Hunger strike for impeachment!!
-
The investigations into Clinton's behavior were entirely justified, as are those into that of the Bush administration. However, in the case of Bush, there has not been a single confirmed lie of any kind related to any original charges. Congress has been grilling indiviudals repeatedly until there is somekind of slip of the tounge concerning completely unrelated issues. The dems than yell perjury in order to make people like you happy that they are actually trying to do something. They aren't. If they were any actual crimes committed, and if they really wanted to get to the bottom of any of it, they easily could.
oilFactotum wrote:
Well, you can bend over and take from big brother, I'm not interested.
Yeah, you're a real hero, I'm sure. When you get just as upset about the IRS being empowered to freely go through every personal financial record you have any time they wish in obvious flagrant violation of your explicit 4th amendment rights as you are about them listening to you call your grandma, then I'll be impressed. Until then, lets stop the lectures about wire tapping telephones. The word 'telephone' isn't even in the constitution, and just becuase some whacked out leftist judge decided that phone calls should be considered private is no reason to expect the commander in chief to not do everything he possibly can to defend the country. Defending the nation is a much greater constitutional repsonsibility than is defending your fucking phone calls.
oilFactotum wrote:
You simply respond to what your preconceived notions expect me to say. I've already stated several of the foot-dragging techniques used by this administration.
And I'll continue to say that is a rediculous charge, unless you are also willing to admit that the office of the president has become too powerful for congress to deal with. You can't have it both ways. Are you saying that congress does not possess adequate power to force answers from the administration or not?
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The investigations into Clinton's behavior were entirely justified, as are those into that of the Bush administration
Stan Shannon wrote:
If they were any actual crimes committed, and if they really wanted to get to the bottom of any of it, they easily could.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And I'll continue to say that is a rediculous charge, unless you are also willing to admit that the office of the president has become too powerful for congress to deal with. You can't have it both ways. Are you saying that congress does not possess adequate power to force answers from the administration or not?
It took Starr over 4 years and $40 million dollars to prove that Clinton cheated on his wife. Why are you in such a rush to judgement now? Are you unwilling to give the democrats the same latitude you gave the Republicans? You've already stated that the current investigations are justified. That must mean that you believe that there is sufficient evidence of unconstitutional/criminal acts by the Bush administration to continue investigation.
Stan Shannon wrote:
the IRS
Your ever faithful IRS dodge. *yawn*
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yeah, you're a real hero
You want to see heroic behavior. So where is your heroic behavior? All I see from you is complete willingness to give up the Bill of Rights in its entirety. Are you refusing to pay your taxes? Are you living a life a barter to avoid the IRS entirely? A number of "leftists" did that during the Vietnam era. Are you as heroic as a "leftist", Stan?
-
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/13/BACARHF0R.DTL[^] Its so diabolical it just has to work! I just thought this was kind of silly.
Think of it this way...using a Stradivarius violin to pound nails should not be considered a sound construction technique
blah blah blah, no one cares about a woman's opinion, let alone and old woman's...
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
some whacked out leftist judge decided that phone calls should be considered private
I doubt it's a freaked out leftist judge that made such a decision. How about an individuals right to privacy, period. Your analogy of conversations you have in public being available for others to hear very conveniently excludes conversations you have in private, behind closed doors. Should be all also be privy to those?
"Once in Africa I lost the corkscrew and we were forced to live off food and water for weeks." - Ernest Hemingway My New Blog
Brady Kelly wrote:
I doubt it's a freaked out leftist judge that made such a decision. How about an individuals right to privacy, period. Your analogy of conversations you have in public being available for others to hear very conveniently excludes conversations you have in private, behind closed doors. Should be all also be privy to those?
So you voluntarily put your voice into a wire that belongs to someone else, beam it into the either, amplify it through relay stations and bounce it off satillites - and you expect that to be private? Good luck with that, pal. Thats like shouting out your window at your neighbor and than complaining becuase someone else heard you.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
I doubt it's a freaked out leftist judge that made such a decision. How about an individuals right to privacy, period. Your analogy of conversations you have in public being available for others to hear very conveniently excludes conversations you have in private, behind closed doors. Should be all also be privy to those?
So you voluntarily put your voice into a wire that belongs to someone else, beam it into the either, amplify it through relay stations and bounce it off satillites - and you expect that to be private? Good luck with that, pal. Thats like shouting out your window at your neighbor and than complaining becuase someone else heard you.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Yes, just as if I send somebody an email, from my private email account, and it gets sent to a mail server owned by somebody else, to be relayed across the internet, possibly also bounced of satellites, I expect it to remain private. I realise it is too much to rest assured that it will be private however. If it isn't, I will expect to be able to invoke MY constitutional right to privacy of communications.
"Once in Africa I lost the corkscrew and we were forced to live off food and water for weeks." - Ernest Hemingway My New Blog
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The investigations into Clinton's behavior were entirely justified, as are those into that of the Bush administration
Stan Shannon wrote:
If they were any actual crimes committed, and if they really wanted to get to the bottom of any of it, they easily could.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And I'll continue to say that is a rediculous charge, unless you are also willing to admit that the office of the president has become too powerful for congress to deal with. You can't have it both ways. Are you saying that congress does not possess adequate power to force answers from the administration or not?
It took Starr over 4 years and $40 million dollars to prove that Clinton cheated on his wife. Why are you in such a rush to judgement now? Are you unwilling to give the democrats the same latitude you gave the Republicans? You've already stated that the current investigations are justified. That must mean that you believe that there is sufficient evidence of unconstitutional/criminal acts by the Bush administration to continue investigation.
Stan Shannon wrote:
the IRS
Your ever faithful IRS dodge. *yawn*
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yeah, you're a real hero
You want to see heroic behavior. So where is your heroic behavior? All I see from you is complete willingness to give up the Bill of Rights in its entirety. Are you refusing to pay your taxes? Are you living a life a barter to avoid the IRS entirely? A number of "leftists" did that during the Vietnam era. Are you as heroic as a "leftist", Stan?
oilFactotum wrote:
It took Starr over 4 years and $40 million dollars to prove that Clinton cheated on his wife. Why are you in such a rush to judgement now? Are you unwilling to give the democrats the same latitude you gave the Republicans? You've already stated that the current investigations are justified. That must mean that you believe that there is sufficient evidence of unconstitutional/criminal acts by the Bush administration to continue investigation.
I have no clue what your point is. Are you saying that Clinton should not have been investigated? That public officials should be allowed to have unfettered sex with subordinate public employees and thats just ok? I think that the congress is responsible for oversight, if the dems believe that Bush has done something wrong, they should be investigating him as they are. But the onus of actually finding somthing is on them. Not on Bush and not on me. At least Ken Starr found the stained dress, that was his job. If the dems cannot do likewise than they have to publically admit that they were wrong all along and apologize. If they do find that Bush did something illegal while exercising his duties as commander in chief, then the dems must impeach him for doing so. After that, the AMerican people must decide which side is most willing to defend them from being murdered by terrorists and which side is most willing to protect their right to call their grandma. Good luck with all of that going into the next election. A brilliant plan on your part I must say.
oilFactotum wrote:
Your ever faithful IRS dodge. *yawn*
oilFactotum wrote:
You want to see heroic behavior. So where is your heroic behavior? All I see from you is complete willingness to give up the Bill of Rights in its entirety. Are you refusing to pay your taxes? Are you living a life a barter to avoid the IRS entirely? A number of "leftists" did that during the Vietnam era. Are you as heroic as a "leftist", Stan?
I never claimed I was a hero. I freely admit that I am willing to give up rights in order to be protected. I simply will not entertain lectures from hypocrits such as yourself who do precisely the same thing until it is convenient to pretend otherwise for political gain.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. <
-
Yes, just as if I send somebody an email, from my private email account, and it gets sent to a mail server owned by somebody else, to be relayed across the internet, possibly also bounced of satellites, I expect it to remain private. I realise it is too much to rest assured that it will be private however. If it isn't, I will expect to be able to invoke MY constitutional right to privacy of communications.
"Once in Africa I lost the corkscrew and we were forced to live off food and water for weeks." - Ernest Hemingway My New Blog
Well, frankly, I think that is absurd. The onus of privacy rests upon the individual. If you wish to have a private conversation with someone, you need to do it in person at a location you know is secure - your home for example. But, as I said, the US government reserves the right to go through my most personal financial papers any time they please in flagrant disregard for my fourth amendment rights in order to ensure I am taxed. To worry about phone calls and emails while that is going on borders on insanity.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
It took Starr over 4 years and $40 million dollars to prove that Clinton cheated on his wife. Why are you in such a rush to judgement now? Are you unwilling to give the democrats the same latitude you gave the Republicans? You've already stated that the current investigations are justified. That must mean that you believe that there is sufficient evidence of unconstitutional/criminal acts by the Bush administration to continue investigation.
I have no clue what your point is. Are you saying that Clinton should not have been investigated? That public officials should be allowed to have unfettered sex with subordinate public employees and thats just ok? I think that the congress is responsible for oversight, if the dems believe that Bush has done something wrong, they should be investigating him as they are. But the onus of actually finding somthing is on them. Not on Bush and not on me. At least Ken Starr found the stained dress, that was his job. If the dems cannot do likewise than they have to publically admit that they were wrong all along and apologize. If they do find that Bush did something illegal while exercising his duties as commander in chief, then the dems must impeach him for doing so. After that, the AMerican people must decide which side is most willing to defend them from being murdered by terrorists and which side is most willing to protect their right to call their grandma. Good luck with all of that going into the next election. A brilliant plan on your part I must say.
oilFactotum wrote:
Your ever faithful IRS dodge. *yawn*
oilFactotum wrote:
You want to see heroic behavior. So where is your heroic behavior? All I see from you is complete willingness to give up the Bill of Rights in its entirety. Are you refusing to pay your taxes? Are you living a life a barter to avoid the IRS entirely? A number of "leftists" did that during the Vietnam era. Are you as heroic as a "leftist", Stan?
I never claimed I was a hero. I freely admit that I am willing to give up rights in order to be protected. I simply will not entertain lectures from hypocrits such as yourself who do precisely the same thing until it is convenient to pretend otherwise for political gain.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. <
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have no clue what your point is.
Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote.
oilFactotum wrote:
Why are you in such a rush to judgement now? Are you unwilling to give the democrats the same latitude you gave the Republicans?
So? Why the rush to judgement? Starr and the R's took 4 years. That gives the dems another 3 1/2 years to investigate. Quite whining in the meantime.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Are you saying blah, blah blah ...?
No. Simply read, it's not that difficult.
Stan Shannon wrote:
A brilliant plan on your part I must say.
Another inane fantasy on your part, well done!
Stan Shannon wrote:
I simply will not entertain lectures
Ho-hum, what lecture?:rolleyes: Good grief, most of your posts consist of nothing more that lectures on the evil of "leftists".
Stan Shannon wrote:
I freely admit that I am willing to give up rights
Stan Shannon wrote:
yourself who do precisely the same thing
But it's not the same thing. I am not the one who thinks it's OK to do away with the Bill of Rights.
-
Well, frankly, I think that is absurd. The onus of privacy rests upon the individual. If you wish to have a private conversation with someone, you need to do it in person at a location you know is secure - your home for example. But, as I said, the US government reserves the right to go through my most personal financial papers any time they please in flagrant disregard for my fourth amendment rights in order to ensure I am taxed. To worry about phone calls and emails while that is going on borders on insanity.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But, as I said, the US government reserves the right to go through my most personal financial papers any time they please in flagrant disregard for my fourth amendment rights in order to ensure I am taxed. To worry about phone calls and emails while that is going on borders on insanity.
I agree with you there on the disregard for your fourth amendment rights, but think disagree that it isn't worth worrying about phone calls and email as well. A reasonable man expects his communications to be private when using media that have tradtionally afforded privacy.
"Once in Africa I lost the corkscrew and we were forced to live off food and water for weeks." - Ernest Hemingway My New Blog
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have no clue what your point is.
Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote.
oilFactotum wrote:
Why are you in such a rush to judgement now? Are you unwilling to give the democrats the same latitude you gave the Republicans?
So? Why the rush to judgement? Starr and the R's took 4 years. That gives the dems another 3 1/2 years to investigate. Quite whining in the meantime.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Are you saying blah, blah blah ...?
No. Simply read, it's not that difficult.
Stan Shannon wrote:
A brilliant plan on your part I must say.
Another inane fantasy on your part, well done!
Stan Shannon wrote:
I simply will not entertain lectures
Ho-hum, what lecture?:rolleyes: Good grief, most of your posts consist of nothing more that lectures on the evil of "leftists".
Stan Shannon wrote:
I freely admit that I am willing to give up rights
Stan Shannon wrote:
yourself who do precisely the same thing
But it's not the same thing. I am not the one who thinks it's OK to do away with the Bill of Rights.
oilFactotum wrote:
I am not the one who thinks it's OK to do away with the Bill of Rights.
Then you agree with me about the IRS? And you also believe that the commander in chief should put more concern into protecting phone calls than in protecting life?
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
I am not the one who thinks it's OK to do away with the Bill of Rights.
Then you agree with me about the IRS? And you also believe that the commander in chief should put more concern into protecting phone calls than in protecting life?
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Then you agree with me about the IRS?
I don't like the IRS, but agree with you? No.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And you also believe that the commander in chief should put more concern into protecting phone calls than in protecting life?
More concern? No. But I see no reason why you can't protect both.
-
Well, frankly, I think that is absurd. The onus of privacy rests upon the individual. If you wish to have a private conversation with someone, you need to do it in person at a location you know is secure - your home for example. But, as I said, the US government reserves the right to go through my most personal financial papers any time they please in flagrant disregard for my fourth amendment rights in order to ensure I am taxed. To worry about phone calls and emails while that is going on borders on insanity.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But, as I said, the US government reserves the right to go through my most personal financial papers any time they please in flagrant disregard for my fourth amendment rights in order to ensure I am taxed. To worry about phone calls and emails while that is going on borders on insanity.
This 'one without the other' mentality makes no sense to me. In a world of infinite resources and infinite time, it could actually be possible to worry about every possible problem at the same time. That is not reality. We have to pick and choose which battles we fight. The IRS is an ingrained institution that would be VERY VERY HARD, if not impossible to dislodge because it has been around so long and very few people are even AWARE that there are legal challenges to the existence of the income tax. This new issue of wiretaps and 4th amendment rights is not nearly so solid in its foundations and is much easier to deal with while it's still new. Frankly, the real problem in both cases is that the vast - vast - majority of Americans a) don't even know about these issues and if they do, b) don't give a shit because it doesn't affect their everyday lives. The second a politician does something that impacts someone's grocery, gas, or entertainment bill (or right and/or access to those things), you can be damn sure people will fight tooth and nail. But for ephemeral things like 'rights to privacy' or 'due process', few people even care until they're the one in the interrogation room. Americans are no longer willing to fight for the freedoms that are theirs. I will not speculate here as to why.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But, as I said, the US government reserves the right to go through my most personal financial papers any time they please in flagrant disregard for my fourth amendment rights in order to ensure I am taxed. To worry about phone calls and emails while that is going on borders on insanity.
This 'one without the other' mentality makes no sense to me. In a world of infinite resources and infinite time, it could actually be possible to worry about every possible problem at the same time. That is not reality. We have to pick and choose which battles we fight. The IRS is an ingrained institution that would be VERY VERY HARD, if not impossible to dislodge because it has been around so long and very few people are even AWARE that there are legal challenges to the existence of the income tax. This new issue of wiretaps and 4th amendment rights is not nearly so solid in its foundations and is much easier to deal with while it's still new. Frankly, the real problem in both cases is that the vast - vast - majority of Americans a) don't even know about these issues and if they do, b) don't give a shit because it doesn't affect their everyday lives. The second a politician does something that impacts someone's grocery, gas, or entertainment bill (or right and/or access to those things), you can be damn sure people will fight tooth and nail. But for ephemeral things like 'rights to privacy' or 'due process', few people even care until they're the one in the interrogation room. Americans are no longer willing to fight for the freedoms that are theirs. I will not speculate here as to why.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Americans are no longer willing to fight for the freedoms that are theirs. I will not speculate here as to why.
By your definition, they never have been.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
Americans are no longer willing to fight for the freedoms that are theirs. I will not speculate here as to why.
By your definition, they never have been.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
By your definition, they never have been.
What in the world are you talking about?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Then you agree with me about the IRS?
I don't like the IRS, but agree with you? No.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And you also believe that the commander in chief should put more concern into protecting phone calls than in protecting life?
More concern? No. But I see no reason why you can't protect both.
oilFactotum wrote:
More concern? No. But I see no reason why you can't protect both.
Uh-oh. Don't go pointing out the false dichotomy of 'rights versus safety.' That would just be rational.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Then you agree with me about the IRS?
I don't like the IRS, but agree with you? No.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And you also believe that the commander in chief should put more concern into protecting phone calls than in protecting life?
More concern? No. But I see no reason why you can't protect both.
oilFactotum wrote:
I don't like the IRS, but agree with you? No.
So when some judge somewhere decides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches" doesn't mean financial information, that its direct meaning can be gleefully ignored by the government, but a penumbra of a shadow of it coverts the right to haveing phone sex, you are ok with that? That any judge can at anytime change the most fundamental meaning of the constitution for whatever personal reason he has, and you don't give a rats ass. But when the commander in chief decides that he needs to temporarily ignore a 'right' that one of those judges came up with while on LSD, that just sends you into fits of indignant rage? Wow, I really, really hope you guys go before the American people with that inane argument.
oilFactotum wrote:
But I see no reason why you can't protect both.
So your saying that it is absolutely impossible for the commander in chief to face a conflict in providing for the physical defense of the country and in ensuring every single possible interpretation of the bill of rights over 200 years is respected? :omg:
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
By your definition, they never have been.
What in the world are you talking about?
Give me one example of the American people ever defending their 'rights' as they are currently intrepreted?
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Give me one example of the American people ever defending their 'rights' as they are currently intrepreted?
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007\_08.php#005398 Oh wait, you wanted violent revolution.
-
jparken wrote:
The fact that Saddam is no longer with us --- that's not good??? And that both of his butchering sons are also dead --- that's not good???
No, it's not good (!!!) I don't know if you noticed, but the Hussein clan had a pretty effective system for keeping a bunch of warring religious freaks in line, and Al-Qaeda far away. So knowing what I know now about our retarded president's ability to handle wars, it's plain to see that keeping Saddam in power, tightly contained like he was, would have been the far better option.
Man is a marvelous curiosity ... he thinks he is the Creator's pet ... he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea. - Mark Twain
Not to mention that what we have given them instead has done more damage. More Iraqis are dying under our occupation than under Saddam. What is it? A million dead Iraqis now from the War? Oh, we're helping them alright.... :rolleyes:
This statement was never false.
-
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007\_08.php#005398 Oh wait, you wanted violent revolution.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Oh wait, you wanted violent revolution.
No, what I want is an historic example of Americans ever getting bent out of shape over their rights being ignored in order to provide for the defense of the country.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
I don't like the IRS, but agree with you? No.
So when some judge somewhere decides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches" doesn't mean financial information, that its direct meaning can be gleefully ignored by the government, but a penumbra of a shadow of it coverts the right to haveing phone sex, you are ok with that? That any judge can at anytime change the most fundamental meaning of the constitution for whatever personal reason he has, and you don't give a rats ass. But when the commander in chief decides that he needs to temporarily ignore a 'right' that one of those judges came up with while on LSD, that just sends you into fits of indignant rage? Wow, I really, really hope you guys go before the American people with that inane argument.
oilFactotum wrote:
But I see no reason why you can't protect both.
So your saying that it is absolutely impossible for the commander in chief to face a conflict in providing for the physical defense of the country and in ensuring every single possible interpretation of the bill of rights over 200 years is respected? :omg:
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Wow, I really, really hope you guys go before the American people with that inane argument
That is your inane argument, not mine and not "you guys"(whoever they are:rolleyes:).
Stan Shannon wrote:
So your saying that
No.