| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| What It Takes to Get Repubs and Dems To Agree | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 24 2006, 11:10 AM (1,086 Views) | |
| Radu | May 24 2006, 01:40 PM Post #26 |
![]()
Senior Carp
|
Ooooh... niet problému ! We have specialy trained intercontinental mail pigeons ! |
![]() ------------------------------------------------------------ "Whenever I hear of culture... I release the safety-catch of my Browning!" The modern media has made cretins out of so many people that they're not interested in reality any more, unless it's reality TV (Jean D'eaux) | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 24 2006, 02:14 PM Post #27 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
There are several fallacies floating through this thread being given credibility not deserved.
No such surveillance or searches have taken place.
Bogus. The real issue here isn't the constitutionality of the search. Congressmen are not above the law. The real issue is the hypocricy of the democrat party. We have listened to them for months now beating the "culture of corruption" drum against the republicans. Now that their own "culture of corruption" has been laid bare, they no longer want to talk about it. They want to blow smokescreens to divert attention away from how silly they look right about now.
This is a ridiculous bit of logic. It assumes the Bush administration has done something to violate the citizens' rights - that has not happened. What speaks volumes is the way the democrats are trying to divert attention away from their own "culture of corruption" by using the pathological tactic of reflecting their own flaws onto others.
No such thing exists.
To a liberal, if you are in favor of a strong defense you are obviously in support of big government, but strangling the country with layers and layers of social programs to redistribute the wealth is not being in favor of big government, it's just good sense. Wrong. The main purpose of the federal government is to provide for the common defense of the nation. Whatever size the government needs to be to accomplish that goal is appropriate - that's its job. It is *not* the job of the federal government to redistribute the citizens' incomes through Ponzi Schemes, or to manufacture layer upon layer of bureaucratic government expense. Secondly, once again, no one is "pushing the envelope" on your civil liberties. I know that's hard for you democrats to understand, but reading the list of phone numbers you called is *not* listening in to your phone conversations - and it has been written law for years now that it is legal for government to access phone logs. Ever hear of Bill Clinton?
Rick, you are nowhere close to being a libertarian.
Neither do I. For that matter, I'd say not a single soul here would say they did. Unfortunately, your statement is built on a false premise - that the Bush administration is currently engaged in gathering power unto itself at the expense of individual rights. That would be the democrats, Rick. And they're not only engaged in sacrificing individual rights as the clamor to regain power, they are sacrificing the security of the country itself. No one is listening to phone calls of the average US citizen. They are looking to see who is calling certain numbers known to be used by terrorists. If you aren't calling terrorists, no one will ever know what you told your sister about your cousin Becky's wart hair... Now, I have a question for Quirt and Rick. Grocery stores now have a "discount card" that you can get scanned when you go through the checkout line to get special prices on select merchandise. I assume this practice is nationwide. Here's my question: Do either of you have one, or more, of these "savings" cards that you use when shopping at the grocery store? |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | May 24 2006, 02:42 PM Post #28 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
As I said, George, we come at this from very different philosophies of government. The Admininstration pushes the envelope infriinging civil liberties where there is broad disagreement about the legality. The Administration justifies this by developing a rationalization imbued with legal jargon and parsing of words and meanings justifyng the legality of it. You apparently believe it is up to someone else to take this to Court in order to prove the Administration wrong. You see the prerogative and power to make this decision resting in the Administration and the responsibility to prove otherwise falling to those outside of the Admininstration. Hence, you support a strong central government, or at least a strong executive, that can do as it wants as long as its lwayers can rationalize what they are doing unless and until it is caught and taken to court. I, on the other hand, believe that if the Administration is pursuing a policy which impacts civil liberties in a way which is not broadly accepted as legal, they may not pursue it. They must go to the Legislative Branch first for a full and open public debate and then accept the decision of the Legislature, and if approved, accept any limitations on its power the Legislative Branch imposes. Hence, I have a far more libertarian view of such things because I support a weaker executive when it comes to civil liberties than you do. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 24 2006, 02:43 PM Post #29 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Then why is Hastert calling for the return of documents and complaining to the WH? It looks like both sides are circling the wagons.
Again, I ask Quirt if there ever was a Democratic Supreme Court or a Whig Supreme Court? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 24 2006, 03:12 PM Post #30 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
That's funny, because I was thinking that the so-called "excellent case" was merely platitudes and broad references to executive powers. If there is an excellent case, I haven't seen it yet. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 24 2006, 03:14 PM Post #31 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Again? I haven't been around this afternoon. My apologies for not answering you within whatever time frame your Holiness deems appropriate. There hasn't been a Democratic Supreme Court, because most of the judges in my lifetime have been appointed by Republicans. Even Earl Warren, the bane of conservatives, was appointed by Eisenhower. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 24 2006, 03:19 PM Post #32 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
As to the first question, it depends on the model you're using. Is the model limited powers ... so the executive has only the powers granted to him? Or is the model expansive powers ... so the executive has the power to do anything not specifically forbidden? Our constitutional system is generally a system of limited powers. The executive has only the powers granted by the Constitution or by law. Not anything else. As to the second, you are not articulating the standard properly. When a court finds something illegal, it's not considered new law. It's old law that has merely been articulated explicitly for the first time, because the courts don't "make" law. Hence, no grandfathering. Generally. Grandfathering typically only happens when the legislature makes new law. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 24 2006, 03:23 PM Post #33 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I think you may be a little off, George. It's either illegal or illegal, whether or not it's adjudicated. The adjudication just ends the argument. Also note what I said to 89th about limited powers of the executive. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 24 2006, 03:29 PM Post #34 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I don't think both sides are circling the wagons. I think Congress as a whole, both Republicans and Democrats, are annoyed (or scared, perhaps, in some cases) at the Justice Department's sharp break with precedent here. It's a question of executive powers vs. the legislature, and, on that issue, there are no Republicans and Democrats. They're all Congresspeople, and they don't like having their underwear examined by the executive branch. From my point of view, I think they're all wrong (the Congresspeople, I mean). The legislature has no problem, and should have no problem, investigating the executive branch. Sauce for the goose, and all that. I think the DoJ did the right thing. You can't immunize yourself from prosecution by hiding the evidence in your Congressional office. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | May 24 2006, 03:52 PM Post #35 |
|
It's ok my son, give me 3 hail marys and 20 push ups. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 24 2006, 04:22 PM Post #36 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I only raised it again so it wouldn't get lost. No need to take it personally. I'm not trying to *bully* you.
And so since by your definition there have been no "Democratic" Supreme Courts (at least in your lifetime, which is all that ostensibly really matters to you), then why the redundancy? By implication, they have all been "Republican" and so simply "Supreme Court" without any tendentious modifiers should suffice. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 24 2006, 04:31 PM Post #37 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
If you think that the word "Republican" is tendentious, that's your business. I was contrasting how a Republican Supreme Court would handle the issue with how a less politicized Supreme Court might. Since it's a hypothetical, I am free to consider how a hypothetical Supreme Court might handle it. It is hypothetically possible to have a Supreme Court populated by non-Republicans, is it not? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 24 2006, 04:39 PM Post #38 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Oh I see, you didn't put in "Republican" for any particular rhetorical reason? Right... |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 24 2006, 04:46 PM Post #39 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Cough, cough .... [bullsh**]. It's so hard finding a statement from a couple of hours ago on page 1 of the thread. I didn't realize your powers of recall and of bulletin board searching were so weak. And if you thought *I* wouldn't find it, you could have just waited to see if I addressed the point when I next posted in the thread. No, you were just being your usual snarky self. Stop backpedalling. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 24 2006, 05:09 PM Post #40 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You really want to escalate this -- are you that much of a bully? Take a chill and try to learn a little grace. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | May 24 2006, 06:21 PM Post #41 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
It was far more than that. Specific citations of current law and Court precedent would, I believe, amount to more than "platitudes and broad references to Executive powers". I would lay it all out for you again but why bother? You will simply ignore it all like the last time and mischaracterize it again like this time at some future date. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing by way of rebuttal nor have you made any attempt at making a case for your "opinion". You simply insist that it is unconstitutional and then proceed to stack the deck by making references to a "Republican Supreme Court" in anticipation of the day when they express their disagreement with your "opinion". |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 24 2006, 06:24 PM Post #42 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I'll take that as an admission.
I've said it before, one of my failings is I sink to the level of my competition. There's only one thing a bully understands ... being pushed the same way he pushes. And that is how I will always deal with you. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 24 2006, 06:39 PM Post #43 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Nice bit of justification and self satisfying ego stroking there, old Quirt - unfortunately it doesn't fit with reality. In reality, you're just an asshole. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 24 2006, 06:44 PM Post #44 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You just don't get it, do you? You of course "have" to take it as an admission, and cannot be graceful about anything because any challenge to something you say must be taken as an ego challenge—which only confirms my suspicion of you as having some sort of alpha male narcissistic personality disorder. I was being entirely honest with you before Quirt. I had gone away to do some work, and saw that Larry had responded to the same point, so in the course of my responding to his post, I restated my question. That you take it as an affront is pretty sad, and that you have such a cyber grudge against me is pathetic. If you need to play king of the playground and try to push people around with your rudeness and vile insults, find someone else. I have no interest in dealing with psychopaths who need to assert their ego in what should be a congenial discussion arena. And that you publicly stated that you will always treat me with contempt speaks volumes more about you than about me. There is no one else on this board who holds any animosity toward me, so I can only conclude that it is your problem. You really need help. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | May 24 2006, 06:47 PM Post #45 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Once again.....crickets.
|
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 24 2006, 06:51 PM Post #46 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Note that in Quirt's ego stroking excuse for his personality, he says he "sinks to the level of his competition". He doesn't apparently "rise" to their level, nor does he apparently "meet" them. He always "sinks" to their level...... In other words, in his mind, he always sees himself as superior to others. He must "sink" to meet them. That's a classic narcissistic viewpoint, and one of the reasons he's so good at being an asshole. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 24 2006, 06:52 PM Post #47 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
It's amazing how you manage to look in a mirror and post exactly what you see, as if it's someone else. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 24 2006, 06:53 PM Post #48 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I've never denied being an asshole, Quirt. But we're talking about you right now. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 24 2006, 06:56 PM Post #49 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Excuse me while I preserve that for posterity. As for me, I've never denied being an asshole when dealing with assholes. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | May 24 2006, 07:06 PM Post #50 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
If you can break away from your pissing contest long enough to address the points I have made here and in the past beyond an arrogant blow off it might lend more credibility to your "opinion". Just a thought. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |











6:52 AM Jul 11