55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 11:40 am
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
She can't be bothered to keep track of all the things she says MACs are OE.


I just fail to understand how someone con reconcile those contradictions so easily.

"MACism stands for the rule of law, the protection against arbitrary use of power by the government, and state-run secret torture programs in violation of the Constitution which are necessary to defend the nation against terrorism."

Alright.


MACs stand for Constitutional law and equal protection under the law. The previous administration should not be held to any higher standard than any other administration and the current administration should not set a precedent that would literally hamstring our government from being able to carry out any of its authorized and funded Consitutional duties without threat of being investigated and prosecuted for it by a vengeful and vindictive subsequent administration.

For the life of me I can't see how that concept is so difficult for you and your ilk to understand. President Obama understands it. Why can't you? Even only 58% of all liberals agree with you while 42% do not. That would suggest that it is only the minority 'political class' that wants this, and it is a near certainty that this same group would howl FOUL to the heavens if a subsequent administration decided to initiate a witch hunt on this one.

Quote:
58% Oppose Further Investigation of U.S. Torture Allegations
Saturday, April 25, 2009

President Obama and Senate Democratic leaders are opposed to more investigations of how the Bush administration treated terrorism suspects, and 58% of U.S. voters agree with them. A number of congressional Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are pushing for a wider probe.

Just 28% think the Obama administration should do further investigating of how suspected terrorists were questioned during the Bush years, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure.

While the Bush administration’s handling of terrorism suspects has been a highly charged political issue,

Democrats are evenly divided over whether further investigation is necessary. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans and 62% of voters not affiliated with either major party are against more investigating.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of liberals believe more investigating is called for, but 78% of conservatives disagree.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/58_oppose_further_investigation_of_u_s_torture_allegations
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 11:41 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Your opinion is noted Cyclop. And I am becoming more and more convinced that you and your alter ego are one and the same now. You know who I mean.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 11:50 am
@Foxfyre,
Here's good news that conservatives will cringe at:

Quote:
Lesbian couple legally marries in Iowa ceremony
2 hrs 12 mins ago

DES MOINES, Iowa " A lesbian couple has apparently become the first same-sex couple to legally wed in Iowa since a court ruling took effect legalizing gay marriage.

Melisa Keeton and Shelley Wolfe were married in a ceremony on the Polk County administrative building in Des Moines just before 9 a.m.

The marriage came less than an hour after the state Supreme Court ruling took effect. The couple was allowed to bypass the state's three-day waiting period before licenses are considered valid.

Officials have reported same-sex couples applying for marriage licenses in several counties.

Iowa became the third state to allow gay marriage when the state Supreme Court ruled April 3 that a ban on same-sex marriage violated the Iowa Constitution.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 11:57 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Your opinion is noted Cyclop. And I am becoming more and more convinced that you and your alter ego are one and the same now. You know who I mean.


Why are you convinced of this? We clearly are not the same person and would gain nothing from having dual accounts.

Would you care to place a bet, Fox? I know I would. Get RG to tell you if our IP addresses come from the same location, hell, they come from opposite coasts of our country. But if you're so convinced, put your money (or your honor) where your mouth is. Otherwise, shut the **** up about it, because it's tiresome and insulting to read over and over.

Cycloptichorn
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 11:58 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:

Ridiculous. In America the Law rules supreme, more so than any current administration. If people broke the law, it doesn't matter if they were in the outgoing government; they deserve to be investigated, charged and tried for doing so. Only in the minds of right-wingers, who are scared of being further discredited, does pursuing the Law become a bad thing.

Defending torture will sink an already depressed Republican party.



I know we are beyond this argument, but not everyone agrees that water boarding and sleep depravation are always considered 'torture.'

I'm not going to get into this, as this has been beat to death (real torture?) here already. But something to keep in mind:

Whatever actions Obama takes during his admin, reasonable as they might seem to the left, might be greatly offensive to the right. Be it guns, abortion, cap and trade, or any other issue that has America split, the potential is always there for one group to say the other group went too far and violated the Constitution. And a future rightwing admin might very well use the Obama precedent to prosecute members of his admin.

With the split in this country, especially if the pendulum swings and there is a move to the right, as has happened (both ways) in the past, one party will always be able to find potential law breaking actions being taken by the prior admin.

I guess Eisenhower could have pursued FDR admin officials for their interment camps? Or Truman, for dropping the bomb on Japan?

"Rule of law" is a great concept, but the shades of grey that come into play when people interpret the law differently is what will cause problems.

And with Obama setting the precedent, the window will be wide open for all kinds of nonsense in the future.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 12:01 pm
@A Lone Voice,
Quote:

And with Obama setting the precedent, the window will be wide open for all kinds of nonsense in the future.


Good; bring it. I wish for any and all lawbreakers to be investigated and tried if there is evidence to charge them.

Quote:

I know we are beyond this argument, but not everyone agrees that water boarding and sleep depravation are always considered 'torture.'


All those with a conscience agree on this. Many who don't give a **** for other people at all disagree. Those who have been through these things universally agree that they are torture. Everyone who claims these things are not torture, yet has not been subjected to them, is talking out their ass. They clearly are torturous.

For evidence, see: McCain, John.

Cycloptichorn
old europe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 12:03 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
MACs stand for Constitutional law and equal protection under the law. The previous administration should not be held to any higher standard than any other administration and the current administration should not set a precedent that would literally hamstring our government from being able to carry out any of its authorized and funded Consitutional duties without threat of being investigated and prosecuted for it by a vengeful and vindictive subsequent administration.


I wasn't talking about any specific administration.

I was talking about the ideology you are propagating on this thread, and the contradictions you've run into. As we've already established, you've come down in favour of torture in order to protect the nation. You also oppose a prosecution of a possible grave violation of the law. Those are clear violations of the principles you are allegedly propagating in your ideology.

In this context, this has absolutely nothing to do with the standard I'm holding this or the previous administration to.
old europe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 12:10 pm
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:
Whatever actions Obama takes during his admin, reasonable as they might seem to the left, might be greatly offensive to the right. Be it guns, abortion, cap and trade, or any other issue that has America split, the potential is always there for one group to say the other group went too far and violated the Constitution. And a future rightwing admin might very well use the Obama precedent to prosecute members of his admin.


Exactly, ALV. That's exactly the argument for at least an investigation of violations of the Constitution.

If you want to set the precedent of not prosecuting possible violations of the law and of international treaties in the name of bipartisanship, you might very well run into a situation that you are apparently so afraid of that you started an entire thread about it. If a "legal opinion" is all the White House needs in order to violate the Constitution and get off free, what exactly would prevent the Obama administration from obtaining some lawyer's opinion to cover their actions and then start cracking down on the political opposition?
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 12:13 pm
@old europe,
Foxie wrote:
Quote:
MACs stand for Constitutional law and equal protection under the law.


She evidently doesn't understand the definition of "equal protection under the law."
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 12:17 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
The prisoners of war held at Quantanamo did not and do not meet Article 4-2 conditions (b), (c), and (d). THEREFORE the Geneva Conventions DO NOT apply to the prisoners of war held at Quantanamo.


Both the Supreme Court and the Congress reject your superficial assessment. When we capture a person pursuant to an armed conflict and hold that person as a prisoner, we must adhere to provisions that prohibit torture or abuse. If we establish a military tribunal to place prisoners on trial for war crimes, we must adhere to the provisions that outline the minimal requirements of due process. If we do not designate a detainee in military custody as a prisoner of war entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions, then the detainee must be immediately released or turned over to civil authorities for criminal prosecution in our civil courts.

Consider the recent capture of the Somali pirate by our military. Our government has no authority whatsoever to hold him prisoner in a secret military prison and subject him to torture or abuse simply because he was captured outside the United States. Thus, our military was required to release the pirate or to turn him over to civil authorities for criminal prosecution.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 12:17 pm
@A Lone Voice,
Quote:
"Rule of law" is a great concept, but the shades of grey that come into play when people interpret the law differently is what will cause problems.

That is why we have courts LV. Sure, any administration can try to charge a previous administration with whatever crimes they want to but they are subject to the courts accepting their argument. The courts can sanction for frivolous prosecution.

When there is a "shade of grey" then lets have the courts decide. If the courts decide it is frivolous then the voters will likely have a backlash against the administration doing that. The political repercussions will work to prevent silly attempts at prosecution that the courts reject.
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 12:18 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Your opinion is noted Cyclop. And I am becoming more and more convinced that you and your alter ego are one and the same now. You know who I mean.


Why are you convinced of this? We clearly are not the same person and would gain nothing from having dual accounts.

Would you care to place a bet, Fox? I know I would. Get RG to tell you if our IP addresses come from the same location, hell, they come from opposite coasts of our country. But if you're so convinced, put your money (or your honor) where your mouth is. Otherwise, shut the **** up about it, because it's tiresome and insulting to read over and over.

Cycloptichorn

It's just another stone in the foundation of the temple of wrong conclusions Fox builds to ultimately become her intellectual tomb.

Come on Fox. I'm willing to put it on the line.

Here's my bet. I can prove that I'm not Cyclo, and if I can't I'll never post on A2K again. Ever. Inversely, if I do prove it, you'll leave.

Let's see you put something on the line.

Countdown until she backs down from challenge

10

T
K
O

Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 12:21 pm
@Diest TKO,
Come on Fox! It will be fun!

9

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 12:23 pm
@old europe,

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340A
Quote:

§ 2340A. Torture

(a) Offense." Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction." There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if"
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy." A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.



From Wiki:

Quote:
Waterboarding
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Waterboarding in Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge regime. Painting by a former prison inmate, Vann Nath, at the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum
Waterboarding is a form of torture[1][2] that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences drowning and is caused to believe they are about to die.[3] It is considered a form of torture by legal experts,[4][5] politicians, war veterans,[6][7] intelligence officials,[8] military judges,[9] and human rights organizations.[10][11] As early as the Spanish Inquisition it was used for interrogation purposes, to punish and intimidate, and to force confessions.[12]

0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 12:28 pm
@Diest TKO,
Not as confident as you once were now are you? You're being called out.

Not confident in your claims, are you?

This is your A2K legacy Fox: You never put anything on the line, but you talk a big game.

8

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 12:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Actually, many GOP members of congress have been charged with crimes - even in recent times. It's really funny woiyo doesn't know about them, but they are easy to find on a Google search.


SWING AND A MISS ASSHOLE!!!!!!

I said the MAJORITY of Congressman would be brought up on charges, not just GOP you dumb partisan asshole!!! Evil or Very Mad
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 12:33 pm
@Woiyo9,
Most of the offense were by GOP members of congress; fact. I never claimed there were no democrats. Facts that get in your way.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 12:37 pm
@Woiyo9,
Sure.. Because you MACs are all for "rule of law". So lets bring all of Congress up on charges. "Rule of law" seems to have a different meaning for you Woiyo.
Woiyo9
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 12:40 pm
@cicerone imposter,
How old are you? 6 years old? That is your ******* argument?

The MAJORITY of Obama Cabinet appointees had "issues" with tax evasion.

And you whine like a little girl "THE GOP HAD MORE>>THE GOP HAD MORE"

You really are a partisan tool and I enjoy your responses.
Woiyo9
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 12:40 pm
@parados,
Yep. The rule of Law actually means something to me asshole!
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.42 seconds on 05/06/2025 at 04:35:39