civil libertarians win one

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by jras, Dec 17, 2005.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Rokin

    Rokin

    Messages:
    2,846
    This is exactly why people who want a strict constructionist Supreme Court justice are not being realistic. The Constitution could not and did not deal with all of the issues of the day or the future. You can write statutes and laws all day and all night but they can never cover every situation. They have to be flexible and interpreted to fit the current case. That is why we have the judicial branch and I think it is a lot safer and wiser to have judges interpret the Constitution to the modern world than to rewrite the entire document.
  2. Rokin

    Rokin

    Messages:
    2,846
    Truer words have rarely been spoken.
    I have always believed that the dems and the reps need each other for balance. When one gets to much power they invariably are corrupted and the pendelum must swing back.
  3. Rokin

    Rokin

    Messages:
    2,846
    I agree. It's easy to go with the popular opinion but it takes someone who thinks and really cares to stand up and say no. It is even more patriotic to do your duty and risk your life, and then to come back and stand up for what you think is right. JOhn Kerry. Not that I am a fan of his, but I think going to fight (unlike Clinton and Bush II) was pretty gutsy since he probably could have gotten out of it.
  4. Thorn

    Thorn

    Messages:
    7,772
    The framework of the Constitution is flexible enough to be amended by statute or amendment into what is required for this day and age.

    A re-write, which would require the calling of a Constitutional Convention, would allow all the whackos to come out of the woodwork and lord knows what we would have when all was said and done.

    For instance, do you want a new Constitution heavily influenced by the Christian Conservative Fundamentalists? I know I wouldn't. We'd have a State religion if it were up to them.

    The whole conception is problematic down to its very roots. I figure that you don't reframe a house that only needs a little patch work to the walls and ceilings.
  5. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725


    Problem is the "framework" of the Constitution which is over 200 years old didn't quite take into hand the issues of the future and doesn't allow the US intelligence agencies to use their full resources to protect the countries citizens or best interests. And those bosses... the People, are too fucking misinformed and made unneccesarily paranoid by the liberal press and soap box spin doctors thinking the govt is "out to get them", to approve of updating the outdated Constitution which was written by a bunch of paranoid men based on their experiences with a dictatorship (George III) type govt in England.
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2006
  6. Thorn

    Thorn

    Messages:
    7,772
    A P.S. to that... The Dems apparent #1, Hillary Clinton, has been doing everything short of the Teaberry Shuffle to move toward the center. Not that she doesn't have an agenda for doing so.
  7. Thorn

    Thorn

    Messages:
    7,772
    Hmmmm.

    I would have to respectfully disagree. Only because the highest ranking Republican at the moment holds the White House and he is the greatest current offender in mollifying the far right of his party. Even if the rest of the Republican Party were centrists, the fact that their #1 guy is dancing around in John Birch country tends to weaken the argument you present. Although I wouldn't at all mind more Democrats hitting closer to the center of the aisle.
  8. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    I agree with this view. But the Dem leadership has not moved to the Center. They have been pandering to the fringe elements even more than Bush has his own fringe. Somebody in the Dem party has to get control of the whackos or they are going to stay out of power.
  9. Thorn

    Thorn

    Messages:
    7,772
    Possibly.

    The point is though that there are more Republicans now because they are the ones who have been in power, unchallanged for the most part because they control two branches of government and with all the placements in the Federal Court system, a very strong hold on the third.

    You know the old axiom about "Absolute power, corrupts absolutely." When the Dems were in the same situation back in the 60's through the mid-70's, same bullshit. Just different party.

    That is why no one party should hold sway over both the White House and the Congress for any serious segment of time. The country runs best when there is a balance of power and one party has enough clout to call foul with impunity if the other party starts fucking around. Not having to be concerned that because they are out gunned and that the other party has captured the "patriotic" high ground that they will suffer negatively at the polls for pointing out where the other guy is going wrong.
  10. Thorn

    Thorn

    Messages:
    7,772

    You see, our greatest Patriots, the people who founded this country, they understood that. Now a days, these individuals who would call themselves Patriots because the blindly follow and wave the flag, they would call those who don't see things precisely the same way unpatriotic.

    The founding fathers would say the ones standing up for what they believe, and not following blindly, knee jerking along simply to dance to a party line*, are the true Patriots.


    * I do not reference informed individuals, people like PJ O'Rourke and others, who can tell you precisely why they hold their beliefs. Simply those who, without the ability to articulate a position, indiscriminately eschew a party line just because... well, because someone of authority in their party said that is the way it is suppose to be. In other words, people with no ability to think for themselves.

    [casting an eye at several individuals who precisely fit this definition]
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2006
  11. Thorn

    Thorn

    Messages:
    7,772

    Unfortunately this is far too true.

    An uninformed and fearful populace is easily led astray.

    I have said this before, but what I am most concerned about in this country isn't terrorists. It is our own people getting caught up in a wave of populist support for a fast talking, charismatic type who tells them what they want to hear and all about how s/he is going to make it all better.

    People keep forgetting that before Hitler was Da Fuhrer he was elected Reich Chancellor. The highest elected office of the land.

    With the growing ranks of neo-fascists popping out of every crevice, some straight out in your face types, others garbed as everything from Christian Fundamentalists to, of all things, right wing conservatives*, it gives me great pause.

    *Not all conservatives are neo-fascists... in fact most aren't. The same way not all leftists are pinko commie fag revolutionaries.
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2006
  12. Thorn

    Thorn

    Messages:
    7,772
    But Ozzy... I don't get the impression he hates the government at all [and by the way, neither do I].

    I simply don't trust those in government who think they know better than the people, the founding fathers, our Constitution, and its prevailing laws, and try to do things their own way. Be that Bill Clinton when he tried to get clever about things, or George Bush, when he tries to get over.

    Sauce for the goose, et al.

    I just want them to run the country under the framework of the Constitution and if they want to make any changes run it by the bosses [that would be "We The People"] first.
  13. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    Actually the above should be Cali and not Bogota cartel.
  14. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    I know what Peruvian marching powder is... but I was very specific about what you thought of Clintons foray into Columbia and how that was somehow more of a legitimate military action than Iraq. When I'm interested in some other latin american country where you seem to be fishing for a viable excuse I'll be sure to ask when marines hit the shores of Costa Rica. But I want to know about Columbia... you know, the cocaine capital of the world, home to the Bogota and Medellin cartels... the latter of which Clinton put US troops on foreign soil to fight, sans treaties or congressional approval.
  15. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923

    You’re quite the man of letters, Constitutional scholar and now Foreign Policy Treaty expert yet seems to be unaware that the term “Peruvian Marching Powder” is slang for cocaine.
    From http://www.recoveryfirst.org/slang.html

    Cocaine
    crack, rocks, crack-cocaine, nose candy, snow, girl, white lady, tooting, doing bumps, getting skyed, c., flake, Peruvian flake, yayo, coke, blow, skiing, free base, base, Peruvian marching powder, caine, cocoa puffs, soda, white, happy powder, doing lines, sniffing, blowing lines, white girl, doing rails, snorting cocaine, ping-ting-tings, blanca, primos, zoom, powder, pooch, cheeseburgers, jumbos, cookies, d.p., conans, gram, caps, white caps…..

    Or that I was not referring to just the treaty with Peru since I mentioned “numerous countries in South and Latin America” but my bad, if theres a next time I’ll be sure to line reference each and every country.
  16. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725

    That's a load of shit. The dems are no more moral than anyone else. If I had to place a number on corruption in US politics I'd probably say about 90% being guilty of some major wrong doing.
  17. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    I said Columbia not Peru... and regardless of treaties (which there weren't in this case) a President still MUST go before congress for the appropriations needed to send troops into foreign countries. What Clinton did while on a much smaller scale than Iraq was tens times worse in regards to legality in that he didn't inform congress nor the people that he was sending armed US troops into a foreign country to fight rebels and drug czars.

    Don't get me wrong... I thought what Clinton did took balls, the kind of balls needed to run this country. Escobar had murdered several US DEA agents, assasinated judges and politicians, was killing Columbian police and their families on a daily basis and had threatened to target US politicians on American soil...... so he obviously needed to be snuffed out. But it doesn't change the fact that prominant dems like Hillary keep harping on Bush's "illegal" war in Iraq when they themselves approved it in congress and they have Clintons illegal actions only a decade ago and they said nothing at the time and continue to act as if it never happened.... Hypocrites!
  18. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923
    You mean as part of the “War on Drugs” program that started back in the 70s when we signed treaties with numerous countries in South and Latin America to provide money, military training and assistance to eradicate the dreaded Peruvian Marching Powder. Is that the illegal drug war you’re talking about? You know the one we had treaties for signed off by the Congress.

    But if its not point me to the right spot.
  19. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923

    Is that so? First off feel free to post any criminal wrongdoing by any Democrat, please. But don’t think for one fucking second I’d be holding back on any scumbag, it’s just that there are more Republican scumbags these days. Talking about Republican scumbags watch the news the next coming weeks for Jack Abramoff and his tales of woe and the wholesale purchase by K Street of the Republicans

    But FYI

    http://utopiaguide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=497880&postcount=335

    Any corrupt scumbag, Dem or Repub needs to be exposed and sent to jail for violating the public trust. So start that list but remember going down the path of a slippery slope can be dangerous.

    http://utopiaguide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=496884&postcount=1

    Crooks on parade

    Recently indicted or convicted politicos, feel free to add on and expose the scumbags for what they really are.

    Tom Delay - House Majority leader - indicted
    Jack Abramoff – GOP lobbyist - indicted
    Clarence Norman - Brooklyn Democratic Party boss – convicted
    David Safavian - Director of the White House Office of Procurement Policy - indicted
    George Ryan – Former Illinois Republican Governor - indicted on trial
    Darrell Brock Jr - Kentucky Republican Party Chairman - indicted then pardoned by Kentucky Governor
    Thomas W. Noe – Ohio Board of Regents - indicted
    Jim Tobin - GOP New England regional chairman - convicted
    Chuck McGee - New Hampshire GOP Executive Director - convicted


    Did I say anything about them being fucking perfect? Not a fucking word in that regard not a one. After all they were only mortal men, imperfect in many ways, as we all are, well most of us with some notable exceptions.
  20. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    And while I have you attention... what was your opinion when Clinton sent American troops into Columbia in 1993 to fight an illegal drug war and hunt down Pablo Escobar without the consent of Congress?
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2006