What Cuban-Americans know about Democrats
- Thread starter Canceled.LTroll.29
- Start date
Explain.
The contradiction seems to be yours. Because I see the Democrats and Republicans as equal I am therefore not independent and furthermore a closet Republican. Apparently, I must lean towards the Dems (which, honestly, I am for the moment) and not be at all indifferent or I am biased. Your argument is absurd.
evince
Truthmatters
"the determination to grant asylum is a matter within the discretion of the attorney general. She has decided the issue of who may speak for the plaintiff" -- in this case Elian Gonzalez -- "and her decision by statute, and in the exercise of congressionally delegated discretion, is controlling as a matter of law."
This was the judges ruling. Rushed in? it took it four months to get to this judge.
It was handled by the rule of law.
This was the judges ruling. Rushed in? it took it four months to get to this judge.
It was handled by the rule of law.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Seeing them as equally culpable for something one party is clearly more guilty of than the other is a demonstration of bias.
The contradiction I see is you saying you think both parties are equal then going on to admit that McCain would be worse than Obama, and Bush was much worse than Clinton. Drawing conclusions about what a Democratic president MIGHT have done in Bush's shoes (building on the transgressions of Clinton) is logically indefensible. But it makes good fiction.
The "unitary executive" is part of the neo-con philosophy, and it has no place in the philosophy of any Democrat I've seen run for president.
Epicurus
Reasonable
You should study more history.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Why don't you edify me.
No president in my lifetime other than Bush has sought to be a unitary executive. It's strictly part of the neo-con movement.
It is not logically indefensible in light of the historical record. I guess it is possible that Gore would not have given us more of Clinton. But seeing as he was the guy that conceived of extraordinary rendition and never seemed to run away from Clinton policy (he obviously tried to distance himself from Clinton's personal issues but not policy), I doubt it. He might not have been as bad as Bush, but that aint saying much at all.
It's not a contradiction for me to state that I think McCain is worse than Obama, since I was talking about the parties in general and not them specifically. Before you made the assumption that I held the parties as equal I was merely pointing out that Clinton should be criticized for his abuses and stated that the Repubs had little ability to make such criticisms without going after Bush as well.
Carter wrote in a ton of garbage into the Federal register. FDR was definitely a president that did a lot to consolidate power in the executive office. The Repubs have had their bad ones too, of course.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
FDR is long gone. Nobody in my lifetime has been as bad as Bush or anywhere near as bad as Bush on consolidating executive power.
Surely you're aware of PNAC and their views on the unitary executive and how this relates to the modern neo-conservative movement + Bush's presidency. The guy has a VP that says he's not part of any branch of government and Bush seems to think he can tell people not to show up for congressional hearings because he's the king. This guy is far and away the worst offender of my lifetime and yours.
Surely you're aware of PNAC and their views on the unitary executive and how this relates to the modern neo-conservative movement + Bush's presidency. The guy has a VP that says he's not part of any branch of government and Bush seems to think he can tell people not to show up for congressional hearings because he's the king. This guy is far and away the worst offender of my lifetime and yours.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
... you're dodging the fact that the unitary executive is strictly a neo-conservative creation. Grabbing at executive power is nothing new. Every branch fights the others for power. That's the idea. The idea that the executive is greater in influence than the other branches is a new idea however, and Bush has made it so.
I agree, if I don't count Nixon, he is easily the worst in my lifetime and maybe even if I do.
FDR is long gone, but in my experience, Dems are still quite loyal to him. If that's changed, then that's news to me.
If you are talking about the moment, yes I think the Repubs are worse. But I have little doubt that the Dems will abuse power once in the executive and are not reliable defenders of liberty. We can look at history, which was the original topic of the thread, and even the fact that the Dems did nothing to strip even Bush of abusive power in recent the FISA bill.
Epicurus
Reasonable
This is a good summary of my view of it.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Are Democrats loyal to the idea of a unitary executive unequal to the other branches of government?
Hint: No.
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
You're a partisan hack.
It seems like, yes, and probably especially if the executive is a Dem. Where have Dems effectively checked the executive power?
Socrtease
Verified User
Elian Gonzales was rescued from the water by two fisherman who pulled him from the sea and he was then turned over to the Coast Guard. You ONLY get to stay in american as a cuban if you make it to shore under your own power. Elian did not and should have been returned to his father in Cuba where he would grow up under the rule of a totalitarian thug who robs his people of their freedom. It was an ugly situation but Elian should have NEVER been turned over to his extended family here. They were violating the law and refused to return him to US custody. Plain and simple.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I've always thought that was a retarded rule.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
A big problem with our current two party system is that the districts are gerrymandered like hell towards Republicans. The only reason the Democrats basically have a majority is because of Republican ticket splitting. The people elected on such platforms are DINO's, and they hold the balance of power. The Democrats just don't have any power in congress right now to fight Bush.