Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to amigo_boy
Re: Benny said it all
quote:
The law of the land. Which was followed as it pertains to a Congressional court of impeachment (with the Senate acting as jury). Procedural censure, condemnation of the action. Even a non-binding resolution. Senate hearings. Possible indictments.
After all the public and legislative debate, the issue wasn't found to rise to that level.
But a blowjob did.
Your logic (a corrupt and broken system didn't hold anyone accountable means nobody did anything wrong) continues to be wrong no matter how many times you repeat it. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode  : quote:
Quoting Franklin as if he'd oppose reasonable surveillance seems incorrect to me.
Suggesting Franklin would have approved of AT&T shoveling the entire data streams of multiple carriers directly to the government without functional judicial oversight and with full legal immunity from prosecution for privacy invasion seems incorrect to me. Reasonable, my ass. Using Franklin for *any* purpose is absurd. Just 6 years prior to the Revolution Franklin was praising King George as the best King the world had ever had, criticizing British citizens who were upset over the imprisonment of Wilkes by the King, after Wilkes won two elections while in prison.
It hurts so much, doesn't it Karl?
Mark |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
It hurts so much, doesn't it Karl?
What...watching seemingly intelligent people justify corruption and epic government dysfunction through immensely broken leaps in logic? Yeah. some. I'll get over it, though.  |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode :Your logic (a corrupt and broken system didn't hold anyone accountable means nobody did anything wrong) continues to be wrong no matter how many times you repeat it. Your normal, Constitutional options are to change the system in the ways already mentioned. Not take it out on the telcos in civil court. It's understandable to focus on the telcos because it's "easier." But, that's the same shortcut reasoning that the President (and everyone opposed to your view of liberty and Constitutionality) is accused of.
Pot, kettle, black?
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode : What...watching seemingly intelligent people justify corruption and epic government dysfunction through immensely broken leaps in logic? Yeah. some. I'll get over it, though. At least I do it without quoting founders incorrectly. Which takes us back to the original topic of who's frantic, imbalanced, most likely to falsify a poll as "the ends justify the means." Eh?
Mark |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | reply to amigo_boy
See my previous post. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | reply to amigo_boy
I will have to side with Karl on this one being that you 1.) Are grasping at straws and 2.) Are like TK in that you put your own monetary benefit above ethics and others. |
|
factchecker
@bellsouth.net
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :The law of the land. Which was followed as it pertains to a Congressional court of impeachment (with the Senate acting as jury). Procedural censure, condemnation of the action. Even a non-binding resolution. Senate hearings. Possible indictments. After all the public and legislative debate, the issue wasn't found to rise to that level. Okay, the small problem I see with that statement is that you have pointed to the Congress, a POLITICAL body that is governed ENTIRELY on politics. The guys on the hill wouldn't know a fact if it stood up in front of them with a sign and a name tag saying "My Name is: Fact". If the President, being of one party, says that Congress should take a crap in their hat, his party is going to follow suit. So we can't call the Congressional action due process.
So far the courts have not dealt with the issue of whether or not any wrongdoing has taken place and, even then, you can bet it won't be without interference from the POLITICIANS that run the Justice Department... |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
Okay, the small problem I see with that statement is that you have pointed to the Congress, a POLITICAL body that is governed ENTIRELY on politics. The guys on the hill wouldn't know a fact if it stood up in front of them with a sign and a name tag saying "My Name is: Fact". If the President, being of one party, says that Congress should take a crap in their hat, his party is going to follow suit. So we can't call the Congressional action due process.
Small problem? By Mark's logic, any ruling by a system, broken or otherwise, is the morally correct one.
So if I pay off a Judge to overlook my traffic tickets (you know which, unless you're in denial, AT&T and Verizon do every day), I'm not only free, I'm on the moral high ground! What an awesomely useful form of delusion. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to factchecker
said by factchecker :
Okay, the small problem I see with that statement is that you have pointed to the Congress, a POLITICAL body that is governed ENTIRELY on politics. But, that's the Constitutional system. Congress is vested with judicial functions, such as impeachment and hearings (leading to indictment).
If you believe they failed, the solution is for you to get a lot of people to agree with you and oust politicians, change laws, amend the Constitution. If you think it's so broken, call a Convention to rewrite the organic documents. I'd even support such an effort.
But, going to civil court just because it's easier is the same thing the President is accused of doing (bypassing the warrant process). It's everyone's right. But, I think we can tone down the "us against them" rhetoric ("I'm the only one who supports the Constitution, and the laws...").
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
2 edits | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode : So if I pay off a Judge to overlook my traffic tickets (you know which, unless you're in denial, AT&T and Verizon do every day), I'm not only free, I'm on the moral high ground! What an awesomely useful form of delusion. I assume you're equating campaign contributions to bribery? Isn't this a non sequitur because campaign contributions are legal, bribery isn't?
If you want to work to change election laws I'll join your movement. Using civil court to obtain what you couldn't through normal channels (because people were "legally bribed") seems as much an abuse of the system as what you're complaining about.
Mark |
|
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
 ·Hollis Hosting
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail : Times change. And so does the response needed to deal with new threats and changing circumstances. That is very true.
Also true is that we always overreact to novel threats: infringe on the rights of those we are afraid of then apologize for our transgression years later.
Anti-War protesters during the 60's
Civil Rights workers during the 50 & 60s.
Communists/Socialist during the 50's
Japanese during the 40's
Labor Unions during the 20's & 30's
Germans during WWI
And so on and so forth.
We need to take a long hard look at past excesses to balance need for national security while protecting citizen rights.
/tom |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :But, that's the Constitutional system. Congress is vested with judicial functions, such as impeachment and hearings (leading to indictment). Actually, no. The "judicial functions" of Congress are largely symbolic. For example, impeaching a president merely removes him from office and has NO bearing on criminal matters. Typically it works the other way. Criminal wrongdoing is usually case for impeachment and being suspected or charged with criminal behavior starts impeachment proceedings - think Bill Clinton.
Don't confuse the hearings that Congress has with true judicial procedure. The two are different animals entirely.
If you believe they failed, the solution is for you to get a lot of people to agree with you and oust politicians, change laws, amend the Constitution. If you think it's so broken, call a Convention to rewrite the organic documents. I'd even support such an effort. I don't believe they failed... The courts have not yet heard anything even related to this issue (I'm talking criminal investigations). However, immunity prevents the events in question from being examined under the microscope of the law.
But, going to civil court just because it's easier is the same thing the President is accused of doing (bypassing the warrant process). I'm not advocating civil proceedings... If the courts are to hear this, it needs to be in criminal court where violations of this type would actually net serious punishments... |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by Karl Bode : What...watching seemingly intelligent people justify corruption and epic government dysfunction through immensely broken leaps in logic? Yeah. some. I'll get over it, though. At least I do it without quoting founders incorrectly. Which takes us back to the original topic of who's frantic, imbalanced, most likely to falsify a poll as "the ends justify the means." Eh? Mark I think this conversation has lost all logic and goes around in a circle.
Maybe its time to get off the ride awhile and take a breather?
After all what happened with immunity has already been decided on.
This is news whether we support the decision or not.
This post not being directed at you Personally Mark but to this thread in general.
Don't forget to supply your suggestions to BBR if you have any when we log off BBR. |
|
TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :No it doesn't. It said it 230 years ago. Times change. And so does the response needed to deal with new threats and changing circumstances. I'm worried more about the old threats, and the things that do not change. Namely, a government gaining too much power and becoming oppressive. The founding fathers knew of those threats 230 years ago, and wrote the constitution in a way that would hopefully prevent it.
Sadly, King George has all but destroyed 230 years of our history in just seven short years. 1/20/09 can not come soon enough. Hopefully there's still some of our constitution left by then. |
|
TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode : Your logic (a corrupt and broken system didn't hold anyone accountable means nobody did anything wrong) continues to be wrong no matter how many times you repeat it. You mean like how he likes to repeat the phrase "Self-styled freedom fighters?" 
If I had a nickel for every time he said that... well, I'd have a whole shitload of nickels. |
|
TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy : I assume you're equating campaign contributions to bribery? Almost everyone knows that they're one in the same. Campaign contributions are nothing more than legalized bribery. |
|
TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy : At least I do it without quoting founders incorrectly. Can you do it without uttering "that" phrase? You know the one I mean. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to TheWickerMan
said by TheWickerMan :said by TKJunkMail :No it doesn't. It said it 230 years ago. Times change. And so does the response needed to deal with new threats and changing circumstances. I'm worried more about the old threats, and the things that do not change. Namely, a government gaining too much power and becoming oppressive. The founding fathers knew of those threats 230 years ago, and wrote the constitution in a way that would hopefully prevent it. Sadly, King George has all but destroyed 230 years of our history in just seven short years. 1/20/09 can not come soon enough. Hopefully there's still some of our constitution left by then. Read some history. Franklin Roosevelt ignored the Constitution thru almost his entire time in office. Bush is a piker in comparison.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| said by TKJunkMail : Read some history. Franklin Roosevelt ignored the Constitution thru almost his entire time in office. Bush is a piker in comparison. So what you're saying is that two wrongs make a right?
I can't really comment on FDR, as he was way before my time, and I don't think we got into the issues of whether any presidents violated the constitution in any of the history classes I had back in high school. Either way, what another president did in the past does not King George using the constitution at toilet paper in the present. |
|
