I'm not sure I understand this.

Oakman

Christian Graus wrote:

Yeah, I'd say that business lining the pockets of politicians is probably 9/10 of the issue.

I heard three separate congress critters say today that their intention was to tax the bonuses at 100% unless those who received them "did the right thing as Americans" and turned them back. Not one of the talking heads that was giving them air-time ever thought to ask these noble men and women (of both parties, by the way) why, last week, when the issue of accepting or returning their automatic pay raise, both the House and the Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the money.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

John Carson

Rob Graham wrote:

And then of course there is just blatant hypocrisy like Sen. Dodd, one of the loudest complainers, who actually introduced the amendment to the bailout bill that allowed AIG to pay those bonuses (and may prevent any recovery). I suppose it was just co-incidental that that same senator received over 100K in campaign contributions from AIG...

Your claim appears to be Administration spin. The truth is the opposite. Dodd attempted to limit bonuses. Geitner in particular, and perhaps Summers as well, has been advocating a softly softly approach to the banks from the start, and Obama has been backing their judgement. http://firedoglake.com/2009/03/17/treasury-attempts-to-blame-dodd-for-aig-bonuses/[^] http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/17/dodd/[^]

John Carson

modified on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 7:58 PM

Christian Graus

yeah. that sounds about right.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

Ilion

Stan Shannon wrote:

The problem is congress, not the president.

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.

Oakman

Christian Graus wrote:

No, the people far from civilisation, who have the means to feed themselves, and the defend their food, are the ones who will survive.

It is true, I think, that people who can band together to form a mutual aid society AND who have the means to feed themselves and defend their food, will survive better than those who are far from civilization because they cannot get along with other men. So integrity and possibly faith (as a unifying force) might end up having something to do with it, don't you think? I have read, more'n once that all of our big cities, across the globe, are three days from starvation.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Christian Graus

Oakman wrote:

So integrity and possibly faith (as a unifying force) might end up having something to do with it, don't you think?

I think perhaps integrity would be a factor. I'd think that if something did happen, the biggest issue me and my neighbors would have, is the city folks 10 minutes drive away. Beyond that, I am sure we'd pool together, and be able to grow all our own food. I doubt that our varying faiths would be a factor.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

Oakman · modified on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 7:58 PM

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.