Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Romney "Attack" Ad from the Log Cabin Republicans

This is great - an ad that praises Romney, using his own words, for his liberalism. And Romney's folks call it an attack ad. Because it praises him for things he's actually said.

Is there a name for this logic, too?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Romney "Attack" Ad from the Log Cabin Republicans

This is great - an ad that praises Romney, using his own words, for his liberalism. And Romney's folks call it an attack ad. Because it praises him for things he's actually said.

Is there a name for this logic, too?

Ty would say it's Orwellian.

[LessinSF]

Not Really - Craig cannot withdraw plea - http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/...est/index.html

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
It's interesting that you start with your conclusion, and then are surprised when the evidence doesn't fit it, and assume something is amiss.

Is there a name for this kind of logic?

Are you saying the exception proves the rule?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty would say it's Orwellian.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Apropos of the front-page story in the NYT today about, inter alia, how Bush has trashed OLC by turning it into an advocate for the his (or the vice president's) policies:

• In his Con Law classes Kmiec (who also mentions the story in his excellent if expensive "The Attorney General's Lawyer") liked to relay this story: Ronald Regan dearly wanted a line-item veto. It was a huge priority for him, so he tasked OLC with determining whether a line-item veto was constitutional. After thorough research, OLC concluded that it was not. Thus, Kmiec had the ill fortune of going to the Oval Office to report the news.
  
  Ronald Regan (Kmiec does a great impersonation) disappointedly replied: "Well, you did the best you could."
  
  Could you imagine today's OLC telling Bush no? Could you imagine Bush, like Regan, saying, "Well, if that's what the Constitution requires, then so be it."
  
  As a post script: Clinton got his line-item veto; and the Court struck it down. Whether OLC, ala Yoo/Bybee, gave Clinton the advice he wanted, or whether he ignored OLC is something I can't answer - though I do think Marty Lederman was in OLC during those years. Maybe he knows?

link

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Not Really - Craig cannot withdraw plea - http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/...est/index.html

And in another shocker, he will now stay in office, but the Republicans won't sing with him any more, and not just because Satan called Ashcroft home.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by LessinSF
And in another shocker, he will now stay in office, but the Republicans won't sing with him any more, and not just because Satan called Ashcroft home.

Craig / Vitter in '08!

I hear Tom DeLay and Mark Foley are already on board.

On the serious side, though, do all you Rs really think this one is that serious? I mean, he's just a guy who walks tall and sits with a wide stance - kind of like the Marlboro Man.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Craig / Vitter in '08!

I hear Tom DeLay and Mark Foley are already on board.

prediction: Craig will not get the party's support for his next primary run! unless, wild card: what if the R's try to get the leather boy vote by focusing on the support of torture?

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by LessinSF
And in another shocker, he will now stay in office, but the Republicans won't sing with him any more, and not just because Satan called Ashcroft home.

Will he getting a standing ovation, like the page-pederast Gerry Studds?

[Gattigap]

Fuck you, Alberto.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Fuck you, Alberto.

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.

[SlaveNoMore]

LessinSF
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.

Please turn in your Fascist Card this weekend, LessinMengele.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Please turn in your Fascist Card this weekend, LessinMengele.

If we can't have my (solely) correct opinion, all others' suck.

[Hank Chinaski]

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.

My problem with this is that nowhere is it shown what we have done in the past when we were subject to real threats. when you say "maintain the moral highground" you mean don't do things we haven't done in the past. I'm not so sure we haven't done them in the past* and just didn't publicize them in the newspaper.

*excluding the halycon days for al queda of 1992-2000.