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.

Cynthetiq

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.

EaseUp

It proved impossible when the Clintons were in office.

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.

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.

dc_dux

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

host

"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?

aceventura3

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.

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."

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?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cynthetiq

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.

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.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Cynthetiq

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.

Willravel

Many presidents have abused their position. Pretending it's unlikely in the future is naive.
Demand it for every criminal/president. That's like saying "Arrest a criminal. Great! Now what? Arrest another?".
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.
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.

Cynthetiq

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.

Willravel

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.

Cynthetiq

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.

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.

ubertuber

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

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.

aceventura3

on 6/9/2008 I wrote the following, post #140:

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?

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."

dc_dux

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:
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

aceventura3

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.

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."

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 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

aceventura3

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."

dc_dux

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

Cynthetiq

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.

Willravel

Were you trying to quote someone else? What do you mean "that already punishes the individual"?
Megan's law is about prevention, not punishment.
There's pragmatism and pessimism. Not believing in justice is the latter.

Cynthetiq

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.

Willravel

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:
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.

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.

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.

aceventura3

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.

* 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.


I looked at the CRS Report On Oversight as you suggested. I would answer your question, yes. Taken from Section 1.

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.

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:

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."

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.

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. 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

aceventura3

Not very helpful. Perhaps you can explain what it is I don't understand.

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.

I don't think you do.

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."

dc_dux

Then all is right with the world

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Cynthetiq

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

__________________
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.

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.

Cynthetiq

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.

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.

Cynthetiq

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.

dc_dux

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