|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
As a strategy for a political party, I totally agree with you.
Unfortunately, what that in turn means, quite explicitly, is that political parties are more important than the Constitution and justice.
|
I'm curious what you think of plea bargaining: situations where a low-to-mid level crook is caught and the DA offers a plea bargain in return for the information that will get the people higher up who are really in charge, for example. In a pure and perfect world, that shouldn't happen. Everyone should pay the full penalty for their crimes.
I can't speak for anyone else, but when I vote I try to vote for people with good character and then trust them to make the best decisions (based on their political philosophy) they can in difficult situations. Often it's a judgement call and sometimes I disagree with their judgement, but overall I trust them.
I don't know much about Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid at this point, but so far they seem to be people of good character. I don't question their patriotism. Yes, sometimes politicians act for the party and against the country. I haven't seen Pelosi and Reid indicate they are doing that yet. I believe they will do their best to make the political decisions they think will get the country out the mess the GOP has gotten us into.
I hope they do not choose impeachment. I was around during Watergate and saw how that tore the country apart. (The Clinton Impeachment didn't seem to have the same effect.) We are still paying a political price for it. Many historians/analysts consider that event to be the trigger for the bitterness that marks current politics in the US. I think it helps to keep in mind that an impeachment conviction would overturn an election. That is a radical step to take. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:54 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Still caught up in the same U.S.-centric thinking that plauges the academy and nearly all discussions on U.S. foreign affairs, I see. |
Still considering a PhD in psychology?
Really, Goph, spare your Republican blithering.
You lost the election. If only everyone shared your opinions. Deal with it.
The fact is your own hatred of "the Left" (or whatever you want to call this bogey-man) makes you blind to reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:06 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
Yata,
Your analogy of plea-bargaining doesn't quite fit. If there were someone higher than the president, it might make sense.
But, did Ken Lay get to plea bargain?
No. He was at the top.
So, unless you're suggesting the buck should stop at some higher power than the oval office, I don't think that jives.
And, honestly, I think all of the hubbub about bitterness and what-not is just that. The idea that we all just got along back in an era when women lacked a voice and civil rights were fly-in-your-face prejudiced is naive at best.
Perhaps I'm mixing issues. Perhaps you're mixing Watergate with Vietnam. Perhaps the 60s were the first time people started to talk about not one but several of the elephants in the room.
That's fine to say you trust Pelosi and company, but we're talking about plea-bargaining the constitution to address issues of popularty.
I thnk that's a sad state of affairs.
Or is it sad affairs of state... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe I should have been a little more explicit. I think the DA holds his nose while offering a plea bargain in order to better serve justice.
What specific high crimes and misdemeanors should go into this Bill of Impeachment you are favoring? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| ...blithering. |
ROFL.
Lectured on "blithering" by a guy who would have impeached every president since Truman -- including, apparently, Eisenhower for the U-2 flights -- and, moreover, who comes onto this thread, scratching his head, wondering why the Democratic leadership places the country and constructive politics over his own extreme personal bitterness.
The only one who needs "to deal" with anything, Nowhere Man, is you: the President will almost certainly complete his term in office. Deal with that.
And this...
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Blow job vs. Torture |
...is the politics of revenge. You are no different at all than those on the far right who persecuted Clinton for nearly his entire presidency. You who share these politics are certainly around. But, fortunately for the rest of us, you are not in a position to influence anything -- nor will you be for the next two years at least. 
And finally, you mentioned whether "I" won or lost in these elections. It is not about me personally. But you know no better. You personalize everything. In any case, let's make it personal, then. I think as long as extremists like you are not heading Congressional Committees or are sitting in the Oval Office, as long as Lieberman keeps winning, and as long as the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House are talking like Reid and Pelosi...well, I recognize that as an unequivocal "win" for my own politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:34 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
[quote="Nowhere Man"]
| Quote: |
(1) You lost the election. If only everyone shared your opinions. Deal with it.
(2) The fact is your own hatred of "the Left" (or whatever you want to call this bogey-man) makes you blind to reason. |
(numbers are mine)
1. I didn't know Mr. Gopher was running for the Senate or the House. So Mr. Gopher which Republican candiate are you?
2. And Mr. Nowhere Man. After making a statement like the above I wouldn't be tossing around comments like "blind to reason" were I you.
Here's my prediction. Bush will finish out his term in office and retire peacefully. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
My simple "Ivory-Tower" point, by the way, was that we should not be taken in by the plausible-deniability machinery that has been in operation for decades, even if journalists, filmmakers, and the public at large have swallowed it whole.
Powerful forces are at work to do all they can to deflect attn from the Oval Office and shift all discussions onto the so-called fall guys. The journalist who wrote the above-posted story has internalized it so deeply that he (and thousands of others, I might add) casually uses verbs like "authorize." This is perhaps a small point to clarify. But it is far from trivial.
The Pentagon, CIA, all of these agencies, none of them can get up and tie their shoes without permission. If they do, then they're gone. Ask MacArthur. Ask William King Harvey. Ask Alexander Haig "Who's in charge?" for that matter.
///
And W. Bush directed whatever it is exactly that U.S. military and paramilitary forces have been doing to terror suspects.
Let's not take our eye off the ball... |
We agree. But your ridiculous parsing is still pointless and juvenile. You have no idea how any process that resulted in the order began. Thus, you have no idea whether authorized or directed. And, in this case, both would be applicable and have essentially the same meaning. You just like listening to yourself talk.
As to the main topic, how do you justify equal protection and equal responsibility under the law if you don't prosecute the utter and complete violation of the Constitution and the literal violation of th privacy of virtually every American? Not to mention the murder/manslaughter resulting from a power/oil grab.
The value of the process has nothing to do with political expediency, it has everything to do with restoring the primacy of the Constitution and, perhaps even more importantly since we are the source of the Constitution, the people.
If this isn't the time for impeachment, there never will be one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You just like listening to yourself talk. |
Excellent. Add this to your pathetically miniscule repertoire (e.g., "child," "irrelevant") and one might think you have quite the way with words -- not unlike a poet, at least, in your own way.
| Quote: |
| ...the utter and complete violation of the Constitution and the literal violation of th[e] privacy of virtually every American? Not to mention the murder/manslaughter resulting from a power/oil grab... |
That is quite a Bill of Particulars. "the utter and complete violation," mind you, not just any old violation, but Darth Vader-style "complete," even.
I guess we had better impeach "Dumbya" after all...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| and the literal violation of th privacy of virtually every American |
If you are refering to actions taken under the Patriot Act, you have a problem. That Act was passed by Congress. Would it not be a tad bit awkward for the Legislative Branch to punish the Executive Branch for acting in accordance with the law as written? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nambucaveman
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm locking this thread the discussion has gotten far off the topic at hand.
NC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
