Kerry

[cdbern]

Quote from Casey30:


What one would I chose. Hmmm. Someone who fights for the country yet also stands up for what believes, or someone who sends others off to die for what are found out to be LIES.

1998:
"to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. with Saddam there's one big difference. He has used them, not once but repeatedly, unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers but against civilians. Firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran, not only against a foreign enemy but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again" Bill Clinton

"Heavy as they are, the cost of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them" Bill Clinton

If Bush lied, Clinton lied as well. To condone one and assail the other in narrow minded hypocrisy.

The fact that WMD have yet been found should be cause for alarm. If you have a poisonous snake in a glass cage then return to find it missing, do you sigh relief that at least you don't have to look at any more, or would you be worried, wondering where it has slithered off to? Saddam had more than ample time to get at least some WMD's dispersed to locations that terrorists can lay their hands on. One could ask, well if they have them why haven't they used them. The answer is simple and obvious. We currently have a President who is willing and prepared to blast the hell out of them. Best to wait and see who prevails in November. Should this nation (God forbid) elect another pacifist, unwilling to protect this Nation, you can be sure WMD's will find their way onto American soil.

Some aspects of Kay's findings the Media failed to disclose.
1. "A clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW (chemical and biological weapons) research."
2. "A prison laboratory complex possibly used in human testing of BW agents, which Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN."
3."Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons."

Additionally Kay reported; "In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence- hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use - are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts."

Where there is smoke, there is fire.

 

[cdbern]

Quote from rowenwood:

you're wasting your time trying to inculcate logic into ART. He has proven himself to be utterly incapable of logic. Before you become as frustrated as myself and others have become with him, I thought I should warn you.


No matter how much evidence or how good your argument is, ART will never retreat from his myopic position. ART is stubborn.

The best thing I've learned from frequent comunications with ART is the phrase ad hominen. I'm going to begin using it in the next few days.

Point taken and I quite agree.

 

[ARogueTrader]

Apparently you don't understand what ad hominem.

When you discuss me, it is an ad hominem argument.

When you discuss the argument or what I have said on the basis of the reason of the argument independent of me, it is not ad hominem.

Any argument based on your own understanding will either be reasonable and supported by logic and fact...or it will be unreasonable and not supported by fact.

An argument based on your understanding without referencing books written on the subject is not ad hominem per say.

It is an argument based on your understanding and will either be true or not, supported by reason or not.

Logic doesn't require research or reading the opinions of others, logic requires adherence to the rules of logic.

Again, you can list any number of books to make your case for you, but this is akin to listing the opinions of people on religion as some type of fact or authority and is worthless if your own arguments can't stand the test of logic and reason.

We are discussing a document that is subject to interpretation, not a mathematical formula nor a scientific paper.

Your continued claim of being "head and shoulders" above anyone is pure hubris and ego, as what the constitution REALLY means is a subjective interpretation of the document at this point and time.

If it were not a document that has different meaning to different people, we would not have any disagreements on its nature or intent in specific cases.

You don't see much disagreement where there is objective fact.

All you get is opinions where there is a lack of objective fact. That is why at the highest level of interpretation they call them legal opinions.

Quote from cdbern:

ad hominem indeed. An argument based on my understanding without referencing books written on the subject would certainly be ad hominem. As such are your remarks.

Debates without emotion must therefore be based on logic. Logic requires research, research requires reading. You don't want to read, therefore you must want to baffle us with your BS because you certainly can't dazzle us with brilliance.

Come to class prepared. In addition to the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, read the following:
Democracy in America - Alexis de Tocoqueville
History of American People
Basic History of the United State (6 volumes)
Story of Civilization (11 volumes)
Tempting of America
Making of America
Development of American Nationality
Books on the following;
Thomas Jefferson
John Adams
George Washington
Abe Lincoln
Winston Churchill

Unless you are willing to do the research, you least of all are equipped to tell anyone what the Constitution REALLY means.

I'm not an expert on the Constitution, but still head and shoulders over you.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

The point cd is making, very well I might add, is that interpreting the Constitution should not be a subjective exercise. What is the point of even having a Constitution that can mean vastly different things, depending on who is doing the interpeting? You might as well just have a commission of elders, carefully balanced by race,gender and sexual orientation of course, to decide difficult issues.

I think it's hard for any rational person to argue that the courts have not gone far off course and greatly exceeded their appropriate limits. ART and his crowd would be making the same argument except for the fact that they approve of the policy results. When they didn't, as in the 2000 election fiasco, they were quick to excoriate the Court for violating "States' Rights." Not sure if the irony of liberals making that argument ina voting rights case was lost on them or not.

The ultimate wisdom of the Founders is revealed in the fact that the system of checks and balances they adopted does provide the other branches with weapons to fight back against judicial tyranny. Congress can of course impeach judges, and that might be a good place to begin. I can suggest a couple of Republican-appointed Supreme Court judges that need to go, one for possible senility--Sandra Day O'Connor, and one for being a total dumbass--David Souter.

Congress also has the ability to restrict or limit the Court's jurisdiction and the lower federal courts are not even required to exist. For example, Congress could just eliminate the troublesome Ninth Circuit. This power is controversial among legal scholars. For example, could Congress take away the right to rule on the Bill of Rights? The Court might very well rule such a restriction to be unconstitutional, thereby provoking a fullblown constitutional crisis. Congress could of course impeach the objecting judges and ultimately checkmate the Court.

The Executive Branch also has importnaat powers that have seldom been used. Most importantly, it can refuse to enforce the Court's decision. Let's say the Court ruled that the Guantanamo detentions were unconstitutional and orederd the detainees freed. There would be little the Court could do if the administration ignored their decision. If they held the Presidnet incontempt and tried to fine him, they could impose such a penalty only with the Executive Branch's cooperation. For this reason, it is generally recognized that the courts should tread lightly in areas that are tangential to their own repsonsibilities but central to another branch's.

The basic constitutional scheme is that any two branches can gang up on the other and prevail. Both congress and the executive have generally respected the Court and not tried to undermine it, although there have been exceptions, see FDR. The risk the Court runs by continuing to stray outside its proper role is that the voters will eventually be fed up and demand action from the democratically elected branches. Once these branches have had a taste of interfering in judicial matters, it might become tempting for them to make a habit of such interference.

 

[cdbern]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

The point cd is making, very well I might add, is that interpreting the Constitution should not be a subjective exercise. What is the point of even having a Constitution that can mean vastly different things, depending on who is doing the interpeting? You might as well just have a commission of elders, carefully balanced by race,gender and sexual orientation of course, to decide difficult issues.

I think it's hard for any rational person to argue that the courts have not gone far off course and greatly exceeded their appropriate limits. ART and his crowd would be making the same argument except for the fact that they approve of the policy results. When they didn't, as in the 2000 election fiasco, they were quick to excoriate the Court for violating "States' Rights." Not sure if the irony of liberals making that argument ina voting rights case was lost on them or not.

The ultimate wisdom of the Founders is revealed in the fact that the system of checks and balances they adopted does provide the other branches with weapons to fight back against judicial tyranny. Congress can of course impeach judges, and that might be a good place to begin. I can suggest a couple of Republican-appointed Supreme Court judges that need to go, one for possible senility--Sandra Day O'Connor, and one for being a total dumbass--David Souter.

Congress also has the ability to restrict or limit the Court's jurisdiction and the lower federal courts are not even required to exist. For example, Congress could just eliminate the troublesome Ninth Circuit. This power is controversial among legal scholars. For example, could Congress take away the right to rule on the Bill of Rights? The Court might very well rule such a restriction to be unconstitutional, thereby provoking a fullblown constitutional crisis. Congress could of course impeach the objecting judges and ultimately checkmate the Court.

The Executive Branch also has importnaat powers that have seldom been used. Most importantly, it can refuse to enforce the Court's decision. Let's say the Court ruled that the Guantanamo detentions were unconstitutional and orederd the detainees freed. There would be little the Court could do if the administration ignored their decision. If they held the Presidnet incontempt and tried to fine him, they could impose such a penalty only with the Executive Branch's cooperation. For this reason, it is generally recognized that the courts should tread lightly in areas that are tangential to their own repsonsibilities but central to another branch's.

The basic constitutional scheme is that any two branches can gang up on the other and prevail. Both congress and the executive have generally respected the Court and not tried to undermine it, although there have been exceptions, see FDR. The risk the Court runs by continuing to stray outside its proper role is that the voters will eventually be fed up and demand action from the democratically elected branches. Once these branches have had a taste of interfering in judicial matters, it might become tempting for them to make a habit of such interference.

Great post. You realize ART is likely to come back with his standard ad hominem.

Many years ago (25 to be exact) at the conclusion of a conversation it was pointed out to me that since I had not actually experienced that which we were talking about, I simply didn't know what the hell I was talking about. Over the years that has served to remind me to base my opinions on experience or research. Any other comments should be in the form of a question for the purpose of gaining further knowledge on which to form an opinion.

Having said that, I pretty much conclude that ART doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. He apparently had no knowledge of Black's Law Dictionary, it appears he hasn't read the words of the Framers of the Constitution in the Federalists or Anti-Federalists Papers, and it appears he has no inclination to enhance his knowledge by further reading.

For that reason, I have decided that further response to his posts would be an exercise in futility, therefore a complete waste of time.

 

[ARogueTrader]

Since when have human interpretations of the words of human beings not been subjective?

What absolute objective criteria are you working from with this declaration of yours?

This is not mathematics, this is an agreement among men based on their philosophy and value systems.

Our Constitution is a form of government based on a particular philosophy of how a society should function. There are other societies that function with different forms of government.

As you mention, there are ways to remove judges, presidents, senators, etc. There are ways to change laws. It is built into the system to have change as long as it is within the boundaries of the system.

You don't like what the judges are doing? Well, do something about it.

This nonsense that socialism or someone else's concept of morality is unconstitutional is unfounded. You might make an argument that the process of taxation is unconstitutional, but how the money is spent once it is in the hands of the government is not a constitutional issue per say.

If we think spending money on defense is for the common welfare, we do so.

If we think spending the same money on health care instead of defense, we do so.

Nothing in the constitutions says how the money should be spent exactly, the people decide what is in the common good, and that, like fashion will change from time to time.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

The point cd is making, very well I might add, is that interpreting the Constitution should not be a subjective exercise. What is the point of even having a Constitution that can mean vastly different things, depending on who is doing the interpeting? You might as well just have a commission of elders, carefully balanced by race,gender and sexual orientation of course, to decide difficult issues.

I think it's hard for any rational person to argue that the courts have not gone far off course and greatly exceeded their appropriate limits. ART and his crowd would be making the same argument except for the fact that they approve of the policy results. When they didn't, as in the 2000 election fiasco, they were quick to excoriate the Court for violating "States' Rights." Not sure if the irony of liberals making that argument ina voting rights case was lost on them or not.

The ultimate wisdom of the Founders is revealed in the fact that the system of checks and balances they adopted does provide the other branches with weapons to fight back against judicial tyranny. Congress can of course impeach judges, and that might be a good place to begin. I can suggest a couple of Republican-appointed Supreme Court judges that need to go, one for possible senility--Sandra Day O'Connor, and one for being a total dumbass--David Souter.

Congress also has the ability to restrict or limit the Court's jurisdiction and the lower federal courts are not even required to exist. For example, Congress could just eliminate the troublesome Ninth Circuit. This power is controversial among legal scholars. For example, could Congress take away the right to rule on the Bill of Rights? The Court might very well rule such a restriction to be unconstitutional, thereby provoking a fullblown constitutional crisis. Congress could of course impeach the objecting judges and ultimately checkmate the Court.

The Executive Branch also has importnaat powers that have seldom been used. Most importantly, it can refuse to enforce the Court's decision. Let's say the Court ruled that the Guantanamo detentions were unconstitutional and orederd the detainees freed. There would be little the Court could do if the administration ignored their decision. If they held the Presidnet incontempt and tried to fine him, they could impose such a penalty only with the Executive Branch's cooperation. For this reason, it is generally recognized that the courts should tread lightly in areas that are tangential to their own repsonsibilities but central to another branch's.

The basic constitutional scheme is that any two branches can gang up on the other and prevail. Both congress and the executive have generally respected the Court and not tried to undermine it, although there have been exceptions, see FDR. The risk the Court runs by continuing to stray outside its proper role is that the voters will eventually be fed up and demand action from the democratically elected branches. Once these branches have had a taste of interfering in judicial matters, it might become tempting for them to make a habit of such interference.

 

[BloodTrader]

"Weapons of Mass Corruption"
--------------------------------------------

No bad idea left behind
By Molly Ivins
Creators Syndicate

AUSTIN - With so many delights on our political plate, it's hard to
know where to begin. Take that knee-slapping joke by Education
Secretary Rod Paige: He called our largest teachers' union "a
terrorist organization." In fun, of course. Gosh darn, HEE-HAW! All
over the nation, teachers are just chuckling away.

Paige is upset with the National Education Association because it
is lobbying in Washington to give states more flexibility and more
money in meeting the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act.

If that makes the NEA a terrorist organization, what does it make
the Utah Legislature, where its Republican-controlled House of
Representatives voted 64-8 not to comply with any provisions of the
law not fully financed by the federal government? And how are we to
categorize the Virginia House of Delegates, which voted 98-1 to ask
Congress to exempt Virginia from the law?

Ten other states have passed or are considering similar "terrorist"
legislation. They include die-hard Republican conservatives
rebelling because the law is a monstrous unfunded mandate -- the
very thing that Republicans used to complain about.

President Bush said in his campaign opener to the Governors
Association: "I know in my heart of hearts it's the absolute right
role for the federal government -- to provide money, but insist
upon results. … And [if the schools don't pass], there will be
special help to make sure they do."

Except, as we find again and again with this administration, that's
a bait-and-switch con job. For 2005, the administration has
requested $9.4 billion less for No Child Left Behind than the bill
supposedly ensures. Title I, the program to help poor kids, is
underfunded by $7.2 billion, leaving nearly 5 million kids without
academic help.

In all, Bush has underfunded the No Child bill by a total of $27
billion since he signed it with such fanfare.

Here's a lovely little item: The Bush campaign has a new category
of top fund-raisers. The big deal used to be the "Pioneers," people
who had raised $100,000 for Bush.

There are already 245 of them, but they're mere pikers. Now come
"Rangers," folks who have raised $200,000 -- 156 in this more
exclusive category.

The new "Mavericks" have to raise only $50,000, but they also have
to be under 40 to qualify for this group. Youth power! And they'll
all grow up to be Rangers!

The Public Campaign Action Fund helpfully sponsored a contest to
give better names to the Bush fund-raisers. The finalists are:
"Cash Cowboys," "Funding Fathers," "Profiteers," "Robber Barons"
and "Weapons of Mass Corruption."

FYI: One of the Pioneers is Stephen Burke, executive vice president
of Comcast, the outfit that plans to buy Disney/ABC, thus creating
the world's largest media conglomerate. Bigger than Rupert
Murdoch's Fox. Gee, I wonder if they could possibly want something
from the Not-Very-Anti-Trust Division of the Justice Department.

My personal favorite among Bush's recent moves is the proposal in
his economic report to Congress to reclassify fast-food
restaurants, moving them from the service sector to
"manufacturing." This is a concept. In case you're puzzled over why
your burger-flippers should now be classified with autoworkers,
it's so when the administration has to report the statistics on how
many manufacturing jobs we've lost, they won't look so bad.

This administration is very clever about redefining its problems.
For example, when the figures indicated that the Bushies had
lopsidedly benefited huge corporations as
compared to small business, they just changed the definition of
"small business" to include some of the biggest corporations in the
country.

So here we are in the middle of an outsourcing, offshoring,
downsizing economy, full of temps and part-timers. The CEOs have
increased their own salaries by tens of millions of dollars while
cutting benefits for the workers. Burger-flippers aside, we are
hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs in favor of Wal-Mart jobs -- low
pay and stingy or no benefits.

So what is our only president doing about it? He's come out for a
constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage.

On this issue, I'm taking the Dick Cheney position: Cheney doesn't
think we need any federal laws on gay civil unions. "Different
states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's
appropriate," said our only veep. Right, Dick.

Molly Ivins writes for Creators Syndicate. 5777 W. Century Blvd.,
Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045

 

[Turok]

AAA:
>The point cd is making, very well I might add,
>is that interpreting the Constitution should not
>be a subjective exercise. What is the point of even
>having a Constitution that can mean vastly different
>things, depending on who is doing the interpreting?

ART:
>Since when have human interpretations of the words
>of human beings not been subjective?

ART and I could hardly be further apart on most things, but I don't see how in the hell you can even make a dent in his simple argument here.

If the constitution and our other laws were not interpretive, there would be no need for the process of argument in our courts. It is *impossible* to word a statement so clearly that two reasonable people can't be found to interpret it differently (just try something as simple as "the sun will rise tomorrow").

The framers created a document. Also devised was a method of the continuous interpretation and application of this document to our everyday lives. When a judge interprets as he sees fit - including those of the ninth circuit (left) and Judge Moore(right), the system is working as designed. In either case, the wheels of justice continue to churn until a balance is achieved (and balance is *defined* by what is achieved in the end).

JB

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from Turok:

AAA:
>The point cd is making, very well I might add,
>is that interpreting the Constitution should not
>be a subjective exercise. What is the point of even
>having a Constitution that can mean vastly different
>things, depending on who is doing the interpreting?

ART:
>Since when have human interpretations of the words
>of human beings not been subjective?

ART and I could hardly be further apart on most things, but I don't see how in the hell you can even make a dent in his simple argument here.

If the constitution and our other laws were not interpretive, there would be no need for the process of argument in our courts. It is *impossible* to word a statement so clearly that two reasonable people can't be found to interpret it differently (just try something as simple as "the sun will rise tomorrow").

The framers created a document. Also devised was a method of the continuous interpretation and application of this document to our everyday lives. When a judge interprets as he sees fit - including those of the ninth circuit (left) and Judge Moore(right), the system is working as designed. In either case, the wheels of justice continue to churn until a balance is achieved (and balance is *defined* by what is achieved in the end).

JB

I think his point is nonsense, nothing personal ART. The Constitution is written in pretty clear terms. The problem comes when activists start trying to read all sorts of made-up "rights" into it. Of course, from time to time there will be legitimate disputes over new technologies, ie does the First Amendment apply to TV. That is far different from every judge having his own personal Constitution that includes stuff no one else can find in it, like a right to an abortion or homo sex.

 

[ARogueTrader]

As an exercise, post something you think is clear, and I might show you that it is subject to interpretation.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I think his point is nonsense, nothing personal ART. The Constitution is written in pretty clear terms. The problem comes when activists start trying to read all sorts of made-up "rights" into it. Of course, from time to time there will be legitimate disputes over new technologies, ie does the First Amendment apply to TV. That is far different from every judge having his own personal Constitution that includes stuff no one else can find in it, like a right to an abortion or homo sex.