|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 109 of 404:
| 
Dec 30 16:54 UTC 2005 |
re #107
You sound like a neocon when you ask someone a leading question about their
Freedom.
|
richard
|
|
response 110 of 404:
|
Dec 30 17:05 UTC 2005 |
Actually the one who needs to resign, or be fired, is attorney general
alberto gonzales, because he is the president's lawyer, and he advised
the president that he had the authority to break a federal law. If
Bush gets called into court over this, he'll just say he got bad advice
from his lawyers and he did. Gonzalez needs to go.
|
tod
|
|
response 111 of 404:
|
Dec 30 17:07 UTC 2005 |
The point you're missing is that the only authority likely to call a POTUS
into court is the attorney general. Think JFK and all the dirt people had
on him and you'll get the picture.
|
richard
|
|
response 112 of 404:
|
Dec 30 17:15 UTC 2005 |
re #111, not true, Nixon was in hot water during Watergate and so was
his attorney general. Thats why they appointed a Special Prosecutor,
and that is what is needed here. The Special Prosecutor can call the
POTUS into court in place of the Attorney General.
|
tod
|
|
response 113 of 404:
|
Dec 30 17:36 UTC 2005 |
And just who do you think would appoint a special prosecutor? The GOP run
legislature?
|
richard
|
|
response 114 of 404:
|
Dec 30 18:06 UTC 2005 |
well I think it is expired now, but in the 90's there was an
Independent Counsel Law that allowed for the judiciary to appoint a
Special Prosecutor, in times where it was not appropriate for the
attorney general to do so. Ken Starr was appointed by a three judge
panel as special prosecutor, NOT by the attorney general. But as I
said, I am not sure the Independent Counsel Law is still valid.
|
aruba
|
|
response 115 of 404:
|
Dec 30 18:07 UTC 2005 |
jep - I appreciate the courage it takes to take a stand which is not in
lock-step with your usual allies. I wish more people had that courage.
Richard - I wish you wouldn't assume that everyone is either with you on
everything, or else they're your enemy. That attitude isn't going to get us
anywhere.
|
richard
|
|
response 116 of 404:
|
Dec 30 18:13 UTC 2005 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 117 of 404:
|
Dec 30 18:15 UTC 2005 |
Aruba, why do you assume I have that attitude? I don't in fact, I am
just argumenative, I like to debate and I like to reiterate my
points. Don't read more intonation into my verbage than is actually
there. I am not critizing you or anyone else for your style, so why
not extend the same courtesy.
And in fact, since the ACLU's sole mission is to see to it that the
Bill of Rights is respected and enforced properly, and that the rights
of all american citizens are respected, I think that you should be as
appalled as rcurl and I that jep despises such a fine organization.
|
aruba
|
|
response 118 of 404:
|
Dec 30 18:25 UTC 2005 |
I'm a fan of the ACLU, and I disagree with jep on that. But I am not
appalled, because being appalled won't get me anywhere. I am interested in
seeing things get better, not in posturing. And the way to make things
better, it seems to me, is to convince enough people of conscience that
there are things more important than blind loyalty. Here you have an
example of that, in jep; and your reaction is to immediately start looking
for new things to fight about.
That's not what the country needs. We need to work on finding the things we
can (mostly) all agree on, and do something about them. For instance, I
think we mostly all agree that torture is bad, and we shouldn't be in that
business. Since we agree, we should do something about it.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 119 of 404:
|
Dec 30 18:25 UTC 2005 |
Actually, what I'm appalled at is that jep's passing mention of the ACLU
(in the context of mentioning that his views don't all fit into some neat
mold) has precipitated so much drift from the main topic.
|
edina
|
|
response 120 of 404:
|
Dec 30 18:30 UTC 2005 |
Re 118 Very well said.
|
klg
|
|
response 121 of 404:
|
Dec 30 18:35 UTC 2005 |
"The ACLU, Dedicated to keeping the mentally ill homeless and wandering
the streets"
|
marcvh
|
|
response 122 of 404:
|
Dec 30 18:38 UTC 2005 |
So that's why you have so much free time to post here!
|
edina
|
|
response 123 of 404:
|
Dec 30 18:38 UTC 2005 |
What would you do if you needed them?
|
richard
|
|
response 124 of 404:
|
Dec 30 18:47 UTC 2005 |
no klg, the aclu is there to protect YOUR rights. The ACLU is
dedicated to making sure that NOBODY violates klg's Constitutionally
protected rights. If Klg's rights are violated, the ACLU will be there
to defend them. He doesn't even need to ask.
|
edina
|
|
response 125 of 404:
|
Dec 30 18:59 UTC 2005 |
I always wonder about people who smack the ACLU and then end up needing them.
Do you think they have their crow served rare?
|
richard
|
|
response 126 of 404:
|
Dec 30 19:01 UTC 2005 |
Aruba said:
"We need to work on finding the things we
can (mostly) all agree on, and do something about them."
Thats a nice sentiment, but don't you see that the problem is that
there is not enough middle ground left anymore. We compromise entirely
too much IMO on core beliefs and stands. It gets to the point where,
simply to get along, we can't take strong stands on anything anymore.
I think Aruba's approach is friendlier, but what you end up is people
lacking the strength of convictions for the simple fact that they have
trained themselves to not express them for fear of being impolite. It
is bad for this country. Too little gets accomplished in Washington
these days simply because there is so little middle ground and so many
people determined only to stand on middle ground. It is better to take
a stand then trying to appease everyone.
|
edina
|
|
response 127 of 404:
|
Dec 30 19:05 UTC 2005 |
Please excuse me while I bang my head against the wall.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 128 of 404:
|
Dec 30 19:08 UTC 2005 |
How convenient. We have a comment where people are going to agree, and
KLG comes along and starts the same debate over again. Trolling, are
we?
|
tod
|
|
response 129 of 404:
|
Dec 30 19:10 UTC 2005 |
re #125
I've crossed paths with the ACLU a few times and neither time was beneficial.
Unfortunately, most of their volunteers do pro-bono work begrudgingly, imo.
I think folks can get better results by going straight to the Civil Rights
Division of the DoJ or else the Dept of Labor if they find their Reps or
Senators are not able to produce results.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 130 of 404:
|
Dec 30 19:13 UTC 2005 |
resP:129 Out of curiosity, is it possible that some ACLU chapters are
better than others?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 131 of 404:
|
Dec 30 19:24 UTC 2005 |
The ACLU is not a "free legal aid" society for anybody and everybody
who has been wronged and has a need; they tend to concentrate their
limited resources on cases which have the potential to be important not
just to the parties involved but in establishing precedents and
guidelines for many others.
Now that the warrantless wiretap program has happened (getting back to
the topic) one of those things may involve legal challenges to this
program. My guess is that anybody facing criminal charges on anything
at all related to terrorism will try to claim that the evidence against
them stems from an unlawful search and therefore is not admissable, at
which point we may get to see if the courts agree that Bush's actions
were lawful. It's also possible that civil litigation would be
initiated against the president.
|
richard
|
|
response 132 of 404:
|
Dec 30 19:25 UTC 2005 |
In fact Aruba's comments about "finding things we all agree on" is the
big problem the left has. The one thing I respect about the right wing
is they show the strength of their convictions. There are too many
people who are good left leaning thinkers-- like Aruba-- in the
Democratic party who try so hard to come across as centerists that they
back away from almost any view that is controversial or reflects a
definite ideological slant. This is what Howard Dean was talking about
when he ran for President, that so many Democrats have been appeasers
for so long that the party was losing its identity.
Put simply, if those of us one one side of the ideological sphere spend
so much time looking for middle ground, while those on the other side
are solidly staking out their side and not the middle, whose side comes
out stronger?
I'd respect people who show the strength of their ideological
convictions more than those who try to cowtow to everybody by hogging
the center line. I'm more comfortable, for instance, with Judge Alito
as a Supreme Court nominee being an open right wing ideologue than if
he was a closeted whatever pretending to be a centerist, refusing to
express his true thoughts. I'm sick of centerists. I want people to
wear their convictions on their shirtsleeves, to BE who they are.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 133 of 404:
|
Dec 30 19:26 UTC 2005 |
Richard. I disgaree. The right looks like they're all in agreement
because the ones that don't agree aren't encourage to speak.
|