Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 9 Nov 2006 13:54 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eivd0d$8qk_021(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <%Ul4h.9702$r12.8296(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eislgp$8qk_005(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <45509EF9.BE1B73C6(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote >>>>> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> My state is going to have an all Democrat political system with >>>>> >> no checks nor balances. >>>>> > >>>>> >....and yet somehow you completely fail to see how unhealthy that has >>>>> >been >>>>> >for the entire country. >>>>> >>>>> You do need to learn about Consitution. There are checks and >>>>> balances working. >>>> >>>>Bush has been busy removing some of them. >>> >>> He can't. His powers are checked by the legislature and judicial >>> branches of our government. >> >>In an ideal world, yes. However, you'd better open your eyes, because >>Bush >>has been slowly dismantling a number of the checks-and-balances that the >>Constitution sets up. Wiretaps without warrants issued by the Judicial >>branch is one example. > > The last I heard that classification of wiretapping was checked > by judiciary. > >> There are several others that I can't think of right >>now because I'm tired and my memory is worthless before noon. > > Night owl. :-) I'm the opposite. Anti-Bushers like to trot > this wire tapping thing out to prove that he is a bad person. > It was part of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was not a "Good Thing(tm)."
From: T Wake on 9 Nov 2006 13:56 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4553651D.93CCA05A(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> >> You do need to learn about Consitution. There are checks and >> >> >> balances working. >> >> > >> >> >Bush has been busy removing some of them. >> >> >> >> He can't. His powers are checked by the legislature and judicial >> >> branches of our government. All presidents have tried to do >> >> certain things. So far they have failed, as the Constitution >> >> designed it. >> > >> >You're saying he *hasn't* effectively removed habeas corpus ? >> >> For me? No. > > You think that it's acceptable to base habeas corpus on an individual > basis ? > > Can't you see the inbuilt flaw inherent in that ? > > If you're going to 'disappear' someone, who's going to be the one doing > the > deciding as to whether or not HC applies ? The disappearer of course ! Sounds remarkably Latin American...
From: Eeyore on 9 Nov 2006 13:59 T Wake wrote: > The Patriot Act was not a "Good Thing(tm)." It's also a fabulous example of Orwellian style doublespeak. Graham
From: Lloyd Parker on 9 Nov 2006 08:21 In article <dpt4h.2868$IR4.2344(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:45525B3A.A3C915E6(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> > >>> >> Don Rumsfeld, cut from the same inflexible, unthinking and >>> >> unlistening, >>> >> "my way or the highway" mold, has now stepped aside. >>> > >>> > Do you think it was his decision entirely or was he nudged or even >>> > pushed ? >>> >>> Oh, I'm quite certain he was pushed. >> >> I'd like to think so ! >> >> >>> You can see it on Rumsfeld's face. I >>> think Bush saw the writing on the wall, that he would probably have to >>> let >>> Rumsfeld go at some point, and decided to cut bait now while he has a >>> remote >>> chance of having an even minimally friendly Congress for the new guy's >>> confirmation hearings. From what little I've read, however, the new guy >>> is >>> probably a pretty good choice, given his actual desire and ability to >>> work >>> with other people, and not think he can run the whole show himself. >> >> You mean there may yet be some hope for 'consensus politics' ??? >> >> I'd heard Bush isn't so keen on that. > >True, but he may be sensing his demise if he doesn't attempt *some* sort of >reconciliation with Congress and the >50% of the American people that he has >increasingly alienated over the past 6 years. Remember, the Congress can >now begin investigating some of his shenanigans, and those of his cohorts. >He needs to be thinking ahead to 2008 and beyond. > >Bush was quoted today as saying: "I'm obviously disappointed with the >outcome of the election and, as the head of the Republican Party, I share a >large part of the responsibility," This is obviously the understatement of >the year. I think he bears *100%* of the responsibility, and it all focuses >on one unbelievably stupid moment of hubris--his in-your-face victory dance >about a "mandate from the people" after narrowly squeaking out a win in >2004. I remember very distinctly thinking at that time, that that one >moment of self-indulgence would end up coming back to haunt him...and I do >not think the political repercussions from that one incredibly ill advised >speech have yet come to pass. I think he will pay *dearly* for his hubris. > >Eric Lucas > > I'd say 90%. I think some has to go to Foley, Cunningham, DeLay, et al, that the voters saw as evidence of corruption in Congress.
From: Lloyd Parker on 9 Nov 2006 08:24
In article <2mx4h.10999$r12.3746(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:45527247.A114D14(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> >> > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >> Don Rumsfeld, cut from the same inflexible, unthinking and >>> >> >> unlistening, "my way or the highway" mold, has now stepped aside. >>> >> > >>> >> > Do you think it was his decision entirely or was he nudged or even >>> >> > pushed ? >>> >> >>> >> Oh, I'm quite certain he was pushed. >>> > >>> > I'd like to think so ! >>> > >>> > >>> >> You can see it on Rumsfeld's face. I >>> >> think Bush saw the writing on the wall, that he would probably have to >>> >> let >>> >> Rumsfeld go at some point, and decided to cut bait now while he has a >>> >> remote >>> >> chance of having an even minimally friendly Congress for the new guy's >>> >> confirmation hearings. From what little I've read, however, the new >>> >> guy >>> >> is >>> >> probably a pretty good choice, given his actual desire and ability to >>> >> work >>> >> with other people, and not think he can run the whole show himself. >>> > >>> > You mean there may yet be some hope for 'consensus politics' ??? >>> > >>> > I'd heard Bush isn't so keen on that. >>> >>> You should follow some of the unfolding events at cnn.com--these are the >>> events you will likely not hear anything about in the fullness of time. >>> Within hours of news of his victory in 2004, Bush was doing a >>> spike-the-ball-in-the-endzone victory dance, and waving it in everybody's >>> face. By stark contrast, within hours of news of the Democratic >>> victories, >>> Nancy Pelosi, who is expected to become probably the most powerful >>> Democrat >>> in Washington, has said almost nothing publicly, but rather has quietly >>> approached Bush and extended her wish to work together with him and to >>> compromise. >>> >>> Tell me....which of those two approaches do you think will end up being >>> more >>> effective in actually getting things done in Washington? Would that it >>> had >>> happened 2 years ago (or, while we're dreaming, 6 years ago).... >> >> That's a no-brainer. >> >> I'm not sure the Democrats should have removed the idea of impeachment >> quite >> frankly. > >While at a gut level I feel the same distress at Bush's job performance, I >don't really think it would really be legally justified. Remember, in order >to be impeached and have any chance of being convicted and removed from >office (in other words, for it not to be simply a waste of Congress's time), >the President needs to have committed a crime, and it has to be a felony >that had a material, negative effect on his ability to lead the country. >Clinton, after all, was accused of having lied to Congress (a crime) and >obstruction of justice (a crime). The rub was that I don't personally >believe that those crimes rose to the level of significantly disrupting his >ability to conduct his job. The biggest disruption was not those crimes, >but rather, Congress's reaction to them. > >Keep in mind, in Bush's case, violating/dismantling the Constitution doesn't >constitute a crime in the US. The Constitution is a guiding set principles >that tell us how our government should run, it is not a list of laws with >punishments for violations. There may very well be laws that codify many of >the Constitution's principles (and I believe there are), but the >Constitution itself is not a list of laws and punishments for violating >them. > >Eric Lucas > > One could argue ordering wiretaps in violation of the FISA law is impeachable, but since it takes 2/3 of the Senate to convict, why beat your head against a wall? The Republicans should have done the same thing with Clinton -- looked at the math. |