I'm not sure I understand this.

[Oakman]

John Carson wrote:

Your claim appears to be Administration spin.

:omg: They're going after Dodd now?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Christian Graus wrote:

I doubt that our varying faiths would be a factor.

I suspect it would depend on any surviving clergy who were part of the community. Edit I suspect the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury would starve to death as quickly as the beggars who congregate outside their Sees. /Edit

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[John Carson]

Oakman wrote:

They're going after Dodd now?

Nothing personal. Just covering their own butts.

John Carson

[Oakman]

John Carson wrote:

Just covering their own butts.

There's a lot of that going around.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Christian Graus]

Oakman wrote:

I suspect it would depend on any surviving clergy who were part of the community.

Well, perhaps.

Oakman wrote:

I suspect the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury would starve to death as quickly as the beggars who congregate outside their Sees.

Yes, I bet they would. Perhaps even faster.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

So said every two bit strong man who ever took power in a one bit country. So said Stalin, and Mao, and all the arch criminals who ever murdered thousands of their own countrymen. So says Chavez and Kim Jong-Il and Ahmadinejad. And so say you.

Yes, and without a congress willing to act responsibly that is precisely what we will end up with. Still, it doesn't change the fact that the only reason to have a executive is precisely so that you can have a 'strong man' when you need one.

Oakman wrote:

Justifying oath-breaking isn't supposed to be the strong suit for the conservatives.

The presidents oath is "to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." That doesn't mean "the constitution as interpreted by the supreme court". The president has every constitutional right to interpret his own responsibilities in his own way. If congress disagrees they have the power to do something about it. That is the way the system was designed to work. The need and ability to deal with situational ethics was intentionally designed into the system. My standard question on this subject is: If you were president and could only save the country by violating the constitution, would you not act to save the country thus allowing the constitution to be destoyed as a result?

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Still, it doesn't change the fact that the only reason to have a executive is precisely so that you can have a 'strong man' when you need one.

Are you sure you don't want to start calling yourself a Hamiltonian? WEvery time you are honest about what you believe, it becomes more and more apparent than you have little in common with Jefferson.

Stan Shannon wrote:

The president has every constitutional right to interpret his own responsibilities in his own way.

As I said, situational ethics and oath-breaking aren't supposed to be the perview of conservatives - or presidents, for that matter. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a president should be neither ethical or moral, just expedient. If so - what is your beef with Obama? he's doing exactly what you seem to expect Presidents to do.

Stan Shannon wrote:

My standard question on this subject is:

Your "standard question" fits into the "Have you quit beating your wife" category. I suppose someone as naive as Ravel might fall into your trap, but you'll have to do better with me. I repeat: What's your beef with Obama? He is acting just the way you want Presidents to act. Of course what he sees as the best future for America is not what you see (or what I see as the best future either), but then, by a landslide, he was elected to hold his office. To do anything else than strive to make America all that he believes it can be, using all the means necessary - just as you say he should, would make him a weak president, unworthy to hold a strong man office. Why are you not applauding someone who so lives up to what you think an American president should be :confused:

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Rob Graham]

Why are Democrats so quick to organize circular firing squads. It does not serve the Obama administration to alienate their own in congress. I doubt that Dodd sees it as "nothing personal", or will soon forget it.

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

Are you sure you don't want to start calling yourself a Hamiltonian? WEvery time you are honest about what you believe, it becomes more and more apparent than you have little in common with Jefferson.

Jefferson did not believe in a weak executive, he belived in a weak central government. Those are not mutually exclusive.

Oakman wrote:

As I said, situational ethics and oath-breaking aren't supposed to be the perview of conservatives - or presidents, for that matter. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a president should be neither ethical or moral, just expedient. If so - what is your beef with Obama? he's doing exactly what you seem to expect Presidents to do.

There is no contradiction between being moral and ethical and still violating interpretations of the constitution or a law. That might be the most moral and ethical act a president could make. Situational ethics does not equate to being unethical, it equates to applying one's own ethics when someone else's might cause harm if followed. Again, it is the responsibility of congress to determine the ethics and legality of it all. Nothing wrong with that.

Oakman wrote:

Your "standard question" fits into the "Have you quit beating your wife" category.

No it doesn't. Its a straight forward, honest question which should be easy to answer. Lincoln answered it. FDR answered it. And Bush the second answered it. Why can't you?

Oakman wrote:

What's your beef with Obama?

My only beef with Obma is that he is an ignorant socialist fuck wad. I disagree with his politics, but beyond that, I have no problem with him. He was a known marxist when he was elected, he should give the people who voted for him what they voted for. A marxist congress will probably agree to most of it as I would expect them to. Hell, I want them to do that. At the very least, perhaps the republicans will get a lesson in how to treat the people who put them into power. And maybe the country will get a lesson in being careful what it wishes for - because it might just get it.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Rob Graham]

Any tax, in any amount aimed specifically at a given group of people in a way that is tantamount to declaring them guilty of a crime without benefit of a trail would be a bill of attainder. Bills of attainder are forbidden by Article I, section 9, clause 3 of the United States Constitution. There is nearly no chance that such a tax would fail to reach the federal courts and be reversed there. It might be done to create theatre for the masses, but I would hate to read the opinion (or be the target of the opprobium) that such would likely garner from the court.

[Stan Shannon]

Rob Graham wrote:

Why are Democrats so quick to organize circular firing squads. It does not serve the Obama administration to alienate their own in congress. I doubt that Dodd sees it as "nothing personal", or will soon forget it.

It is my plan working itself out to perfection. With the republicans keeping themselves out of the picture as much as they possibly can, democrats have no one left to demonize other than one another. Political parties with no viable opposition will always splinter into factions. Its beautiful.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[John Carson]

Rob Graham wrote:

It does not serve the Obama administration to alienate their own in congress. I doubt that Dodd sees it as "nothing personal", or will soon forget it.

Really stupid politics, no question about it.

John Carson

[kmg365]

John Houseman would go ape-shit

[RichardM1]

Oakman wrote:

So said Stalin, and Mao, and all the arch criminals who ever murdered thousands of their own countrymen.

John, you are off by anywhere from 10^4 to 10^5. :sigh:

Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.

[RichardM1]

(Scratching head) Wait a minute. I agree with you. WTF?

Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.

[RichardM1]

I'm just amused about all the people complaining about how the system put us in the crapper, and saying that it lost TRILLIONS with a T, when most of which were created by the same system, and most people didn't bitch about the part that ended up being broken. Even now, it is the fault of the bad old capitalists - who made all those bad old loans the government pressured them to make.

Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.

[RichardM1]

Christian Graus wrote:

The only way to avoid a centralisation of power, is anarchy.

Or a strong following of the 2nd Amendment, allowing the people to keep the government in check, when it needs it. I am not advocating armed overthrow, I am just saying the gov has not had to worry about that for waaaay too long.

Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.

[Stan Shannon]

Ilíon wrote:

And it's the States ... and The People ... who are to keep Congress in line (the Supreme Court doesn't even enter the picture). But we don't, because far too many of us have been bought-out.

I agree to an extent. I think a vast majority of Americans understand that they have sold out and would be willing to correct the problem if only the constitution provided for a 'flush' option - a means of dumping everyone in congress simultaneiously and staring over. Without that, simply voting my congressman out would have little impact on the entire body.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Lost User]

Ilíon wrote:

But we don't, because far too many of us have been bought-out.

And far too many of the electorate are stupid. Voting for the party, not the person. I have voted for an intelligent, competent, incumbent, rather than my preferred 'brand'. Voting a party out, without considering what they are voting in. Every bloody election: "Well, they can't be much worse than this lot."

Bob Emmett

[Oakman]

RichardM1 wrote:

I am just saying the gov has not had to worry about that for waaaay too long.

As Christian pointed out, one of the best ways to ensure that they do start worrying is to continue to piss off the guys who wear uniforms and have the big guns.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface