To: combjelly who wrote (336841 ) 5/9/2007 12:40:54 AM From: tejek Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574882 "The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one" Now, where have we heard this recently Yup. These 'special' laws are never a big deal [according to their authors] but they are important to have just 'in case'. Did you read the brief tract Harris posted where the author claimed the left was responsible for bright kids not getting ahead, and for holding the country back by encouraging taxation? If ever something sounded like the first stage of a nazi gameplan, that one did. The important takeaway is to show how easily a country can give up its freedom when under pressure. There are a lot of reasons why the executive should not be invested with wide-ranging powers, and why they shouldn't be trusted to only use them in a limited fashion. I am sure there were plenty of Germans who said "these are special circumstances. Sure, those powers could be abused, but that can't happen here...". I think the Germans were so desperate for change.....while the world prospered during the 1920s, Germany was on its death bed.....that they were willing to try anything. And then the Great Depression hit. Hindenburg was old and weak, and decided to take a chance, and no good people rose to the occasion. Hitler had little real opposition. Something I hadn't known until now is that there had been someone who had known Hitler in his Bavarian days. When he heard Hitler had been made Chancellor, he went to someone I think in the Reichstag and said something to the effect: what have you done.....Hitler is an evil man.......you have assigned Germany to hell. It must have been very scary times. On a different note, I didn't watch the GOP debate but I understand that 3 candidates said they believe in creationism, not evolution. In spite of all that's happened in the last 7 years, I still find that fact amazing.