Steve,
But these rights are inalienable. The tricky thing about "inalienable" is that the laws of human nature mean that the government cannot just take rights away without ultimately dealing a death blow to that nation's long-term strength, stability, and vitality.
I predict the dictatorship will go along just ducky so long as the government places no substantial demands upon the citizen. That is the best outcome of this--our rulers squabble and maneuver among themselves and leave everyone else alone. However, when taxes get raised, or conscription imposed, or anything else that's really invasive of individual liberty and happiness, people will either resort to armed force to resist or try to escape.
But let's look at the best case scenario. No one except a wealthy Republican will see themselves as having any particular stake in the United States of America because there is no longer any pretense that government serves their interests. We can therefore expect that people will merely tolerate the government or honor it superficially. Genuine civic involvement will decline, because there will be little incentive to those outside the "in-club". And there would be little incentive to resist invaders, unless the invaders should act as the Nazis in the USSR (or heck, the US in Iraq).
The notion that our rights are "inalienable" is not just enlightenment jargon. It has a basis in human nature, and one can predict the response when these rights are taken away.
Posted by Mr. Flibble at May 1, 2006 08:21 AMEr, my post is to paradox.
I really should read who these authors are...sorry!
Posted by Mr. Flibble at May 1, 2006 08:23 AMWhy should Bush veto anything? He doesn't have to abide by any laws that are passed by virtue of his expanded definition of presidential powers. Remember, he is the 'Unitary Executive' and laws, the Constitution, normal human decency, they mean NOTHING to him. He's The Deciider, and what he says, goes. He simply issues a signing statement to any law he signs, which states that he doesn't have to follow said law when he Decides not to. Simple as that. And no one is stopping him, just as no one from our party, or anywhere else, stepped up to tell Diebold and the REpulsive-cons to go to hell when they began to produce paperless, unauditable, nonverifiable machines. Machines which they deem are 'trade secrets', so no one can even look at the code they are using. But wait, this is the mechanism that our ENTIRE democracy rests on. 'So what', they say, 'go to hell, you're not looking at OUR code.' Total bullshit! And our 'Democracy' continues to go to hell in a handbasket until we all step up, get off our asses, and demand accountability. The immigrants can do it, but the vast majority of Americans can't. WTF? Until we all do, we'll continue to get more of the same. And there IS NO SAVIOR COMING FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, so we need to get over that piece of idealistic twaddle right now, and take matters into our own hands. I mean, how long are we going to wait? Till WW3 is in full swing and half the population is vaporized into a bloody pulp, while the other half is slowly dying from radiation poisoning? Bush, and his lot of traitors and extortionists have got to go! Yeaterday! if not sooner.
Posted by oppressmenot at May 1, 2006 08:24 AMWith his track record in school, maybe he never learned what a veto is? Maybe he thinks veto is a tomato/vegetable juice blend used as a mixer in Bloody Marys.
Posted by phidipides at May 1, 2006 08:53 AMI was going to put this in the open thread but Mr. Flibble gave me an opening here:
They're trying to mess up our internet and I for one find the way it is my favorite entertainment, fun-depressing-informational, it's got it all. And THEY want to sell it up the river (the democracy-blood slicked river.)
Posted by Sharon at May 1, 2006 08:54 AMLooking further down, eriposte has a post called "Catching Up" all about net neutrality.
Posted by Sharon at May 1, 2006 09:05 AMI am wondering if we should all become involved in our local city councils and demand that these Resolutions be passed?
Posted by Anjha at May 1, 2006 09:18 AMI am wondering if we should all become involved in our local city councils and demand that these Resolutions be passed?
Posted by Anjha at May 1, 2006 09:18 AM
*****************
Anjha,
Yes, absolutely. Your suggestion is an action we must employ. Unless we ALL get involved, esp locally, the White-OutHouse "terrorists" win. We can't wait for someone else to get involved for us, WE have to make it happen.
Video-here is Countdown's take on that, from CanOFun
Posted by COF at May 1, 2006 05:44 PMStick around .. if Dems win the majority this year, everything coming out of that particular body will be vetoed. Bush will truly be exposed as the partisan hack he's always been.
Posted by Dana at May 1, 2006 10:39 PMThere have been no vetoes because Bush and the Republicans are buying votes with their reckless spending. Debt is being off-loaded on future generations in behalf of maintaining Republican dominance today.
Posted by bob h at May 2, 2006 04:32 AM