Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I assume most if not all R's would vote to expel, but there's at most 49 votes there. So the D's could keep him in office if they wanted. Question is whether some of the D's would lose votes back home for voting to keep a miscreant in office.

Ummm, 49 votes if you count Craig, right?

If the Dems just split down the middle, say, 20-20 with the rest going out and doing something more productive with their lives, like drinking Ouzo, the Rs get to make the choice. I'd leave it with them. Then, whatever they decide, I'd suggest that Vitter should get identical treatment. Or do the Rs only have these holier than thou sentiments toward their Senator's in safe Republican seats?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Comprehensive review, if often disjointed, of the, like-whatever-we-like-regardless-of-whether-it-has-coherent-reason or dislike it, approach of the Bush administration to the rule of law, Constitutionalism, Federalism, separation of powers, and a changing world. It is also a pretty good contrast of our own internal and external debates of security versus liberty, and the Bush Administration's (and its defender's) lip-service to historical (Hi Nino!) Constitutional distinctions and protections and the desire/need in our current world to deal with perceived threats - real (terrorists) or contrived (drugs).

Correctly, it alludes to John Yoo being a toady and intellectual midget, and Boalt should should be ashamed for him being on their faculty - not because I disagree with him, but because his scholarship < his partisan bias (cubed). But, to be fair, Cal has 20 equally ridiculous faculty on the other side who should be relegated to their proper role as baristas.

The tough answer remains, security versus liberty in the modern world, and how do we fit Constitutionalism within it? I generally tend to agree with the author's implicit premise that we achieve more by maintaining our moral high ground in the treatment of prisoners than is gained by other techniques. I recognize the appeal and neccessity of a "24" argument, but, until shown otherwise, I think we lose any moral righeousness in 99% of situations in favor of a government offering 1% hypotheticals. And they sectrete that 1% occasion, and offer to the world the 99% of mistreatment for no proven value.

If it is true that (despite arguments that the methods are counterproductive) these harsher, unconstitutional, violative of international agreements on treament of prisoners, and otherwise offensive behavior is effectively preventing attacks and saving thousands, I say prove it. I have argued that it is a different world - the ability of whackjobs to export mass-death and terror has become easier, and we all know (even you, Ty) who they are - and that maybe a different approach to historic rights might be necessary. But, all I hear are "trust me" recitations from an administration whose credibility lies somewhere between the Boy Who Cried Wolf and Richard Nixon.

In the end, those of you (Hank, Slave?) who argue in support of the most atrocious elements of the Patriot Act (even Bush appointees are striking this fucker down), should recognize that granting unfettered discretion in the only branch of government resting in one person is beyond scary. The only difference betwenn Bush's view of power and any other wannabe dictator is his lack of vision.

This is a pointless debate. If Bush goes too far, one group hates him (as represented here, by the many liberals and moderates in this forum who dislike his 'power grabs'). If he doesn't go far enough, another group (see: red staters, and when a 9/11 happens, everyone else, including the same liberals and moderates here who loath him, at that juncture criticizing him for not doing enough).

A classic damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. And its not created by Bush or Republicans. It's created by people like us who criticize from all angles and are never satisfied. I'm not saying we shouldn't do that. I'm just saying "Hey, you liberal motherfuckers whining about Bush's torture policies... Yeh, well, you're culpable as well, for being two-faced like the rest of us."

He's got to do something, and he's erring on the side of vigilance. You can say it's the lesser of two evils or you can say its reprehensible, but you can't say its all his fault. It's OUR fault. We want security but we don;t want any of the ugliness that goes along with it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Gattigap
The logo for RNC, 2008!



If this doesn't foretell a Giuliani nomination, I'm not sure what will.

Comparisons with more sedate elephants here.

Gattigap

What flag is blue and white with stars? Cuba? Honduras? Why is the Republican Elephant wearning a Cuban flag?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Every argument you make is exactly like arguments that were made to stop the CIA from working with "criminals." We should be better than that!

It's a kill or be killed situation and this whole torture fixation is, well, IMO, a goofy sideshow.

I respect Ty and Gatti's moral positions on the issue, but the govt is already amoral, immoral, (insert other description of soulless, heartless behemoth) already, so this attention to one minor facet of all the dastardly shit we do strikes me as disingenuous and opportunistic.

Ty and Gattis care about the issue, but the people using it for political ends couldn't care less. And have been involved in and supported far worse.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
You lean quite heavily on the prospect that bad shit's been done in the past in the name of advancing American interests. Neither you nor I really know how much this has occurred in the past, but I'm sure that it has in times of crisis.

To my mind, though, these incidents either occur outside of the government's official policy apparatus, or if they occur within it, history usually concludes that it was an unfortunate and ultimately unneccesary retreat in the battle for liberty.

I find your enthusiastic embrace of not only the choice to embrace the bad shit that you deem necessary, but also to enshrine it as part of governmental policy, baffling.

I'm not in policy.

i did just get done watching "the War." i promise you, at least a few Japanese prisioners got sticks up their anuses to make them talk. we just didn't have cell cameras and the NYT was sort of on our side back then so it didn't hit the papers.

all I'm questioning are Ty's statements that "not torturing" is "being american" and what has happened since 9/11 is "moving away from what it means to be american."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Ummm, 49 votes if you count Craig, right?

If the Dems just split down the middle, say, 20-20 with the rest going out and doing something more productive with their lives, like drinking Ouzo, the Rs get to make the choice. I'd leave it with them. Then, whatever they decide, I'd suggest that Vitter should get identical treatment. Or do the Rs only have these holier than thou sentiments toward their Senator's in safe Republican seats?

do you get to vote when the vote is about you? did McCarthy vote at his censure?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think it's a wide-stance elephant.

Well, that is GOP SOP for MSP.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think it's a wide-stance elephant.

Did you ever think maybe Craig was just trying to bust some fags? you know, citizen's arrest!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you get to vote when the vote is about you? did McCarthy vote at his censure?

This is my point. You see, Burger noted 49 Republican votes to censure/remove/defenestrate/de-pant Craig.

I pointed out that there are only 49 votes if you count Craig. Now, can you count Craig in a vote to defenestrate Craig? If you either think he would not vote or that if he did vote he would not vote to get paddled by the Frat boys, then you are down to 48 votes.

See, 48 is 49 minus 1. That's how many you get if Craig isn't voting for his own removal. The 1 is Craig.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
This is my point. You see, Burger noted 49 Republican votes to censure/remove/defenestrate/de-pant Craig.

I pointed out that there are only 49 votes if you count Craig. Now, can you count Craig in a vote to defenestrate Craig? If you either think he would not vote or that if he did vote he would not vote to get paddled by the Frat boys, then you are down to 48 votes.

See, 48 is 49 minus 1. That's how many you get if Craig isn't voting for his own removal. The 1 is Craig.

I'd hire someone from dupont circle to keep him occupied in the johns during the vote- why have the procedural struggle?


oh. al gore thinks we needed to take sadaam out http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl..._Revealed&only

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I think we have tortured in the past. I think it is a very ugly world.

Non-responsive.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Every argument you make is exactly like arguments that were made to stop the CIA from working with "criminals." We should be better than that!

You know, you can get away with a little of this stuff if you keep it quiet. But when you go too far, you can't do that anymore. Previously, maybe we could have our cake and eat it too. But not anymore.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

See, 48 is 49 minus 1. That's how many you get if Craig isn't voting for his own removal. The 1 is Craig.

This is a fascinating point, because just as 51 beats 49, 52 beats 48.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
BTW, say they hold ethics hearings. Isn't a vote of the entire senate needed to expel a member? Will any D's vote for expulsion?

I'm sorry, why is he being expelled? For being gay? For stupidity?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You know, you can get away with a little of this stuff if you keep it quiet. But when you go too far, you can't do that anymore. Previously, maybe we could have our cake and eat it too. But not anymore.

what stuff? you mean when the dems try to handcuff the CIA? i agree. we can't get away with that anymore.