|
-
Senior Member
I have a big problem with giving more powers against citizens, to an agency that has very little jurisdiction over non-citizens-which should be the main target. The patriot act has done nothing but besmirch a word i used to find noble - patriot.
-
Senior Citizen
I wish that doll company had made his flight suit purple like the infamous tella tubby, Tinky Winky.
Click here to visit Scooter's World, the Chihuahua/Pekinese who thinks she is a Doberman, and has the soul of a true "artiste". Computer graphics, animation, logos, mascots (Vector work a specialty.).
-
Senior Member
Originally posted by Visionray
But it's in the president's job description. He is in fact "Commander in Chief", so he is both literally and figurativly in charge of the armed forces.
youre absolutely right - but he is not a militant. He is an executive - who serves as commander-in-chief. And should never appear in military garb. Ever. It is not only disrespectful to real soldiers but also embarrassing to those of us who expect more from a leader than a photo op.
I make my comparitive references to: Ike(Eisenhower), who never wore a uniform when commander in chief, and to dukakis? who tried to play tank warrior and was laughed out of the race...
-
Senior Citizen
Citizen or non citizen as individuals under the constitution we all have inalienable rights which should be protected. But whose role is that?
Click here to visit Scooter's World, the Chihuahua/Pekinese who thinks she is a Doberman, and has the soul of a true "artiste". Computer graphics, animation, logos, mascots (Vector work a specialty.).
-
Senior Member
Originally posted by phacker
Citizen or non citizen as individuals under the constitution we all have inalienable rights which should be protected. But who is that?
Im assuming that you are responding to my previous statement about the FBI? My point was that the FBI has jurisdiction over citizens and the CIA over non-citizens overseas - I was trying to play on the semantics of their role..I dont see why they dont vamp up and correct their training processes instead of impeding on long held constitutional values just cause it is easier... Our Constitution deserves better than that.
Last edited by webcorps; 11-26-2003 at 05:25 PM.
-
Senior Citizen
WebCorps, I don't understand why we needed a new department of Homeland Security. Maybe to take control away from some and put it in the hands of others.
I personally have a problem with the the term "homeland"...it kind of smacks of the "fatherland".
I agree democracy, or the US's democratic republic deserves better.
Click here to visit Scooter's World, the Chihuahua/Pekinese who thinks she is a Doberman, and has the soul of a true "artiste". Computer graphics, animation, logos, mascots (Vector work a specialty.).
-
Originally posted by webcorps
He is an executive - who serves as commander-in-chief. And should never appear in military garb. Ever.
Wrong.
Wearing military garb shows strength and power, both of which I like to see in my country's leader.
-
Senior Member
No sir, you are mistaken. Very seriously mistaken. Show me an abusive government, and Ill show you a uniform wearing fool at the helm. Go ahead pull out a map and point to a country...
-
Senior Member
Originally posted by phacker
WebCorps, I don't understand why we needed a new department of Homeland Security. Maybe to take control away from some and put it in the hands of others.
I personally have a problem with the the term "homeland"...it kind of smacks of the "fatherland".
I agree democracy, or the US's democratic republic deserves better.
I agree with you whole heartedly. The dept of homeland security was created because of the lack of communication amongst our agencies because of ego centric bureaucrats politicking with each other. I dont trust it - and I hear you about the "homeland" thing - that is a little too fascist for my tastes - I extend this to the patriot act as well.
-
Retired Mod
Originally posted by phacker
WebCorps, I don't understand why we needed a new department of Homeland Security.
not sure why you need one either, but it's powers have expanded. Against the wishes of colin powell, who argued for an advisory role, approval over the issuing of visas was handed over to the dept of homeland security, not just 'suspect' visas.
-
Retired Mod
Originally posted by webcorps
I agree with you whole heartedly. The dept of homeland security was created because of the lack of communication amongst our agencies because of ego centric bureaucrats politicking with each other. I dont trust it - and I hear you about the "homeland" thing - that is a little too fascist for my tastes - I extend this to the patriot act as well.
agree with you there.
-
Senior Citizen
Some who wore uniforms to look imposing and powerful.
Click here to visit Scooter's World, the Chihuahua/Pekinese who thinks she is a Doberman, and has the soul of a true "artiste". Computer graphics, animation, logos, mascots (Vector work a specialty.).
-
Senior Member
And a couple of others who just look silly...
-
Retired Mod
about the only thing mugabe has going for him is that he doesn't wear a uniform, still a despot though.
-
Retired Mod
seeing bush in uniform on that aircraft carrier was weird, I can't imagine blair, or any prime minister, wearing a uniform, he would be instantly ridiculed and despised.
some of the royals wear uniform but most of them have seen active service, even recent ones, prince andrew was a helicopter pilot and saw active service in the falklands where they would use helipcopters to try and divert exocet missiles from the boats.
ooh, he's so brave...
sorry, got diverted.
-
Senior Citizen
Remember this guy? Pretty imposing isn't he?
Want him as the executive of your country?
Click here to visit Scooter's World, the Chihuahua/Pekinese who thinks she is a Doberman, and has the soul of a true "artiste". Computer graphics, animation, logos, mascots (Vector work a specialty.).
-
Senior Member
Originally posted by phacker
Remember this guy? Pretty imposing isn't he?
Want him as the executive of your country?
Maybe as Executive Chef...ok, that was a bad joke...
He lived in Saudi while I was there...I dont know why you would invite a cannibal into your own home, but I guess the royal family had its reasons... 
-
Senior Citizen
What's sad is something I see mostly among the young and the old...a willingness to let their rights be eroded, in the interest of hypothetically protecting their personal and financial safety. Someday perhaps they will awaken. I hope it is not too late.
Last edited by phacker; 11-26-2003 at 06:00 PM.
Click here to visit Scooter's World, the Chihuahua/Pekinese who thinks she is a Doberman, and has the soul of a true "artiste". Computer graphics, animation, logos, mascots (Vector work a specialty.).
-
Originally posted by webcorps
No sir, you are mistaken. Very seriously mistaken. Show me an abusive government, and Ill show you a uniform wearing fool at the helm. Go ahead pull out a map and point to a country...
So an advanced government shouldn't have a militaristic leader?
A uniformed leader makes him a bad one?
Only abusive governments have uniformed leaders?
I marvel at the total lack of logic in your statements
-
11-26-2003, 06:10 PM
#100
Senior Citizen
Besides George Washington, who was a reluctant executive. MarkNovak show us an example of someone in uniform who did not abuse their power in some form. There is a reason for the division of powers. That's one of the things that made this country work in the past. But divisions are blurring and power is being usurped by those that aren't even in government. By this I mean the lobbyists and those that fund them.
Click here to visit Scooter's World, the Chihuahua/Pekinese who thinks she is a Doberman, and has the soul of a true "artiste". Computer graphics, animation, logos, mascots (Vector work a specialty.).
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width
|
Reply With Quote