Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Bay12: spontaneously generating conversation on the philosophy of objects

[Hanslanda]

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=99696

This guy was in government!?


America, stop letting people with severe mental trauma help run your country in a large way!

We were just taking cues from all those European leaders who ate mercury to cure their syphilis, sorry! It turned out so great for you guys that we figured we should try it too.

[Graknorke]

Forum Mafia keeping me up until 0130.
y u do dis 2 me timezones

[Lord Shonus]

I suspect that part of the problem is that the closest thing the US has known to a genuine tyrant was George III (I suppose that a case could be made against Adams, Jackson, or Lincoln), and the British rule at the end of the Colonial period was more "utterly incompetent" then it was "actively repressive". Having never had a Hitler or Cromwell, but being institutionally paranoid of developing one, has lead many of us to be unable to tell the difference between "disagrees with our political viewpoint" and "intends to enslave us all and crush us under his iron boots." Combine that with the fact that one of the major ruling parties has been in decline since at least the 1920s (and probably since the 1870s), and you have the makings of a very, very polarized political battlefield that encourages extreme positions.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I suspect that part of the problem is that the closest thing the US has known to a genuine tyrant was George III (I suppose that a case could be made against Adams, Jackson, or Lincoln), and the British rule at the end of the Colonial period was more "utterly incompetent" then it was "actively repressive". Having never had a Hitler or Cromwell, but being institutionally paranoid of developing one, has lead many of us to be unable to tell the difference between "disagrees with our political viewpoint" and "intends to enslave us all and crush us under his iron boots." Combine that with the fact that one of the major ruling parties has been in decline since at least the 1920s (and probably since the 1870s), and you have the makings of a very, very polarized political battlefield that encourages extreme positions.

I 100% agree with you.
(Actually I don't know about to agree about the political party decline thing but I just wanted to start out with an extreme position)

[SealyStar]

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=99696

This guy was in government!?


America, stop letting people with severe mental trauma help run your country in a large way!

I like Delays name for all the joke fodder it provides. Like the new Long Delay International Airport on the Texas-Louisiana border.

[Putnam]

Link?

http://www.scp-wiki.net/log-of-anomalous-items

ctrl+f "bytes;"

[Dutchling]

Google wants me to add Tarn Adams on Google+.

I deleted G+ thrice already. Bugger off plox.

[Flying Dice]

I suspect that part of the problem is that the closest thing the US has known to a genuine tyrant was George III (I suppose that a case could be made against Adams, Jackson, or Lincoln), and the British rule at the end of the Colonial period was more "utterly incompetent" then it was "actively repressive". Having never had a Hitler or Cromwell, but being institutionally paranoid of developing one, has lead many of us to be unable to tell the difference between "disagrees with our political viewpoint" and "intends to enslave us all and crush us under his iron boots." Combine that with the fact that one of the major ruling parties has been in decline since at least the 1920s (and probably since the 1870s), and you have the makings of a very, very polarized political battlefield that encourages extreme positions.

I'd argue against the inclusion of Lincoln on that list (or, if we do include him, we also include all the more modern presidents who abuse wartime powers), given that his handling of the suspension of habeas corpus was fairly remarkable insofar as that he went out of his way to avoid abusing it.

[Dutchling]

Habues Corpus? Isn't that a disease in Morrowind?

[Skyrunner]

Swollen and aching little toe woke me at 5 I needed that sleep, you know...

I took a tylenol but I'm not sure if it's merely a stubbed toe or an ingrown nail, which requires pointy needle injections and bandages.

[Flying Dice]

Habues Corpus? Isn't that a disease in Morrowind?

Not sure if srs. If so.

[FearfulJesuit]

I suspect that part of the problem is that the closest thing the US has known to a genuine tyrant was George III (I suppose that a case could be made against Adams, Jackson, or Lincoln), and the British rule at the end of the Colonial period was more "utterly incompetent" then it was "actively repressive". Having never had a Hitler or Cromwell, but being institutionally paranoid of developing one, has lead many of us to be unable to tell the difference between "disagrees with our political viewpoint" and "intends to enslave us all and crush us under his iron boots." Combine that with the fact that one of the major ruling parties has been in decline since at least the 1920s (and probably since the 1870s), and you have the makings of a very, very polarized political battlefield that encourages extreme positions.

I'd argue against the inclusion of Lincoln on that list (or, if we do include him, we also include all the more modern presidents who abuse wartime powers), given that his handling of the suspension of habeas corpus was fairly remarkable insofar as that he went out of his way to avoid abusing it.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Lincoln didn't really do anything unconstitutional by suspending habeas corpus.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Habues Corpus? Isn't that a disease in Morrowind?

Not sure if srs. If so.

Europeans literally think freedom is a disease!

[Lord Shonus]

I suspect that part of the problem is that the closest thing the US has known to a genuine tyrant was George III (I suppose that a case could be made against Adams, Jackson, or Lincoln), and the British rule at the end of the Colonial period was more "utterly incompetent" then it was "actively repressive". Having never had a Hitler or Cromwell, but being institutionally paranoid of developing one, has lead many of us to be unable to tell the difference between "disagrees with our political viewpoint" and "intends to enslave us all and crush us under his iron boots." Combine that with the fact that one of the major ruling parties has been in decline since at least the 1920s (and probably since the 1870s), and you have the makings of a very, very polarized political battlefield that encourages extreme positions.

I'd argue against the inclusion of Lincoln on that list (or, if we do include him, we also include all the more modern presidents who abuse wartime powers), given that his handling of the suspension of habeas corpus was fairly remarkable insofar as that he went out of his way to avoid abusing it.

I said that one could make a case, not that it was a particularly strong one. Indeed, the weakness of this case is a primary point in what I am trying to say. If that is the closest we can come to a domestic tyrant, we've been shockingly lucky.

@FearfulJesuit

By modern Constitutional understanding, you're quite correct. In the legal environment of the time, and most particularly the legal judgement of Chief Justice Taney, the prevailing opinion was that only Congress had that power.