Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-10-2008, 09:24 PM   #201 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Thanks will, there's something a bit more gracious when someone is trying to become more educated.

Yes, those are true, but here people are demanding that things be CHECKED NOW, or BALANCED NOW. So while the Patriot Act may be the worst thing to happen to civil rights, I'm confident that in the future the rights of the future Americans will be secured by the SCOTUS overturning that act. See, just like you said, checks and balances.

See what you've stated isn't that scary monster that host sees hiding in the White House closet on Jan 20, 2009 wherein POTUS Bush refuses to leave the White House. No, the checks and balances happen as they need to and I'm confident in the system that has been working for 232 years now.

Some of you seem to think that if it's not happening right now, it's no good.
I believe this has been addressed. Bush is not impotent until he has left office. He continues to do great damage to our country and the world today and will do so tomorrow through the day Obama takes office. The issue with urgency (setting aside the possibility of Bush insisting on serving past his term) is the issue with saving lives and trying to prevent all the future mistakes, illegal and unethical activities, and other things Bush will do.

When I demand impeachment it's for 3 reasons:
1) Punishment
2) Preventing Bush from continuing to be the worst president in history and
3) Providing a warning to any future Bush-wannabes to think twice before fucking with the Constitution.

Each of these three reasons represents the "scary monster", which is not a phantom but rather a clear, present and ongoing danger to the US and the world.

Just for clarification:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
The checks and balances are supposed to be in my opinion to check and balance DURING not post.
Can you explain this? At first reading it sounds like you're agreeing with those you seem to be disagreeing with.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 09:39 PM   #202 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Thats cool.

I would just humbly suggest that the "true believers" speaking out and fighting to prevent abuses of power and the restoration of a more open and accountable government deserve recognition for their commitment to the larger issues at stake.
I'm not censoring anyone. I'm not telling anyone else what to do. I'm not squashing someone else's opinon. I'm not squelching anyone's ideas.

If that's their "pursuit of happiness" great! More power to them. Those that I believe are over the deep end are just that, those that I believe have some feet touching the ground are also just that. I don't have as much interest in rallying around with my fists in the air as some of these people. But see, I have my own "true believer"ness and that is the system works. People aren't living under tyranny for a lifetime. It may be for several years, but the checks and balances keeps it from being permanent and lifetime.

I have seen second hand the desctruction and corruption of a democaratic government. I have heard tale of family members being jailed for speaking out against the President. I have seen second hand Congress disbanded and family members who were fairly voted into office no longer represetatives. I have seen the President move from elected official to dictator for life.

I have also seen in my lifetime that democracy restored. The freedom of press triumph and restore the family. I have seen the representatives be elected again.

And again, I see the politics play out, the mire that stops and bogs down the rest of the agendas and day to day business. The media mudslinging has returned.

I have watched a democracy be cheated and restored in my lifetime, all based on the American democracy.

For as much as you're stating that, conversely there are those of us who do want to see some action taken but not at the expense of everything else, would like to have the same recogonition and respect you are requesting.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 09:47 PM   #203 (permalink)
Upright
 
EaseUp's Avatar
 
Location: SoCal, beeyotch
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
thanks dc. very informative to show that Congress is in fact doing something regarding action towards checks and balances. It seems to me that the system is working as intended.

Should they forget about it since they can't get documents? No, of course not, in due time I believe, but couldn't they get the SCOTUS to compel the executive branch to comply?
It proved impossible when the Clintons were in office.
EaseUp is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 09:49 PM   #204 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
I believe this has been addressed. Bush is not impotent until he has left office. He continues to do great damage to our country and the world today and will do so tomorrow through the day Obama takes office. The issue with urgency (setting aside the possibility of Bush insisting on serving past his term) is the issue with saving lives and trying to prevent all the future mistakes, illegal and unethical activities, and other things Bush will do.

When I demand impeachment it's for 3 reasons:
1) Punishment
2) Preventing Bush from continuing to be the worst president in history and
3) Providing a warning to any future Bush-wannabes to think twice before fucking with the Constitution.

Each of these three reasons represents the "scary monster", which is not a phantom but rather a clear, present and ongoing danger to the US and the world.

Just for clarification:

Can you explain this? At first reading it sounds like you're agreeing with those you seem to be disagreeing with.
no will, a phantom since you are talking about future bush wannabees. That's no different than saying "I'm worried that brown people will bomb and terrorize us." You are just fearful of a future bush wannabee.

Demand impeachment. Great! Now what? Demand it again?

Bush will continue to be as you put it the worst president in history until the Jan 20, 2009. If you believe that it's going to change before then. Great! You are a true believer in the checks and balances of the system. You believe the the possiblity that he may be impeached before the end of his term is possible. It just may be.

I'm not disagreeing will. I'm in agreement that there needs to always be checks and balances. IMO the best checks and balances are when the powers are not encroached upon and if one branch is out of line the other is at the ready to check it.

What I'm in disagreement with is that I don't want the Congress to sit concentrating all it's efforts on punishing Bush. IMO it won't help reduce the price of gasoline, reduce the cost of my breakfast consisting of eggs, bacon, orange juice, and toast. No, I'm more concerned that my money isn't buying me as much as it used to. I can no longer enjoy going to Europe without worrying about the extra costs as my coffee in the morning costs me more on Saturday than it did on Tuesday.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 09:54 PM   #205 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by EaseUp
It proved impossible when the Clintons were in office.
What proved impossible?

During Clinton's term, Congress spent more than $35 million in oversight investigations, one committee alone (Govt Oversight & Refrom Comm under Repub Dan Burton) issued more than 1,000 subpoenas for documents (the WH complied with over 2 million pages) and required more than 150 senior Clinton administration staff (including the most senior WH staff) to testify. (House report - pdf)

Hell, Burton even investigated Clinton's cat, Socks.

That is above and beyond the more than $100 million spent by Ken Starr's Whitewater investigation, which he unilaterally expanded beyond the scope of his authorization as Independent Counsel.

Get your facts straight, dude.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-10-2008 at 10:27 PM.. Reason: added link
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-11-2008, 12:00 AM   #206 (permalink)
Banned
 
"Things" aren't "hunky dory"....nothing has changed....the manipulation via the official campaign of fear mongering that began in mid-morning on 9/11, is still trying to dominate the political landscape, with the help of a compliant, neo-fascist corporate media, and the "DINOS", in the house and senate leadership.... a discredited president with a now chronic 30 percent job approval rating, is still free to spread false fear, as if it was the week before he ordered the invasion of Iraq....

The latest "fear Psy-Op" is best covered over on the ole "Ground Hog Day" thread.

As we see in the recent posts here, there are opinions expressing concern that some of us want to "go too far", in investigating Mr. Bush and holding him accountable. If that is true, how is the "fear Psy-Op", able to move the democratic legislative leadership to give in to what is called a compromise, but is no compromise at all?

Last edited by host; 06-11-2008 at 08:35 AM..
host is offline  
Old 06-11-2008, 04:00 AM   #207 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
You ask what I think?
The explanation on why Congress did not take the WH's offer was not clear to me. I don't understand, in the context of Congress seeking truth and information. Like I asked what did they have to loose?

If I understood their strategy on this, I could change my opinion, until then I think Democrats have more to gain, politically, by saying Bush is being uncooperative. Truth and information is secondary. Just my opinion, along with the basis of my opinion. It seem pretty clear, simple and basic to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by host
"Things" aren't "hunky dory"....
Host one of my questions is - what is the point? If they hold the WH, Bush, accountable - what are they going to do? Using Nixon as an example, I guess - nothing. So what is the point. The point is get people in your party elected, get them more power - right? It is all a fight for power. Punishment, deterrence, etc., are not the primary motivators in Washington.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."


Last edited by aceventura3; 06-11-2008 at 04:06 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 06-11-2008, 04:23 AM   #208 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
wait...this is fast becoming a trainwreck.

cyn--so what you're trying to do here is defend a collapse of the political altogether, a retreat into immediate concerns, a substitution of indices like how much coffee will cost you on a trip to europe one day to the next as a function of the (politically motivated) collapse of the dollar for thinking about the conditions that might be causing that collapse in the first place. do you seriously imagine that there is no linkage between the patterns of speculation in the dollar over the past year or so and the policies of the bush administration? do you seriously imagine that there would conversely be no linkage between efforts to stage a theater of system self-correction--which is what a prosecution of george w bush would be (after he leaves office, no matter how implausible this outcome might be--i expect that we will be showered with your kind of "advice" after this debacle ends: move on people, nothing to see here) and attempts to alter present political relations, which includes the value of the dollar?

you might think about the exchange rate historically--consider the possibility that when the americans went off bretton woods and allowed the dollar to at once float and continue to function as reference currency, the assumption of the united states as imperial power lay behind it--now, you are starting to see what the collapse of that assumption, and the political configuration which lay behind it, looks like.

you want to talk about food prices? you cannot talk coherently about them without considering very large-scale patterns that the americans have put into place since the 1970s. you cannot talk about them out of the context of the nature and types of food aid/food charity provided by the americans as a way of dealing with the effects of monocrop-based overproduction. you cannot talk about them without considering the nature of the globalizing capitalist order at the level of transportation systems. you cannot talk about them without considering the entire imperial order, precisely the order which is now coming unravelled. the value of the dollar, the prices of petroleum and basic foodstuffs are ALL expressions of a large-scale political situation.

retreating into the immediate changes nothing about this.

arguing that retreating into the immediate is a viable political alternative is your prerogative, but fact is that it is a strange argument to make, if you think about it--the most powerful way to have expressed this position would be to simply retreat into the immediate, just bloody do it, vanish into it--no argument for it, just action.

because when you argue for such a retreat, you put yourself in the position, like it or not, of also arguing that you do not have to look at a fairly overwhelming political configuration--the problem with that is the argument itself--saying I DO NOT WANT TO LOOK is a *problem*

it is obvious that the desire to see george w bush hoisted by his own petard is theatrical in the sense that it is a desire for theater. it is also obvious that political theater is no more or less meaningful simply because it is theater. it is also obvious what the motivations are of those folk who feel it to be an ethical and political imperative that this theater be advance, that it happen. the prospect of such theater is a ritual--the theater itself would be a ritual--a holding-to-account of george w bush for everything his administration has done. what i do not buy about most of this is what i take to be the underlying assumption that the neoliberal system, the "globalizing capitalist" order is itself functional and that the problems the americans currently face are simply the result of a whack-job administration and its particularly irresponsible actions--i think the problems are alot bigger than that--whence the disconnect between the posts i make to this thread and most of the others.
i think the bush administration has engendered a structural crisis.
i think the lack of public response to that crisis is bizarre, and points to significant problems of political agency in the soft authoritarian context we live in.
i think the american system is potentially facing serious serious problems.

and i see your line of *action* (were you to take it--but you don't because you're making political arguments for it here, which is not the same as simply disappearing into your everyday life) as sympotmatic and your line of *argument* as basically anti-political, in the most general sense.

but if the argument is anti-political, does it make sense to advance it in a political forum?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 06-11-2008, 05:16 AM   #209 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
wait...this is fast becoming a trainwreck.

cyn--so what you're trying to do here is defend a collapse of the political altogether, a retreat into immediate concerns, a substitution of indices like how much coffee will cost you on a trip to europe one day to the next as a function of the (politically motivated) collapse of the dollar for thinking about the conditions that might be causing that collapse in the first place. do you seriously imagine that there is no linkage between the patterns of speculation in the dollar over the past year or so and the policies of the bush administration? do you seriously imagine that there would conversely be no linkage between efforts to stage a theater of system self-correction--which is what a prosecution of george w bush would be (after he leaves office, no matter how implausible this outcome might be--i expect that we will be showered with your kind of "advice" after this debacle ends: move on people, nothing to see here) and attempts to alter present political relations, which includes the value of the dollar?

you might think about the exchange rate historically--consider the possibility that when the americans went off bretton woods and allowed the dollar to at once float and continue to function as reference currency, the assumption of the united states as imperial power lay behind it--now, you are starting to see what the collapse of that assumption, and the political configuration which lay behind it, looks like.

you want to talk about food prices? you cannot talk coherently about them without considering very large-scale patterns that the americans have put into place since the 1970s. you cannot talk about them out of the context of the nature and types of food aid/food charity provided by the americans as a way of dealing with the effects of monocrop-based overproduction. you cannot talk about them without considering the nature of the globalizing capitalist order at the level of transportation systems. you cannot talk about them without considering the entire imperial order, precisely the order which is now coming unravelled. the value of the dollar, the prices of petroleum and basic foodstuffs are ALL expressions of a large-scale political situation.

retreating into the immediate changes nothing about this.

arguing that retreating into the immediate is a viable political alternative is your prerogative, but fact is that it is a strange argument to make, if you think about it--the most powerful way to have expressed this position would be to simply retreat into the immediate, just bloody do it, vanish into it--no argument for it, just action.

because when you argue for such a retreat, you put yourself in the position, like it or not, of also arguing that you do not have to look at a fairly overwhelming political configuration--the problem with that is the argument itself--saying I DO NOT WANT TO LOOK is a *problem*

it is obvious that the desire to see george w bush hoisted by his own petard is theatrical in the sense that it is a desire for theater. it is also obvious that political theater is no more or less meaningful simply because it is theater. it is also obvious what the motivations are of those folk who feel it to be an ethical and political imperative that this theater be advance, that it happen. the prospect of such theater is a ritual--the theater itself would be a ritual--a holding-to-account of george w bush for everything his administration has done. what i do not buy about most of this is what i take to be the underlying assumption that the neoliberal system, the "globalizing capitalist" order is itself functional and that the problems the americans currently face are simply the result of a whack-job administration and its particularly irresponsible actions--i think the problems are alot bigger than that--whence the disconnect between the posts i make to this thread and most of the others.
i think the bush administration has engendered a structural crisis.
i think the lack of public response to that crisis is bizarre, and points to significant problems of political agency in the soft authoritarian context we live in.
i think the american system is potentially facing serious serious problems.

and i see your line of *action* (were you to take it--but you don't because you're making political arguments for it here, which is not the same as simply disappearing into your everyday life) as sympotmatic and your line of *argument* as basically anti-political, in the most general sense.

but if the argument is anti-political, does it make sense to advance it in a political forum?
actually, no I don't find it retreating into the immediate concerns, but maybe that is what it has become. I'm media weary of the war, Bush this or that, Clinton this or that, Obama this or that, odd McCain isn't hitting the radar as much but still there, the economy tanking, mortgage crisis, credit crisis, gas crisis, global warming, don't eat beef this week due to e.coli, don't eat tomotoes this week because of salmonella...

Fear mongering has just plumb worn me out from whatever angle it is coming from.

I have little interest in the 24/7/365 fill every second with OMFG! He wears Hanes inspected by Inspector 12, no wait sorry I misspoke, this just in he wears boxers by 2(X)ist, and on some days when things seem freewheeling he's freeballing it. How will the cotton industry and fashion sector recover if everyone did that?

I have noted that this trend has happened since I clearly filter my news gathering much more than ever since media is ever so pervasive from my inbox to my TV and every landmark or corner in between my office, retreats, and sofa.

So maybe the line is apolitical. I don't sense it as such, but an interesting observation.

I'm stating that I believe in the system and that it self corrects and works as intended. It may not be as slow or as fast as some of us like, but it does work as designed.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 06-11-2008, 05:28 AM   #210 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I'm stating that I believe in the system and that it self corrects and works as intended. It may not be as slow or as fast as some of us like, but it does work as designed.
The system provides the blueprint for self-correction, but it never has and never will correct itself without the actions of concerned citizens, both inside the govt and out, taking the necessary steps to ensure that it works in the manner that it was envisioned.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-11-2008, 06:01 AM   #211 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
The system provides the blueprint for self-correction, but it never has and never will correct itself without the actions of concerned citizens, both inside the govt and out, taking the necessary steps to ensure that it works in the manner that it was envisioned.
Agreed. The blueprint is just that, the people are the mechanical parts that make the framework work. Again, there are people who are believers in the system working both inside and outside the government and they challenge the system to correct itself. Sometimes that doesn't happen and sometimes it does, but we don't know if it won't ever happen. We can only hope and work so that it does happen.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 06-11-2008, 07:22 AM   #212 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
no will, a phantom since you are talking about future bush wannabees. That's no different than saying "I'm worried that brown people will bomb and terrorize us." You are just fearful of a future bush wannabee.
Many presidents have abused their position. Pretending it's unlikely in the future is naive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Demand impeachment. Great! Now what? Demand it again?
Demand it for every criminal/president. That's like saying "Arrest a criminal. Great! Now what? Arrest another?".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Bush will continue to be as you put it the worst president in history until the Jan 20, 2009. If you believe that it's going to change before then. Great! You are a true believer in the checks and balances of the system. You believe the the possiblity that he may be impeached before the end of his term is possible. It just may be.
I have no illusions. At this point (assuming it does take 10 months), it may not prevent him from doing anything, but it will punish him for what he has done and act as a deterrent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I'm not disagreeing will. I'm in agreement that there needs to always be checks and balances. IMO the best checks and balances are when the powers are not encroached upon and if one branch is out of line the other is at the ready to check it.

What I'm in disagreement with is that I don't want the Congress to sit concentrating all it's efforts on punishing Bush. IMO it won't help reduce the price of gasoline, reduce the cost of my breakfast consisting of eggs, bacon, orange juice, and toast. No, I'm more concerned that my money isn't buying me as much as it used to. I can no longer enjoy going to Europe without worrying about the extra costs as my coffee in the morning costs me more on Saturday than it did on Tuesday.
The independent counsel investigation would take time. The House Judiciary Committee would not even necessarily investigate (they didn't for Clinton), and the vote wouldn't take long at all. The Senate would have a trial that would take maybe a month and then they would vote.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-11-2008, 08:26 AM   #213 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
my point is that the laws created haven't necessarily removed criminals or abusive presidents.

People will always stand over the line like a dart player in a pub. Not breaking the rules, but getting away with as much as they can within the framework.

They may minimize it in some ways, and open up explotations in another.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 06-11-2008, 08:59 AM   #214 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
You think impeaching Bush would open up exploitations? I can't really think of how. If anything, NOT impeaching him makes the exploitations he has used a safer bet.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-11-2008, 09:04 AM   #215 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
1) Punishment
2) Preventing Bush from continuing to be the worst president in history and
3) Providing a warning to any future Bush-wannabes to think twice before fucking with the Constitution.
No, I'm speaking about the preventions you're speaking about. Future bush wannabess would exploit in different manners.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 06-11-2008, 09:21 AM   #216 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
No, I'm speaking about the preventions you're speaking about. Future bush wannabess would exploit in different manners.
They'll only exploit in different manners if the manners Bush used are no longer viable. And here's the bottom line: there are a finite number of ways to fuck with the system, so the more manners removed from that list, the less likely someone is to fuck with the system. Eventually, it will be so difficult that many won't even bother running. That's the point of making new laws.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-11-2008, 09:28 AM   #217 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
And here's the bottom line: there are a finite number of ways to fuck with the system, so the more manners removed from that list, the less likely someone is to fuck with the system.
I don't know if I can agree with this. A little creativity can circumvent legalese. The problem here is the spirit behind the actions, not the letter.

Remember the old say about how you can't legislate common sense?
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
ubertuber is offline  
Old 06-11-2008, 09:36 AM   #218 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
You can't legislate common sense, but you can create legislation that is made in the spirit of justice. I think the idea that there are infinite loopholes is kinda like the idea that there's unlimited oil in the Earth; it makes no sense.

At the very least, we can prevent the egregious offenses of Bush in the future, which means everything from misinforming congress to wiretapping, to taking vacations when he should have been running the executive branch.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-11-2008, 11:24 AM   #219 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
on 6/9/2008 I wrote the following, post #140:

Quote:
I am betting things won't change much under the next Democratic Party administration. Just my opinion. People can always find some "wrong" with any administration and write books about it. Heck, people can already write books about Obama's "wrongs" and he hasn't taken the oath of office yet. Hannity on Fox has already made a cottage industry on Obama's "wrongs", just wait until he J-walks - impeachment talk will follow shortly thereafter.

I just think it is time for both sides to give it a rest.
Today, I am casually reading my ultra-right wing biased WSJ and I see the editorial below. I thought the Rev. Wright stuff was not worthy serious consideration, but the right-wing machine started running with it, now they have this. Obama is going to be in for a rough 4 years as President. The attacks are going to be non-stop because that is the nature of Washington now days. One thing about Republicans, they more often than Democrats, back up their talk with action. I know the info below is not an offense (accept to Obama's stated principles), but do you think they will start the impeachment process before he take the oath of office?

Quote:
Friends of Barack
June 11, 2008; Page A22

Barack Obama may have come up with a creative way to solve the housing recession: Let everyone buy property at a discount the way he did from Tony Rezko, and give everyone in America a discount mortgage the way Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide did for Fannie Mae's Jim Johnson. Team Obama's real estate and mortgage transactions are certainly a change from business as usual. They suggest old-fashioned back-scratching below even current Beltway standards.

A former CEO of mortgage financing giant Fannie Mae, Mr. Johnson is now vetting Vice Presidential candidates for Mr. Obama. But he is also a textbook case for poor disclosure as regulators sifted through the wreckage of Fannie's $10 billion accounting scandal. Despite an exhaustive federal inquiry, Mr. Johnson managed to avoid disclosing one very special perk: below-market interest-rate mortgages from Countrywide Financial, arranged by Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo. Journal reporters Glenn Simpson and James Hagerty broke the story this weekend.

Fannie Mae tells us that Mr. Johnson did not inform the company's board of these sweetheart mortgage deals, nor did his CEO successor Franklin Raines, who also received such loans. We can understand why. Fannie bought mortgages from loan originator Countrywide, and then packaged them into securities for sale or kept the loans and profited from the interest. Mr. Mozilo told Dow Jones in 1995 that he was "working very closely . . . with Jim Johnson of Fannie Mae to come up with a rational method of making the process more efficient by the use of credit scoring."

Since Fannie was buying Countrywide's loans, under terms set by Mr. Johnson and later Mr. Raines – or by people in their employ – the fact that Fannie's CEO had a separate personal financial relationship with Countrywide was an obvious conflict of interest. The company's code of conduct required prior approval of such arrangements. Neither Mr. Johnson nor Mr. Raines sought such approval, according to Fannie.

Even if they had received waivers from the board to enjoy these perks, conscientious board members would then have wanted to disclose the waivers to investors. Post-Enron, the Sarbanes-Oxley law requires such disclosures. But even in the late-1990s, when the Friends of Angelo loans began, board members would likely have raised red flags.

Former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt tells us that "the best way to deal with issues like this is not to have these kinds of relationships. From both the Countrywide and the Fannie perspective, it is simply bad policy to permit loans to 'friends' on more favorable terms than others similarly situated would be able to get."

One question is whether Messrs. Johnson and Raines were using their position to pad their own incomes that were already fabulous thanks to an implicit taxpayer subsidy. (See the table nearby.) But the bigger issue is whether they steered Fannie policy into giving Mr. Mozilo and Countrywide favorable pricing, which means they helped to facilitate the mortgage boom and bust that Countrywide did so much to promote. A further federal probe would seem to be warranted, and we assume Barney Frank and his fellow mortgage moralists will want to dig into this palm-greasing from Capitol Hill.

The irony here is that Mr. Obama has denounced Mr. Mozilo as part of his populist case against corporate excess, calling Mr. Mozilo and a colleague in March "the folks who are responsible for infecting the economy and helping to create a home foreclosure crisis." Obama campaign manager David Plouffe also said in March that "If we're really going to crack down on the practices that caused the credit and housing crises, we're going to need a leader who doesn't owe these industries any favors." But now this protector of the working class has entrusted his first big task as Presidential nominee to the very man who received "favors" in return for enriching Mr. Mozilo.

Yesterday, ABC News asked Mr. Obama whether he should have more carefully vetted Mr. Johnson and Eric Holder, who is working with Mr. Johnson on veep vetting. Correspondent Sunlen Miller noted Mr. Johnson's loans from Countrywide and Mr. Holder's involvement as Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration in the pardon of fugitive Marc Rich. Said Mr. Obama: "Everybody, you know, who is tangentially related to our campaign, I think, is going to have a whole host of relationships – I would have to hire the vetter to vet the vetters."

Vetting Mr. Johnson's finances would have been time well spent, judging by a May 2006 report from Fannie Mae's regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (Ofheo). Even if Mr. Obama considers the advisers helping him select a running mate "tangentially related" to his campaign, he might have thought twice about any relationship with Mr. Johnson.

Addressing the company's too smooth (and fraudulent) reported earnings growth in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Ofheo reported: "Those achievements were illusions deliberately and systematically created by the Enterprise's senior management with the aid of inappropriate accounting and improper earnings management . . . By deliberately and intentionally manipulating accounting to hit earnings targets, senior management maximized the bonuses and other executive compensation they received, at the expense of shareholders."
* * *

The regulator described how, despite an internal Fannie analysis that valued Mr. Johnson's 1998 compensation at almost $21 million, the summary compensation table in the firm's 1999 proxy suggested his pay was no more than $7 million. Ofheo found that Fannie had actually drafted talking points to deflect such media questions as: "He's trying to hide how much he's made, isn't he?" and "Gimme a break. He's hiding his compensation."

To this list we would add one more, directed at Mr. Obama: Is this what you mean by bringing change to Washington?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1213...w_and_outlooks

As TO of the Dallas Cowboys says - "get your popcorn ready."
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 06-11-2008, 11:45 AM   #220 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
They'll only exploit in different manners if the manners Bush used are no longer viable. And here's the bottom line: there are a finite number of ways to fuck with the system, so the more manners removed from that list, the less likely someone is to fuck with the system. Eventually, it will be so difficult that many won't even bother running. That's the point of making new laws.
A future president can only exploit the law as Bush has done ONLY if Congress does not perform its oversight responsibility fully and faithfully.

Congressional Research Service published a report for the US State Dept several years ago to explain the role of Congressional oversight to foreign government officials:
Quote:
Oversight, as an outgrowth of this principle (checks and balances), ideally serves a number of overlapping objectives and purposes:
* improve the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of governmental operations;

* evaluate programs and performance;

* detect and prevent poor administration, waste, abuse, arbitrary and capricious behavior, or illegal and unconstitutional conduct;

* protect civil liberties and constitutional rights;

* inform the general public and ensure that executive policies reflect the public interest;

* gather information to develop new legislative proposals or to amend existing statutes;

* ensure administrative compliance with legislative intent; and

* prevent executive encroachment on legislative authority and prerogatives.
CRS Report: Congressional Oversight (pdf)
We saw what happened when Congress abrogated that responsibility for six years.

We should allow Congress to complete its oversight job with regard to the policies and practices of the Bush administration regardless of how long it takes in order to make it clear that the government is open and accountable to to the American people and that the unilateral interpretation of the powers of the Executive branch by any future president will not go unheeded.

IMO, this brief report should be required reading for every new member of Congress and every future president (and his/her senior staff).

added:
That oversight should absolutely include sworn testimony from Scott McClellan , who after all, is the subject of the OP.

It will be interesting to see if Bush attempts to prevent McClellan from testifying later this month with a claim of executive privilege AFTER the WH had vetted McClellan's book and allowed it to be published.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-11-2008 at 12:10 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-11-2008, 02:34 PM   #221 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
DC,

Given the housing and mortgage crisis, do you think Congressional oversight should include the potential illegal acts of Jim Johnson, other potential conflicts of interest, undue influence from the industry by friends/supporters/donors of elected officials, and of course potential campaign finance violations by Obama and Rezco?

I bet many have enjoyed the "oversight" hearings when the targets were Bush, his administration, Halliburton, big oil, etc., but now I am interested in your explanation of how you would determine what is reasonable and what is not for Congressional oversight? McClellan's book adds no insight into what lead us to war, assuming how I think you would answer the question above, how do you justify support of McClellan testifying, adding no value, in front of Congress, but ignore something that could be far more compelling and potentially affecting real change in campaign finance reform and conflict of interest by those in charge of government sponsored agencies? If nothing else, just to show that even friends of the presumptive Presidential nominee can not get away with illegal acts. Many already have concluded that Jim Johnson has violated the law.

I am just curious, I know you can say it is different, it is a red herring, it is not related, etc., etc., etc., and I already know about my lack of fact based posts, my failures to include charts and graphs, my right-wing biases, my reliance on unreliable sources, etc, etc, etc, so you can save a few key strokes with any of that, or just completely ignore my illogical rantings and ravings. I am at peace with all of that stuff, but not with what I think may be empty rhetoric by our next President and the party in control of Congress.

{added} O.k., I might be impressed with Obama, but we will see.

Quote:
A leader of Democrat Barack Obama's vice presidential research team has resigned amid criticism over his personal loan deals.

Obama announced in a statement Wednesday that Jim Johnson was stepping aside to avoid distracting from the vetting process.

Johnson served on the vetting team with former first daughter Caroline Kennedy and former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...yYVAQD9181QQO2
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."


Last edited by aceventura3; 06-11-2008 at 02:41 PM..
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 06-11-2008, 02:46 PM   #222 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
....I am just curious, I know you can say it is different, it is a red herring, it is not related, etc., etc., etc., and I already know about my lack of fact based posts, my failures to include charts and graphs, my right-wing biases, my reliance on unreliable sources, etc, etc, etc, so you can save a few key strokes with any of that, or just completely ignore my illogical rantings and ravings. I am at peace with all of that stuff, but not with what I think may be empty rhetoric by our next President and the party in control of Congress.
ace...it is a baiting question, but I will respond anyway.

Yes...it is a red herring, it is not related, etc, etc, etc.....unless you want Congress to conduct oversight hearings on McCain's actions and supporters, volunteer staff and friends before (if) he becomes president as well, including promoting some questionable land deals for donors in Ariz by quietly inserting language in legislation...or his numerous ties to dozens of lobbyists....actions of either man before he takes office as president.

Despite the Republicans doing just that with Clinton...that is not within the purview of Congressional oversight.

Read the CRS report on oversight....you might learn what it does and does not include.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-11-2008 at 02:49 PM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-11-2008, 02:48 PM   #223 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace...it is a baiting question, but I will respond anyway.

Yes...it is a red herring, it is not related, etc, etc, etc.....unless you want Congress to all conduct oversight hearings on McCain's actions before (if) he becomes president, including promoting some questionable land deals for donors in Ariz by quietly inserting language in legislation...or his numerous ties to dozens of lobbyists....actions of either man before he takes office as president.

Despite the Republicans doing just that with Clinton...that is not within the purview of Congressional oversight.

Read the CRS report on oversight....you might learn what it does and does not include.
Thanks, but that response was not helpful.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 06-11-2008, 02:50 PM   #224 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Thanks, but that response was not helpful.
Well...then dont ask baiting questions....at least until you understand the proper role of Congressional oversight.

Under which of these objectives and purposes....
* improve the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of governmental operations;

* evaluate programs and performance;

* detect and prevent poor administration, waste, abuse, arbitrary and capricious behavior, or illegal and unconstitutional conduct;

* protect civil liberties and constitutional rights;

* inform the general public and ensure that executive policies reflect the public interest;

* gather information to develop new legislative proposals or to amend existing statutes;

* ensure administrative compliance with legislative intent; and

* prevent executive encroachment on legislative authority and prerogatives.
... would a Congressional oversight investigation of Obama's, McCain's or any future president's "friends and supporters" before he occupied the WH be justified?

Congress is responsible for overseeing the administration of the Executive Branch....not the previous behavior of sitting presidents and their friends.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-11-2008 at 03:51 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-11-2008, 05:07 PM   #225 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
You can't legislate common sense, but you can create legislation that is made in the spirit of justice. I think the idea that there are infinite loopholes is kinda like the idea that there's unlimited oil in the Earth; it makes no sense.

At the very least, we can prevent the egregious offenses of Bush in the future, which means everything from misinforming congress to wiretapping, to taking vacations when he should have been running the executive branch.
Legislation that already punishes the individual? what kind of law are you talking about? can you give any kind of example that is legislation that is in the spirit of justice???? Is that something like Megan's Law where the convicted are punished even after they have served their prison sentence?

I've not ever read something about spirit of justice except for in comic books.

Infinte loopholes is a possibility because culture, precedents, and word definitions change over time.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 06-11-2008, 05:16 PM   #226 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Legislation that already punishes the individual? what kind of law are you talking about?
Were you trying to quote someone else? What do you mean "that already punishes the individual"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
can you give any kind of example that is legislation that is in the spirit of justice???? Is that something like Megan's Law where the convicted are punished even after they have served their prison sentence?
Megan's law is about prevention, not punishment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I've not ever read something about spirit of justice except for in comic books.
There's pragmatism and pessimism. Not believing in justice is the latter.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-11-2008, 05:21 PM   #227 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
but you can create legislation that is made in the spirit of justice.
Legislation is a law. So you are stating making a law that is in the spirit of justice.

I'll leave the Megan's Law stuff out since that's a complete thread jack.

Please give an example of legislation that is in the spirit of justice.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 06-11-2008, 05:28 PM   #228 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Please give an example of legislation that is in the spirit of justice.
It's funny you should ask that. I just went to the US Senate's website and looked up the most recent floor activity. You'd never guess:
Quote:
H.R.634 : To require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of veterans who became disabled for life while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States.
I'd call that morally right and just. Those who sacrificed deserve to be remembered for their sacrifice, and this vote enabled the mint to create a physical remembrance in their honor. While one could suggest it was a political move, the reason it was a political move is because it can be viewed as just and honorable. Prima facie.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-12-2008, 06:51 AM   #229 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
so instead of giving them the benefits and money that they need, we put them on a coin and collect money for a memorial that's built in Washington DC.

yeah, I guess that's just in some worlds.

So that's it? that's an example of legislation that is in the spirit of justice?
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 06-12-2008, 07:22 AM   #230 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Well...then dont ask baiting questions....at least until you understand the proper role of Congressional oversight.
What made my question a "baiting" question?

I understand the intended role of Congressional oversight, but I do not understand how and why in our current context. How do they objectively determine what is worthy of taking action on? Why do they act on some issues and not others?

You seem to have the most knowledge on this topic participating in the discussion, so I addressed my question to you. I certainly understand why you might want to avoid a more detailed exchange on this issue. It is up to you.

Quote:
Under which of these objectives and purposes....[INDENT]* improve the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of governmental operations;
* improve the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of governmental operations

The housing crisis was caused in part by the actions of the Country Wide CEO and Fannie Mae. Given Obama's statements about Country Wide's CEO, and as the presumptive leader of his party, there might be interest in looking into this.

* evaluate programs and performance

Fannie Mae, is a government sponsored institution. Depending on how assets are valued, the entity may be insolvent. This institution plays a key role in the mortgage industry - corruption could have a devistating impact on the industry.

* gather information to develop new legislative proposals or to amend existing statutes

Executive compensation is an issue of discussion. Jim Jonson recieved up to $21 million in compensation, at a time when the industry was going into a crisis. Congress may want to assess this. Obama, received financial benefit from a friend, this may have been a conflict of interest or an ethical violation, perhaps they should investigate this either to clarify/change the law or to clear the issue indicating nothing unethical happened.


Quote:
... would a Congressional oversight investigation of Obama's, McCain's or any future president's "friends and supporters" before he occupied the WH be justified?
I looked at the CRS Report On Oversight as you suggested. I would answer your question, yes. Taken from Section 1.

Quote:
Despite its lengthy heritage, oversight was not given explicit recognition in public law until enactment of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. That act required House and Senate standing committees to exercise “continuous watchfulness” over programs and agencies within their jurisdiction.
This is pretty broad in my opinion and can also open the door to all kinds of problems with officials running for office. Again, this adds to my interest in the "how" and "why". I think my questions are legitimate and are not "loaded", whatever that means in this context.

Quote:
Congress is responsible for overseeing the administration of the Executive Branch....not the previous behavior of sitting presidents and their friends.
My reading of the report indicates broader responsibilities than what you suggest here. In addition to the wording referenced in the Reorganization Act of 1946, we have:

Quote:
1970 Legislative Reorganization Act

a. Revised and rephrased in more explicit language the oversight
function of House and Senate standing committees: “. . . each
standing committee shall review and study, on a continuing basis, the
application, administration, and execution of those laws or parts of
laws, the subject matter of which is within the jurisdiction of that
committee.”
The Constitution nor legislation restricts Congressional Oversight to specific people or time frames.

Executive Branch activities could certainly include the activities of friends of the WH.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 06-12-2008, 07:39 AM   #231 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
so instead of giving them the benefits and money that they need, we put them on a coin and collect money for a memorial that's built in Washington DC.
So they don't fix the entire system and thus this gesture is meaningless?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
So that's it? that's an example of legislation that is in the spirit of justice?
That happened to be the most recent piece of legislation. I'm sure you can do the research to find more.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-12-2008, 07:56 AM   #232 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I understand the intended role of Congressional oversight....
No, ace.....IMO, based on the above....you clearly dont understand the intended role of Congressional oversight and are searching for ways to continue to discredit or minimize the value of the oversight conducted in the last year+ by the Democrats. Thats cool...thats what I would expect you to do.

But you are attempting to inject the issue of campaign connections of a candidate/supporter with some nebulous suggestion that it is somehow an active Executive Branch function worthy of Congressional oversight.

I understand why you want to do this, but it just doesnt fly in a discussion about Congressional oversight.

If you want to have a discussion about the valid topic of candidates vetting their supporters/contributors/advisors, I would suggest a new thread.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-12-2008 at 08:02 AM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-12-2008, 08:09 AM   #233 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
No, ace.....IMO, based on the above....you clearly dont understand the intended role of Congressional oversight and are searching for ways to continue to discredit or minimize the value of the oversight conducted in the last year+ by the Democrats.
Not very helpful. Perhaps you can explain what it is I don't understand.

Quote:
You are attempting to inject the issue of campaign connections of a candidate/supporter with some nebulous suggestion that it is somehow an active Executive Branch function worthy of Congressional oversight.
I can have more than one line of thought. Sure I have questions about Obama, but I also have questions about Congressional oversight. Also, I tend to move on. If one set of questions go unanswered and I ask new questions, it does not unnecessarily follow that all of the questions were related. I have found that generally, questions are simply food for thought because they mostly go unanswered. I get the feeling based on your comment on "baiting", that there is a fear that answering a question could lead to something - what I don't know. But, I do understand. Questions can be uncomfortable.

Quote:
I understand why you want to do this, but your rationalization just doesnt fly in a discussion about Congressional oversight.
I don't think you do.

Quote:
If you want to have a discussion about the valid topic of candidates vetting their supporters/contributors/advisors, I would suggest a new thread.
No need. I know what I need to know.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 06-12-2008, 08:14 AM   #234 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I know what I need to know.
Then all is right with the world
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-12-2008, 09:37 AM   #235 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
So they don't fix the entire system and thus this gesture is meaningless?

That happened to be the most recent piece of legislation. I'm sure you can do the research to find more.
Since I don't understand what "spirit of justice" means in respect to legislation, I cannot research anything.

Laws tell you what you can and cannot do.

Judiciary metes out justice via interpreting the laws and serving punishment for breaking the laws.

so I don't see how legislation can be "spirit of justice"

and yes, IMO the gesture is hollow and meaningless. Look up the organization behind the fundraising. I'm tempted to give money just so that I can see their books.

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills...l#usercomments
Quote:
Col Ronald Everett
I understand your desire to help disabled veterans but supporting The American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial is not the way to do it. This organization is a rip-off.
If you check their funding status you will see that the only people getting anything from this organization are the people running it. In 2005 they raised $5.6M and had expenses of $7.9M. In 2006, they raised $17M and had expenses of $15.6M. At this rate it's going to be a long time before they raise the $65M they have set as a goal for the memorial and those donating to them are getting taken.

If that isn't bad enough, to encourage people to send them money, they recently mailed out thousands of "Patriotic Blankets". These cheap fleece blankets were a reproduction of the American Flag, clearly and flagrantly in violation of several portions of Section 8 of the Flag Code.

I would suggest that you look for other ways to help disabled veterans.

Gene Reed
I am a WW II Vet and yes have a 100% disability for life...and I total disagree the the exorbinate cost of funding this and other memorials they are trying for...Cannot understand how they justify any of their "gifts" to donors.....really do not...

Sorry but I will have to have better info....before further contributionn.

Roy Wilson
I'm retired military, & I second Col. Everett's comments. I received from AVDFLM an unsolicited coffee mug with my name on it, & made a donation. I have since received another mug, & two "cheap fleece" blankets, all unsolicited. I've made no further donations because of suspicions reinforced by Col. Everett's comments.

This is merely one more organization of many with ostensibly noble objectives, which play on people's emotions for donations that handsomely support the fund-raisers, but provide pennies to support the noble cause.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 06-12-2008, 09:49 AM   #236 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Laws tell you what you can and cannot do.
Was the legislation about the coins something I can or something I can't do? Or are laws actually more broad than you defined them? Answer that and you'll find the larger answer.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-12-2008, 09:59 AM   #237 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Was the legislation about the coins something I can or something I can't do? Or are laws actually more broad than you defined them? Answer that and you'll find the larger answer.
no you cannot mint your own legal tender. you can however mint your own coins as you see fit.

again, you're not answering the fundamental question:

What do you mean by legislation that is in the spirit of justice?
Please cite an example of what you have defined.

you stating an example and then telling me to think about it means you're blowing smoke.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 06-12-2008, 10:07 AM   #238 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
no you cannot mint your own legal tender. you can however mint your own coins as you see fit.
I'll ask again: Was the legislation about the coins something I can or something I can't do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
What do you mean by legislation that is in the spirit of justice?
Please cite an example of what you have defined.
I'll give you a big one: the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is a prime example of legislation which was about justice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
you stating an example and then telling me to think about it means you're blowing smoke.
No, it means we disagree. You and I having a differing opinion does not mean I'm blowing smoke. Justice can often be subjective.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-12-2008, 11:54 AM   #239 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
I'll ask again: Was the legislation about the coins something I can or something I can't do?

I'll give you a big one: the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is a prime example of legislation which was about justice.

No, it means we disagree. You and I having a differing opinion does not mean I'm blowing smoke. Justice can often be subjective.
Yes it does tell you what can be done. It has authorized the US Mint to stike these coins and the proceeds percentage to go to the memorial fund.

It also means that YOU can acquire these coins and use them as legal tender.

the Civil Rights Act is a good example. So then in the "spirit of justice" please explain how that fits for a prevention of presidential abuses.

and yes, telling someone to think about it and look it up themselves is a way of blowing smoke up someone's rear. you may not qualify it as such, but if you have it as a fact, then state it. otherwise, it's not real in any form but your statement typed that it exists.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 06-12-2008, 11:59 AM   #240 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
the Civil Rights Act is a good example. So then in the "spirit of justice" please explain how that fits for a prevention of presidential abuses.
Cynthetic..you only need to look at the evidence that came up during the oversight investigation of the politicization of the DoJ...
the hiring of career (non-political) attorneys base on political affiliation (Gonzales deputy resigned after admitting under oath that she committed more than 50 such violations of law),

the change in direction of the Civil RIghts division contrary to internal policy,

the investigation by US Attorneys in states with very close election of "bogus" claims of voter fraud that may or may not have been initiated from the WH (we wont know until those WH staff who were subpoenaed are compelled to testify under oath)...and contrary to internal DoJ policy and that were intended to adversely impact minority voting, etc
. None of this would have been uncovered w/o oversight hearings.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-12-2008 at 12:08 PM..
dc_dux is offline  
 

Tags
crimes, house, impeachable, key, offenses, press, secretary, war, white, witness

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:59 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360