am
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!"
16 Apr 2012, 11:26 am
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.
16 Apr 2012, 1:40 pm
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
16 Apr 2012, 2:02 pm
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
16 Apr 2012, 2:42 pm
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.
16 Apr 2012, 3:46 pm
Ragtime wrote:
Well, some people (especially on WP) love Obama as a leader so much, that the idea of him having significantly more power -- while exciting -- curiously disturbs them in this way: they love him like a god, so it would be great to them if he actually were God -- but not if he were something in between a U.S. president and God. In other words, Obama being a dictator is just - not - quite - right to such people, even though they trust him completely. Just a thought...
Who are these people, especially on Wrong Planet? I have not seen much unconditional support verging on worship in this forum. Most is qualified, as aspies are prone to do.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
16 Apr 2012, 4:50 pm
Ragtime wrote:
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.
The left expands government in order to provide services to people who need help. This is hardly a means to expand executive authority.
And as far as conservatives limiting government power - the Republican state governments of Michigan and other states have seized local control from towns (with liberal elected authorities) who are embroiled in fiscal turmoil. In this situation, elected officials can be removed from power by a state appointed overseer, and have absolutely no political power, save to open and adjourn town meetings. One such town is a predominately African American town on Lake Michigan. The state Republicans have made no secret that they want to seize the lake side municipal property there in order to build a country club - far out of financial reach of the town population. That's hardly small government. If anything, this is a case of government ripping away liberty from the people.
On top of that, the right has an unholy alliance with big business and Wall Street that has proven more likely to chip away at our liberties.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
16 Apr 2012, 5:05 pm
Ragtime wrote:
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.
I can't speak for Kraichgauer, but I did vote for Barack Obama in 2008. I consider myself a liberal rather than a Democratic partisan, so where the Obama administration breaks with my values, I am critical. One of these values is that the presidency should have limited authority, and the "imperial presidency" was one of my main dislikes of the George W. Bush administration; insofar as the Obama administration has continued these policies or built on them, I remain critical; my support goes to the idea, not the person.
That said, I also break sharply with libertarians on the Right who believe government has no role to play in the guarantee of freedom. I believe an unchecked concentration of wealth and power in the private sector can be as devastating to individuals' freedom as a despotic government, and to those oppressed any such distinction is a purely academic quibble anyway. Just as the branches of government and divisions between federal and state act as checks and balances, so too does the split between public and private. Regardless, certain public endeavors have a net gain for individuals' freedom and well-being, and in my opinion, universal healthcare, properly implemented, is one of those.
16 Apr 2012, 5:15 pm
Ragtime wrote:
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.
Like Obama on civil liberties, I think much of the right talks a good game when it comes to limited government, but when they actually get to be in charge they've shown no real willingness to make the necessary changes to reverse the expansion of the state and have even expanded it on their own initiative. The left and the right in this country both believe in big government, the only real difference is where the priorities lie, with Dems ostensibly wanting a larger welfare state and Reps supposedly most concerned about strong military and law enforcement arms. Reality has shown this to be a false dichotomy, with W giving us massive new social programs and Obama attacking Libya, becoming a covert ops guy and turning into Nixon 2.0 when it comes to accountability/transparency.
Needless to say, I'm not terribly fond of either of the major parties at the moment. Read the second line in my signature, you'd think it was aimed at Democrats and liberals, but it's become more and more applicable to what passes for Republicans and conservatives these days.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
