55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 03:29 pm
@Diest TKO,
Most of us are not privy to what information the Bush administration really shared with the members of congress when they lie so often about important matters. When Bush said al Qaida prisoners do not fall under the Geneva Convention tells most of us that Bush doesn't understand both domestic and international laws.

When anybody participates in a criminal trial in this country, the jury is told by the judge that if we learn the defendant lied on one matter, we can assume he/she also lied about other matters.

From that perspective, I'm more prone to believe Palosi over Bush.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 04:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said on BBC Radio 4 that since these methods are not intended to punish they do not violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, barring "cruel and unusual punishment", and as such may not be unconstitutional.[39]

If this is accurate, I am absolutely astonished.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 04:06 pm
@joefromchicago,
You are astonished, and I am shocked that a supreme court justice doesn't know better.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 04:09 pm
@A Lone Voice,
Debra Law wrote:

You haven't demonstrated any awareness let alone knowledge of the subject. You have nothing of substance to offer this discussion so you resort to attacking my character and posting nonsensical dribble.

Torture is torture regardless of the identity of the perpetrator. Both our civilian and military authorities are prohibited from torturing detainees.


A Lone Voice wrote:
You use offenses by civilian police officers as precedence for calling for prosecuting military personnel. Show me where this has occurred, if you are able.

After all, isn't precedent in cases a major part of the law? You are using this as precedence, yet you fail to follow up with case examples. This is sloppy thinking, isn't it?


Although you claim to understand the concept of precedence and its role in our society based on the rule of law, you fail to apply that alleged understanding. Here is an analogy to exemplify the concept:

The administration wants to justify the segregation of the races. The administration orders the OLC to write a memorandum that answers the question, "Does it violate the law for the government to establish separate public facilities for whites and blacks?" The OLC issues a legal memorandum stating a legal conclusion that racial segregation, now called "less togetherness," does not violate the law. The legal memorandum fails to cite, discuss, or distinguish Brown v. Board of Education and its progeny.

A reasonable person would reject the legal contentions set forth in the memorandum with respect to "less togetherness" because it fails to discuss or distinguish prior precedence that establishes that segregation, i.e., less togetherness, violates the law.

Similarly, there is substantial precedence gathered through international and United States history that establishes that water torture is torture and torture is illegal, even though you choose to call it "harsh interrogation." The failure of the OLC to cite, discuss, or distinguish controlling or persuasive precedence renders the OLC's legal contentions invalid.

You avoid all rational discussion about precedence. Instead, you stubbornly assert your unsupportable position that repeatedly suffocating a person to near death through the use of water torture is not torture.


Debra Law
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 04:24 pm
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:
I'll ask you the same question I asked Deb: Civilian police officers are also not allowed to clear rooms in buildings by tossing hand grenades. Using a case with police officers to set military standards is pretty silly, isn't it?


Why be content to compare apples to oranges when you can compare apples to the moon?

Lightwizard
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 04:39 pm
@Debra Law,
Well, when politicians started the euphemism of "police action" for wars they've either started or butted into, the comparison of a soldier to a policeman is now free game. We don't want to be the policeman for the world -- now who said that? It's politicians we're talking about here and it's hard to keep it real. Their reality can be our nightmare.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 04:40 pm
One of the many things I hate about the right is its campaign to denigrate government. They feel, and rightly so, that if you repeat a lie often enough, many people will believe it to be fact. Please see:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009051904/government-good

cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 04:44 pm
@Advocate,
That's okay, because by doing so, they are destroying their own party. You can fool some of the people...
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 04:57 pm
@A Lone Voice,
Debra Law wrote:
Both our civilian and military authorities are prohibited from torturing detainees.


A Lone Voice wrote:
Sure, but waterboarding is not considered torture by ‘everyone’, and in your emotional rants you have not showed me where it is. Other than using the opinions of others, of course.


Your argument is based on the false premise that "everyone" must agree that water torture is torture before it can be legally prohibited as torture.

Perhaps you can convince me that your premise is true. Please try. Instead of wandering into outer space, please provide a common sense (apples to apples) comparison of how your "everyone must agree" premise applies in other situations.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 05:24 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

One of the many things I hate about the right is its campaign to denigrate government. They feel, and rightly so, that if you repeat a lie often enough, many people will believe it to be fact. Please see:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009051904/government-good




I agree. Based on the vast experience we have in observing those who identify themselves as right wingers or conservatives, they demand that government get the hell out of their way. But, as noted before, they are the ones who demand the enactment of oppressive laws so they may impose their beliefs on all others in society. They are also the first ones in the cheese line with both hands extended while they simultaneously bash the poor folk who are standing in line behind them.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 06:08 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Since you don't understand Article 3, that means you don't understand Art 1 or 2.

What specifically is it in Article 3 that you think I do not understand?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 06:20 pm
@Debra Law,
Isn't it amazing that they are unable or unwilling to see their own hypocrisy?

Their contradictions are enormous!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 06:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
We do not have to go to Article III of the Constitution. Article I:
Quote:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


In very simple English for almost anybody to understand if a) they learned the English language, and b) if they learned anything in our grade schools about US History.

ican has not shown where congress and this administration has broken any laws.

Yes I have many times "shown where congress and this administration have broken any laws."
This time, I'll rely exclusively on Madison and Hamilton to explain it to you. Hopefully, you will understand from what they wrote how Bush violated and Obama is violating the Constitution.
[/quote]
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp
Madison No. 45
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

"The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed41.asp
Madison No. 41
"Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms to raise money for the general welfare.

''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed36.asp
Hamilton No. 36
"Let it be recollected that the proportion of these taxes is not to be left to the discretion of the national legislature, but is to be determined by the numbers of each State, as described in the second section of the first article. An actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish the rule, a circumstance which effectually shuts the door to partiality or oppression. The abuse of this power of taxation seems to have been provided against with guarded circumspection. In addition to the precaution just mentioned, there is a provision that all duties, imposts, and excises shall be UNIFORM throughout the United States.''[/quote]

cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 07:50 pm
Conservatives are now fighting against the superior court judge nominee - who doesn't even exist. They're not "conservatives," they are the "No Party." How do they vote against somebody that doesn't even exist? Extremists. They don't understand the word "compromise." They only understand "No."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 07:54 pm
@Debra Law,
It's more like mars.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 07:59 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, Send your opinion about congress and this administration breaking the laws of our Constitution to all the law schools in the US and the Supreme Court. You must be correct, because of your say-so, and somebody with "real" experience in Constitutional law might bring a suit against congress and our president.

You are a joke.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 09:40 pm
@Debra Law,
Two conservatives who have largely made a career out of bashing government, Rep. Foxx of Virginia, and former Rep. Dick Armey of TX, spent their entire careers on the payroll of government. Complete hypocrites!
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 10:14 pm
@Advocate,
When pro-Israel people accuse the Palestinians of illegal activity, are they 'bashing' Palestinians? Or are they bashing illegal activity?

When pro-enforcement people want illegal immigration stopped, are they 'bashing' Mexicans or Chinese or Columbians or Guatemalans or whomever happens to be sneaking across the border illegally at any given time? Or are they bashing illegal activity?

When a red headed man is arrested for rape and we serve on the jury that hears his trial and convicts him knowing full well that he will be sent to prison, is that some kind of diatribe against redheads? Or are we focused on a specific crime and the person who committed it?

When you complained, accused, and condemned George W. Bush and the Republicans for the past eight years, calling them all sorts of vile names, and admitting that you loathe and hate them, were you bashing government? Or were you expressing your hatred for President Bush and his political party?

When some in government forget that they are elected to be servant of the people and ignore the values of the people, forego good stewardship, practice fiscal irresponsibility, and use their office to increase their power, prestige, and personal fortunes, is it bashing government to rail against that? Or is it railing against a government that is irresponsible, immoral, and/or illegal?

Can you see the point made here?

Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 10:54 pm
This article was published in 1985 and is being circulated via email this week. Some of the versions have been edited to make it look like a current work. I believe this is the original version or very close to it. There is a link to the original article under the entry for Charley Reese in Wiki, but it is almost impossible to read.

The content is as true today as it was 24 years ago.

Quote:
THE 545 PEOPLE
RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL
OF AMERICA'S WOES


BY CHARLEY REESE

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all but the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislation's responsibility to determine how he votes.

A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY

Don't you see how the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O'Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.

O'neill is the speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetos it, they can pass it over his veto.

REPLACE SCOUNDRELS

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon, it's because they want them in Lebanon.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.

This article was taken from the Orlando Sentinel Star newspaper
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/woes.htm
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 May, 2009 12:05 am
@Foxfyre,
The major problem with that article should be obvious; we are the ones who vote them into office, so we have the final responsibility for the choices we make - term after term after term. We all give them license to do what they do. We have found the enemy, and ....
0 Replies
 
 

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 0.13 seconds on 06/21/2025 at 03:38:58