Where's Maverick? Bush behind Kerry in Polls now?

[AAAintheBeltway]

RS,

Let me explain it to you. If you reversed all those good and bad responses, you would be describing the typical liberal. So what's the difference? One is caring and one isn't? That conclusion requires you to make a value judgment, which liberals are constantly telling us we shouldn't do.

Advocates on both sides of the issue press their case because of the symbolism attached to government approval.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

RS,

About Iran contra. The problem in characterizing it as a simple matter of whether or not laws were broken is that the laws themselves were of dubious constitutionality. The Boland amendment arguably interfered with the Executive Branch's constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs. Probably Reagan should have vetoed it on that basis, but he didn't.

I see a big difference between what was basically a separation of powers struggle between the Executive and the Legislative branches, in Iran contra, and Clinton's tawdry criminal conduct that was far worse than what Martha Stewart is being tried for right now. An unfortunate habit of criminalizing policy disputes arose in the 70's and 80's, and it was clearly the Dem's who pushed it. They were shut out of the Presidency for most of that time, and I suppose were willing to do whatever was necessary to exercise power. Of course the Republicans were motivated in part by payback in pursuing Clinton.

The Constitution actually encourages a fair amount of conflict between the various branches of government, and I think it is unfortunate that politicians can't explain that to the voters. Where I think it gets out of hand however, is when decent people like judicial cnadidates get caught up in these nasty fights. We've reached the point now that candidates are being filibustered soley because they are seen as pro-life or not enthusiastic enough about other hot button issues. To disguise the blatantly political nature of this opposition, the opponents resort to slanderous descriptions of typically very decent and prominent judges. Inevitably, the Republicans will respond in kind in the future.

 

[BloodTrader]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Inevitably, the Republicans will respond in kind in the future.

The Democrats are responding in kind. Don't you remember how the Republicans stymied judicial appointments during Clinton's administration? It's downright funny how they display this self-righteous anger about something they so recently did themselves. But politics is hypocrisy in action.

m

 

[Error 404]

Quote from Maverick74:

See, it's not that hard RS.

OK, thanks!!!

Mav, my man... I always suspected you of being a closet moderate. Yeah, I don' t care either about gay marriages.

How about two mothers? How about two men, one with a more "feminine and nurturing side"?

I bet my kid would have been more well adjusted going through puberty if I were gay and had a mate than going through the (even to me) unimaginable struggles he went through with me as a completely clueless single dad. But he made it.

As always, I could be wrong.

Peace,
RS

 

[Error 404]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

RS,

About Iran contra. The problem in characterizing it as a simple matter of whether or not laws were broken is that the laws themselves were of dubious constitutionality. (edit)

Probably Reagan should have vetoed it on that basis, but he didn't.

(edit again)

Clinton's tawdry criminal conduct that was far worse than what Martha Stewart is being tried for right now.

OK, good points (as always...AAA, you too could annihilate Bush in any debate on any subject taking either side of whatever issue is in contention).

constitutionality of laws? No, I disagree. The constitution expressly validates the passage of these laws in the exact manner they are constructed. And as you say, Reagan could have vetoed the bill, but he did not, so a case can be made that North, Poindexter, and company broke a law condoned by Reagan (whether or not he was aware of it, is another matter entirely...... you have a congress consisting mostly of lawyers, and a President who made movies with a monkey named Bonzo).

"Tawdry criminal conduct"....sort of rolls right off the tongue. But truly, was having sex in the Oval Office an impeachable offense? Is lying under oath (and certainly I do not find it any less distasteful than you do) an impeachable offense? No. The whole Clinton mess was a purely political debacle. Look up what LAWS need to be broken to bring about a conviction in an impeachment. There was never the slimmest chance of conviction based on law. So the impeachment was nothing more and nothing less than a very public humiliation of the guy. American politics are indeed very dirty. As I said in an earlier post this week, GWB is just the incumbent lying thieving scumbag. They all are. What normal person would want to be President??

Also, as an aside, the constitutionality of virtually any law can be challenged. Here I agree with ReardonMetal that he indeed should have the right to poison himself with any narcotic he wishes if he would be willing to waive any rights to public cost of medical problems if they should occur due to his use of these not very well controlled substances. And of course, his use should be restricted as far as possible endangerment to others.....just like alchohol.

Peace AAA, and keep the faith baby,
RS