fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to amigo_boy
Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? Mark,
Check and balance systems are only as strong as the integrity of the people in control of the system. Why don't you look at all the chess moves that Bush played when he took office. Why don't you look at all the people who are providing the checks and balances, see who they are as people, how they got there, and where their loyalty is.
Next, come back and tell us why the cleaning lady was going to be a Supreme Court Justice.
VZ is a democracy, right? However, the idiot in charge was stacking the deck to give him all he wanted.. only, he was point blank about what he was doing. Bush is taking efforts to blow smoke up his followers butt's telling them to wave the American Flag, putting those cute patriotic names on things like "homeland" security, "Patriot" act, the "Protect America" act.. meanwhile, he's leading people to follow him down a dangerous path, misleading people at every turn. (Sound liek the anti-christ yet?)
The check and balance system is all but present at this time in this country. Too many people in government are benefiting from the trough of the public which is one of the signs of the fall of a society.
Just because they "didn't find cause" for impeachment or even a non-binding resolution doesn't mean a thing. You think that the pubs are going to act on their own leader they hold so dearly? You think that the Democrats who just took office were going to make waves? Both parties are fractured at the moment and what you witnessed in the making of political maneuvering in order to save face for themselves at the expense of not only the American people, but the American legal system.
Kind of a funny example, but if you had ever saw the movie Legally Blond 2, there was one very good saying in there.. While Congresswoman Rudd was making moves because of a political supporter, she killed her own sponsored bill. The congresswoman said "what good am I if I am not in office".. the reply was "what good are you doing if you're not being honest and standing up for what YOU believe in"..?
The people in congress do what ever it takes to stay in congress. They feel they need to stay in congress to get their job done.. but all they do is spend time staying in congress while never actually doing their job.
This entire puppet show they put on over impeachment was a joke. The man is guilty as sin and yet people are protecting him.. and at this point, it's for the good of the country. (Think President Ford)
I think you're seeing life with Rose Colored glasses there. |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by fiberguy:I think you're seeing life with Rose Colored glasses there. Could be. But, the solution to fix all the corruption which you say exists is to get a lot of people to agree with you, change government, the laws, the Constitution. Even call a convention to rewrite the Constitution. Making telcos the whipping boy is just more of the same thing you complain about.
Of course, the other alternative is that the system isn't as broken as you suggest. It could just be that those who don't get what they want, when they want, blame it on "broken government" instead of just the reality of a system that's always been imperfect, and always will be. In other words, sour grapes.
The notion of immunity isn't far fetched. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) grants immunity simply if the Attorney General tells the requestee that no warrant is required.
Mark |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | It's not about "agreeing".. it's about applying the law correctly.
If I get a parking ticket and it says "6:05pm", parking is only enforced until 6pm, and a judge tells me to pay the fine, I don't have to agree with him. I go above his head because there is clear mis-application of the law on his part. I don't care if he agrees or even if everyone in the city told me I was wrong. In the end, I will come out the winner because the law is on my side.
Bush, however, spent time stacking those offices, agencies, and courts with people that would pay him favors and be friendly to his choices - many who have ignored the law themselves doing so.
The problem is that the legal system is under attack by all politicians. You DO realize the courts are supposed to remain neutral from party affiliation, right? There is a reason.. and you are demonstrating it today.
When congress fails to do their job, one check is the judicial system - however, that system has been stacked and is corrupt at this time.
And, to answer your question, and unless you are totally blind, the majority of the nation disagrees with your views right now. Democrats are energized 2 to 1 over the republicans at this point. The people are speaking loud and clear.
Bush made a promise that he would unite this country. I have to say, he didn't lie.. we just assumed he'd unite the country as policy in his administration.. rather, he pissed the nation (world) off so much that the county HAS united.. and they all agree.. the liar needs to go.. and so do all of his friends.
Take a really good look at his past.. the people he appointed and where they come from.. you may be enlightened.
While you are right in getting many people to change the people in the system - that's happening.. what you are 10000% wrong on is that saying things are "right" as long as people agree.. people have been siding with Bush for years, while doing so, they overlooked their true duty.. to uphold the Constitution of the United States. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by fiberguy:It's not about "agreeing" ... Whoa. You're the one who said Bush isn't doing the right thing. Congress isn't, etc. Here's what you do: Get a lot of people who agree with you and change government. Elect new people. Change the campaign finance laws. Amend the Constitution. Call a Convention.
Making the telcos a whipping boy (in *civil* court) when all they did was follow the President's directive is as much a charade of justice as you accuse Bush & Co.
Mark |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Are you kidding?
Just because Bush "said so" or as you say, his directive, doesn't mean it's right. Bush EASILY could have gotten a warrant and done it legally.
You know what you are talking about? ... a dictator. President Bush just got done invading Iraq and removing one.
I'm sorry, but it's clear you have no idea about our laws in this country or what the constitution means. 
Rule #1 - no one is above the law. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by fiberguy:Are you kidding? Just because Bush "said so" or as you say, his directive, doesn't mean it's right. Then impeach the President. That's the normal course of action if you feel he abused his power. Not those who followed the President in good faith. Even the laws that have existed at the time support that. See »Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you?
Mark |
|
 JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | The republicans in congress are more interested in covering for the team than to actual stand for the rule of law.
And the telcos didn't follow the president in "good faith". They new the law specifically requires FISA warrants. Bush's wink and smile are not good enough. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to amigo_boy
You're too smug for your own good... and it will ultimately hurt not only you, but others that think the same way you do.
Were you around for the Ford Presidency? .. you know why the man pardoned Nixon, right?
If you know the answer to that question, then you will know why Bush has not been impeached at this time.
It's no secret that we have a retard in charge of this country (unless one's head is up his rear) but there are actually good reasons why he hasn't been impeached at this time.
Even many of the Bush followers regretted voting for him in the second term - that was clear just a very short time after his re-election.
Right now, for the good of the country, the man stays. The people spoke in the 2006 election that it was time to throttle the government - and did. |
|
