Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Cheney Thinks Obama will Appreciate Expansion of Executive Power

  1. Dec 16, 2008 #1

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    What a smug little bug Cheney is. Power corrupts and I think he's leaving office a drunken sailor - drunk on his obsequious sense of self importance and proud of the human rights he's managed to violate through whatever subterfuge and misrepresentation he could manage.
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16594.html
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 16, 2008 #2
    Meh, what he says makes sense.
     
  4. Dec 16, 2008 #3

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Maybe someone ought to conduct Cheney's exit interviews down in Guantanamo? There but for the Bill of Rights goes anyone. With Cheney's obvious support for torture, why should he be spared when he is no longer VP, if people don't like him? It looks to me like he has been a bad actor in office.
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cheney16-2008dec16,0,5456856.story?track=rss
     
  5. Dec 16, 2008 #4

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    The Rachael Maddow show was pointing out that Cheney's admission that he supported water-boarding to extract information from "detainees" flies in the face of past US international prosecution.

    At the end of World War II there were apparently war crimes tribunals that prosecuted and hung Japanese who were found to have exactly engaged in this kind of practice.
     
  6. Dec 17, 2008 #5
    You act like Barack Obama and his crew don't support the complete butchering of the constitution. :confused:

    Whether you accept it or not, Obama is ALL about power in the fedgov. He believes that the government must take care of everything for everyone, because no one is capable of surviving, or excelling without their help. Mandatory community service in high school? Give me a break. That's in direct violation of Amendment XIII.

    This is the problem with all of them today.. Republicans and Democrats alike. I don't give a damn if the sky is falling... it's a sacred document and I'll die before I give up any of my rights.

    Benjamin Franklin said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

    I think this should be sent out over the airwaves daily so that we as a people wake up and realize that the federal government is walking a thin line with their constant fear mongering crap. Sort of a counterbalance. A daily terror risk level? It hasn't dropped below "Elevated" since 9/11.

    Hell, I saw a commercial the other day telling me I should have a "plan in case of a terrorist attack", featuring children asking their parents what they should do when the evil muslims invade to destroy freedom.

    I honestly don't care about gitmo, or torture for that matter... war is war and it's all going to happen regardless of what the Pentagon's official policy on it is. And yeah, it's a double standard... because the United States doesn't lose wars. At least not in the way the Japanese and Germans did in WW2.
     
  7. Dec 17, 2008 #6
    I'd rather pay money to help an addict quit heroin than pay money to send our troops to their deaths in some desert.

    Is he still going too far? We'll see. I don't like the bailout at all since it will just increase inflation, causing the people to pay for a corporation. Not cool. But I hear his health care plan includes the option to have private doctors and insurance. And I never heard of this mandatory community service you are talking about. I heard it was to get better government grants and loans for college. Which isn't a new thing seeing as how we give similar bonuses to people who served in the military and the Peace Corps.
     
  8. Dec 17, 2008 #7
    why don't you guys just wait and see what happens.
     
  9. Dec 17, 2008 #8
    The point is that the states are suposed to have more power than the fedgov, which should be limited. I just don't think we need beauracrats in washington to dictate policy on anything and everything... which has been the case for a long time. I'd rather not pay money to help an addict quit heroin... like I'd rather not pay money to bail out these incompetent automotive corporations and the UAW who are addicted to destructive policies. I'd rather not throw the heroin addict in prison either. The bottom line most of the things about this country that p*** me off involve me paying for someone else's choices all the time when the country is in financial trouble as it is. I also find it bothersome that the government spends billions on bombs that serve no purpose other than to destroy lives... many of which are innocent. I really don't think there's anything wrong here that significantly cutting spending wouldn't fix... Leave the power to the states like it's supposed to be and the fedgov wont have to bail everyone out at every turn. Kind of a form of damage control, if nothing else.

    If that's the case with his community service plans then it's not so bad, I suppose. I really can't be bothered to go information-finding but I'm sure I read somewhere that he was at least mulling the idea over. To be honest the guy is pleasantly surprising me up to this point on a lot of things in spite of the fact that I disagree with 90% of his policies... and like ProtonSoup said only time will tell. It just seems to me at this point we've got a choice between a welfare state, and a police state with the dems and/or republicans running the show.

    Also, I'm not exactly a "wait and see" kind of guy when it comes to politics. That's basically the problem I'm pointing out... so many people think they can vote for the prez and ignore everything else on the ballot in hopes that they'll just take care of everything. Democracy demands education and involvement everywhere, and this type of complacency is killing the United States.
     
  10. Dec 17, 2008 #9

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Maybe you are reading more into the Constitution than is there?

    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

    If your hoping to rely on the 10th Amendment, I'd say that is a pretty slippery grasping point.

    Basically what it says is that States get to keep the rights that they haven't surrendered in the Constitution, and at this point I'd say that is precious little. I'm puzzled by your interpretation that it is "supposed to be more" when what they really get are the leftovers.
     
  11. Dec 19, 2008 #10
    Are you saying that, by now, the states have surrendered most of their power to the federal government through legislation... or what? What's confusing me is "haven't surrendered in the Constitution". The states don't surrender a lot power to the fedgov in the constitution itself, so I'm assuming you meant ""what it says in the constitution, is that the states get to keep the rights they haven't surrendered, and at this point I'd say that is precious little."

    ?
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2008
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Cheney Thinks Obama will Appreciate Expansion of Executive Power
  1. Cheney resigning? (Replies: 48)

Loading...