"Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
"A country that had nothing to do with 9-11" is somewhat irrelevant to me. Not all terrorism/terrorists were in involved in 9/11. Also, terrorists know no borders. The "country" (government? people?) might not have had involvement but that doesn't mean that there couldn't be conspirators within the country. If the country is USA friendly and not terrorist friendly then give them the chance to deal with the suspect. If the country is terrorist friendly then eff 'em.
Last edited by GoFins!; 02-07-2013 at 12:57 AM.
ďIím somewhat disappointed that more African Americans donít think for themselves and just go with whatever theyíre supposed to say and think."
- Dr. Benjamin Carson
Last edited by Dogbone34; 02-07-2013 at 02:46 AM.
2. Of the 20th century dictators, how many took over from within?
3. Of the 20th century dictators, how many took over a Republic?
4. How many 20th century dictators fit the criteria of the first 3 questions?
5. Of those 20th century dictators that matched the criteria of question #4, who is notable?
I can't stress this enough, moral and political philosophies doesn't mean a damn thing when it comes to how particular leaders come to power. If we're looking for an apples to apples comparison, consider the historical context and find the answer to question #4. From there, find the things they had in common, namely legislation. Oh. And can you answer question #5?
Never mind the fact that I never even implied Obama had the same moral and political views as Hitler. The implication that you wouldn't be able to observe a serious problem until there was a World War that involved genocide really says it all.
Give me straight answers to my original questions.
2. Obama doesn't need anyone to assassinate his character to make him look bad. He does a good enough job of that on his own.
3. Why are my comparisons absurd? I could list all the things 20th century dictators did to come into power, find all the common traits and laws that were passed, and you'd still take issue. Because apparently, historical precedence doesn't mean a damn thing.
GoFins brought up some excellent points.
The last questions are tied together and read: "But does it really matter if we have one leader that abuses his power or a revolving door of leaders doing the same thing? If it's over the same time frame, does it really matter?"
I'll ask a sociological/psychological question: 'Do people commit crime because of individual flaws, or are they a product of their surroundings?' Answer: it's a combination of both, but a person's social surroundings play a bigger role in who that person is. Likewise, I would make the argument that with the infrastructure (a combination of laws, surveillance, and the partnership with certain corporations) of power in the U.S.,it is almost impossible to resist the temptation to abuse one's power. It then becomes a matter of how much abuse of power is acceptable. At what point do we start blaming the individual over the system (that made the abuse of power possible)?
I brought up George W. Bush in the original post. He stood on the corpses of 9/11 victims to push The Patriot Act forward. Is Obama to blame for extending the Patriot Act? He may deserve some of the blame, but I believe most of the blame should be attributed to Bush. Why does Bush deserve most of the blame for a law that got extended after his 2nd term? Because I believe that most people in power don't generally want to give up power; and because of that, I don't believe the Patriot Act is going away any time soon. With that said, Obama deserves heavy criticism for a number of other laws. Those additional laws just happen to make it easier to abuse one's (be it Obama, or someone else) power.
Last edited by Breed; 02-07-2013 at 11:23 AM.
My argument was never that Obama was Hitler, or even that Obama would seize absolute power like Hitler. Only to suggest, among several other things, that it was much more likely than some would be led to believe. Do i believe it a probability? Of course not. I've already stated that I think the odds of Obama becoming the dictator to this country were low (low odds>0%). While the power that Obama wields is scary, there are steps that would need to be taken in order for a singular leader to seize power of our country. The next logical steps would probably include net neutrality and the freedom of press. Both of which have been brought up in congress hearings. Does President Obama present an imminent danger? Who can say. It depends on, among other things, how many more laws can be made to bypass the Constitution while he's still in power. And of course, on what those laws entail. It only makes sense that if one aspires to be dictator of a country, without a bloody revolution, one would need to make it legal.
I was hoping that some would see the implication in A-C leading to D & E.
D. Hitler dissolved the Reichstag. "Hitler's plan was to establish a majority of elected Nazis in the Reichstag which would become a rubber stamp, passing whatever laws he desired while making it all perfectly legal." [www.historyplace.com]
E. After the Reichstag fire (orchestrated by Hitler), The Reichstag Fire Decree became law. "[T]he regulations suspended important provisions of the German constitution, especially those safeguarding individual rights and due process of law. The decree permitted the restriction of the right to assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, among other rights, and it removed all restraints on police investigations. With the decree in place, the regime was free to arrest and incarcerate political opponents without specific charge, dissolve political organizations, and suppress publications. It also gave the central government the authority to overrule state and local laws and overthrow state and local governments. This law became a permanent feature of the Nazi police state."
I shouldn't have to explain this, but just to be clear, even if all these laws are eventually met, it won't necessarily mean the person(s) in power will have the same goals as Hitler. The means in which power is achieved has nothing to do with the way in which power is enforced. But I guess that's a concept some on this board have trouble comprehending.
By the way, I'd love to hear an argument made that the laws enforced since 9/11 pose no long-term threats to our country.
Yeah im not digging through your breaking up of my post to convolutedly justify your insane comparison. Much like the loaded question fallacy, you dont need to compare the ethics of Obama and Hitler, the negative connotation is there by default. Again, that was addressed in my "loaded question" link. Granted, its clear you didnt click it, so here you go:
Anyways:The term "loaded question" is sometimes used to refer to loaded language that is phrased as a question. This type of question does not necessarily contain a fallacious presupposition, but rather this usage refers to the question having an unspoken and often emotive implication. For example, "Are you a murderer?" would be such a loaded question, as "murder" has a very negative connotation.
And sure, your not the one taking things out of context. So long as the context is a democratically elected official is akin to the rise of Hitler.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10...ogical-testing"I'm not here to be a distraction," Pouncey said.
1) Win the next game.
2) See goal #1
"The problem with internet quotes lies in verifying their authenticity."
Is it training camp yet?
Just because you don't agree with someone,
does not give you the right to attack them.
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life