Politics As Usual

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
It is even beyond that. The purported mainstream gives money to fund these islamic charities knowing full well where a good amount of the money goes.

Gold plated boxcutters?

Shady terrorist rest homes in Quetta?

The finest restaurants in the nicest parts of the Gaza?

I read a number today that said one charity used to get 40 to 50 M annually, and it gave some part of it to fund the embassy bombings and at least one other terrorist attack. The amount diverted was described as a small or tiny portion of the total.

How many tanks of my gas do you think it took to buy the boxcutters they snuck by our expensive expert screen of airport security anti-terrorism experts? Period. Its not like these guys even needed to buy Groucho Marx glasses with the clip-on noses to disguise their mugs, though a few were wanted by someone somewhere.

Which is to say, you don't even need a "good amount" of money to cause great harm.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Gattigap
That you make this observation on the occasion of Reagan's passing is interesting. Back in the day, I think that people who Borked Bork were worried that more than lip service was paid to (for example) those GOP-advanced views on abortion, and the probabilities that their goals were in reach.

I think the people who borked Bork were more concerned about not appointing to the Supreme Court a man who up to that point was best known as the man who didn't stand up to Nixon in the Saturday Night Massacre. No way that was going through.

Although, Bork's views on just about everything didn't help his cause much.

I agree that loonies in the Republican party are not just there in the background, especially when it comes to local politics. If Bush gets a couple of Supreme Court appointees, he will pander to his right.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I think the people who borked Bork were more concerned about not appointing to the Supreme Court a man who up to that point was best known as the man who didn't stand up to Nixon in the Saturday Night Massacre. No way that was going through.

That was a very minor talking point at the time, that has risen in fable since. It was Bork's stance towards Roe that primarily killed him.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
How many tanks of my gas do you think it took to buy the boxcutters they snuck by our expensive expert screen of airport security anti-terrorism experts? Period. Its not like these guys even needed to buy Groucho Marx glasses with the clip-on noses to disguise their mugs, though a few were wanted by someone somewhere.

Thanks goodness Gorelick's Wall has been torn down.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Which is to say, you don't even need a "good amount" of money to cause great harm.

True, but Hamas and Hezbollah and Al Queda take quite a bit of money to run, at least some of which comes from Islamic charities and this is a well known fact. Yet the so-called moderate muslims do little to nothing to try to stop this. Why don't they police these charities better or create new charities and be vigilant about not letting the money get into terrorist hands? I don't need you to answer that question because I know the answer.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I wish - hope, maybe - that that were true. It's more my perception that there has already been a surrender.

(ETA - that was unclear - I don't mean a surrender where everyone joins one side, but one in which the mainstream makes no effort to rein in the militants, or to criticize them, or to interfere with them in any way, almost treating it as "well, we understand why they're that way, and can't/won't complain . . .")

After the recent attacks/hostage taking/mutilation/escape incident in Khobar, I heard NPR interview a guy who used to cover the area for the NYT and now appears to work for some kind of fund investing in the petroleum industry (interesting career jump, but I digress). I can't find a link, or I'd post it. He said that there is virtually constant violence in Saudi Arabia right now between the regime and the AQ-type folks, very little of which is reported in the West because the regime has done such a good job of keeping Westerners out of most of the country and of managing the media otherwise.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
Why is circumventing the constitution an immoral act? I see why it is illegal, but not why it is immoral.

You know, at one time the Constitution said blacks were only 3/5's of a person. If you counted them as a full person in your census, that would be circumventing the constitution. But would it be immoral? No.

At one time our Constitution said selling alcohol was illegal. Is selling alcohol an immoral act? No.

I didn't say he was. I said administration. There were people in his administration who were involved.

I view it as a breach of fiduciary duty. We, the people, have given up certain rights/powers for the greater good, with the clear understanding of how those rights/powers are to be exercised (i.e., consistent with the Constitution). Those that intentionally act to circumvent the Constitution are usurping rights/powers that do not belong to them.

As far as your law school hypos, you can check those at the door. My position is not that everything in the Constitution is sacred. But the portions of the Constitution breached in Iran contra are.

And a special note, just for you: When someone hits "quote" and responds to your post, they are not always just responding to you personally. They are responding to the board as a whole.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I view it as a breach of fiduciary duty. We, the people, have given up certain rights/powers for the greater good, with the clear understanding of how those rights/powers are to be exercised (i.e., consistent with the Constitution). Those that intentionally act to circumvent the Constitution are usurping rights/powers that do not belong to them.

I see your point, but will have to think about it some more to know if I agree. The main sticking point for me is that I didn't give up those rights. I was just born here and had no say in determining which rights to give up.

If what you are saying just applies to politicians who take an oath to uphold the Constitution when they are sworn in, well, that makes more sense to me.

Originally posted by sgtclub
And a special note, just for you: When someone hits "quote" and responds to your post, they are not always just responding to you personally. They are responding to the board as a whole.

I never thought othewise. Is this some way of telling me you think I talk too much? If so, get in line behind all my grade school teachers. I'll listen to you as much as I listened to them.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me

It does disturb me less than it disturbs you. If those laws were malum in se laws, that would disturb me if they were violated by an administration. Violating malum prohibitum laws for the purpose of the greater good disturbs me less. I would even go so far as to say it is an act of moral courage, although not something I want a president to do since separation of powers is a good thing. Violating those laws was illegal, but not immoral.

It's been close to an entire day, and noone has bothered to make the comparison between the embrace of morality as a justification for violating a "bad" law, and the disdain for legal process more recently by some local officials. The club* is there lying on the floor, people. Let's see someone get up and use it!

Gattigap

* The metaphorical club, sgt -- not you. Apologies for the confusion. Perhaps we could change your moniker -- it could have the benefit of upgrading your technology and avoiding future mishaps -- maybe "sgtAK47"?

[baltassoc]

Please do not read the following with the slightest hint of sarcasm; it is not intended.

So I find it extremely ironic that the markets will be closed on Friday. Is this any way to mourn the death or clebrate the life of the man many credit with saving America's financial well being? Is this what Reagan would have wanted?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
* The metaphorical club, sgt -- not you. Apologies for the confusion. Perhaps we could change your moniker -- it could have the benefit of upgrading your technology and avoiding future mishaps -- maybe "sgtAK47"?

Tempting, but that would unfortunately not work with the genesis of the nickname.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
It's been close to an entire day, and noone has bothered to make the comparison between the embrace of morality as a justification for violating a "bad" law, and the disdain for legal process more recently by some local officials. The club* is there lying on the floor, people. Let's see someone get up and use it!

Gattigap

* The metaphorical club, sgt -- not you. Apologies for the confusion. Perhaps we could change your moniker -- it could have the benefit of upgrading your technology and avoiding future mishaps -- maybe "sgtAK47"?

You have (once agains) misunderstood me. I never said it was a good thing or something I thought an administration should do. I said just the opposite. I just said it bothered me less than it bothers the Dems. Contrast that to the Dems cheering on Newsome for violating the law. Funny how you condemn Reps when they do it but cheer on the Dems when they do it.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Tempting, but that would unfortunately not work with the genesis of the nickname.

And what is that, by the way? If complicated, redundant, or outable, I'll hang up and take my answer off the air.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
And what is that, by the way? If complicated, redundant, or outable, I'll hang up and take my answer off the air.

Outable.

[Hank Chinaski]

My cousin received a MA in studio art, so at graduation there is a book where each grad describes their work/style/influence. I notice this about my cousin's, you could take the 6 or 7 paragraphs and rearrange them in any order, and it would make as much sense as the actual one.

Sometimes, with 1 or 2 posters here, I think you could take their posts and exchange them for other posts they did at other points in a thread and it would make little difference.

Anyone else notice?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
You have (once agains) misunderstood me. I never said it was a good thing or something I thought an administration should do. I said just the opposite. I just said it bothered me less than it bothers the Dems. Contrast that to the Dems cheering on Newsome for violating the law. Funny how you condemn Reps when they do it but cheer on the Dems when they do it.

Though perhaps mildly embarassing to find a club bearing your engraved name lying on the 3rd green, I'm sure that it's gratifying to find that, once recovered, the muscle memory is still there with the first practice swing, and the swing path hasn't changed.