Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to Snark or no snark, it was a dumbass question.

"Geez" is not answer
Robert — (archived)

Given your frantic dodge-n-weave, Tom, that makes it not a dumbass question at all. Gosh, ya think Art expected this reaction, or what?

Why is it so difficult to type "no" or "yes" that you'd rather type thousands of words that don't answer the question?

Let's suppose that you answer "no"--you wouldn't support Bush if he "decided to declare himself dictator and destroyed the Constitution". You managed to reframe Art's question to make it seem a bit silly by stripping it of context and making it sound as if the question was about an arbitrary seizure of power with no cover story, such as a national emergency.

But let's consider matters of degree. You've gone on record as being just fine with Bush's "temporary" suspension of some Constitutional rights in the name of "national security"; and you seem just fine with his expansion of Presidential powers, also in the name "national security".

It's established that there's some degree of authoritarianism and damage to the Constitution that you find tolerable. You're not a 100% patriot, now the trick is to establish where you draw the line.

Somebody floated the notion that Bush would be perfectly justified in cancelling the next election if there were an emergency of some kind just before election day. How about that one, Tom? Would another terrorist attack justify martial law and suspending representative democracy?

No? So where between there and the present encroachment would you draw the line?

Surely you can answer that one.

(Snarky? No, if I were feeling snarky, I'd have a lot of fun with "I don't get talking points from anyone. I write them." I'm seriously inviting you to give a nuanced answer to Art's question; you don't have to treat it like a binary proposition [and thereby evade answering].)

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (90 posts)