Bug Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 That is contrary to what I read...I'll have to dig (If I realize I give a shit about this pointless argument). HAhahahahahaha If it proves me wrong I call it pointless. Bwah ha ha ha ha ha Quote
canyondweller Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 I think ALL lobbyists should be expelled from Washington. Do you belong to any environmental groups? PETA? WWF? Sierra Club? Are you a union employee? Do you have health insurance? How about auto insurance? If so, you have people in Washington speaking to legislators, on your behalf, in ways that may (or may not, to be honest) benefit you. I gladly give money to several groups in order that they use this money to convey the ideals of my like-minded colleagues to those in Congress. Quote
canyondweller Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 That is contrary to what I read...I'll have to dig (If I realize I give a shit about this pointless argument). HAhahahahahaha If it proves me wrong I call it pointless. Bwah ha ha ha ha ha 'Pointless' as in, going nowhere and swaying neither party involved, you floppy wang. Quote
olyclimber Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 they use this money to convey the ideals of my like-minded colleagues to those in Congress. well that sums up the process a little too broadly. what you mean is they buy hookers and blow for politicians in order to buy a seat at the table. Quote
olyclimber Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 what i wonder (and have done NO research on) is how much the founding fathers anticipated the effect of the lobbiest mechanism on the overall process. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 what i wonder (and have done NO research on) is how much the founding fathers anticipated the effect of the lobbiest mechanism on the overall process. or the role of gov't expanding to the ridiculuous levels we see today Quote
kevbone Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 I think ALL lobbyists should be expelled from Washington. Do you belong to any environmental groups? PETA? WWF? Sierra Club? Are you a union employee? Do you have health insurance? How about auto insurance? If so, you have people in Washington speaking to legislators, on your behalf, in ways that may (or may not, to be honest) benefit you. I gladly give money to several groups in order that they use this money to convey the ideals of my like-minded colleagues to those in Congress. That’s great that we have like-minded colleagues out there……but I am talking about the pay off the president will hand out to those who placed him in the White House. Huge corporations. Pharmaceutical companies. Enron….. If they were all expelled then the playing field would be more even. Cant please everyone……. I think it should be illegal for ANY PUBLIC OFFICIAL TO EXCEPT MONEY FROM ANYONE. Period. Especially the presidency. Quote
olyclimber Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 what i wonder (and have done NO research on) is how much the founding fathers anticipated the effect of the lobbiest mechanism on the overall process. or the role of gov't expanding to the ridiculuous levels we see today well i think that one was covered, actually...we have regular elections and an elect people who favor less if that is desired (throw the bums out etc). that people don't vote or are apathetic to the degree that they are today might be another story. the lobbyest branch of the government is clearly a powerful force that changes how our government was designed to work (i'm trying to state this in a way that doesn't judge whether that effect is good or bad). Quote
Fairweather Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 (edited) Fairweather, don't you believe in restrictions on freedom of the press too? Wouldn't you call for some "restriction" if the press was publishing the names of our secret agents for example, or broadcasting our military plans in advance, or urging that the president be assassinated? Graphic sex or promotion of drug use on the front page of the Seattle Times? The only difference you and I have is where we draw the lines. Apart from whether the road to 911 contained any substantial mis-information, and apart from that particular episode altogether, are you arguing that it is always OK for news media to lie or that there should be no consequences even if it is not OK? I believe the state-secrets issue is covered and addressed in the first amendment. (You didn't seem to have a problem with the LA Times revealing our program to spy on terrorist banking activities overseas.) As far as the media "lying", who do you propose to determine the validity of each and every media report, story, opinion? A government agency? Yea, right. I am still in shock that you support a ban on press freedom and have the gall to claim Bush has shredded the constitution. Every time I ask for specifics you come up lame and then refuse to reply. Porter, this isn't about a show of hands, or 'what people think'--it's about what is. There is no administration threat to the constitution at this time, but there is a threat held to it within the minds of many liberals as demonstrated here. Edited June 11, 2008 by Fairweather Quote
kevbone Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 I am still in shock that you support a ban on press freedom and have the gall to claim Bush has shredded the constitution. There is no administration threat to the constitution at this time Do you think the 800 prisoners being held without representation or being charged without anything is constitutional? Yes or no. Do you think water boarding is constitutional? Yes or no. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 Do you think the 800 prisoners being held without representation or being charged without anything is constitutional? Are they citizens of the United States? Yes or no? Quote
kevbone Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 Do you think the 800 prisoners being held without representation or being charged without anything is constitutional? Are they citizens of the United States? Yes or no? Are you lobbying that it is ok? I personally dont think it should matter. Lead by example. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 Do you think the 800 prisoners being held without representation or being charged without anything is constitutional? Are they citizens of the United States? Yes or no? Are you lobbying that it is ok? I personally dont think it should matter. Lead by example. You cited the constitution, which applies to the United States and its citizens. Quote
Fairweather Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 (edited) Do you think the 800 prisoners being held without representation or being charged without anything is constitutional? Yes or no. Yes. They are combatants and are not on US soil. Additionally, some are being tried as we speak. Do you have a problem with Kahled Shek Mohammed facing a military tribunal? Do you think water boarding is constitutional? Yes or no. I'm not sure torture in general is even addressed in the constitution. If it is prohibited, please show me specifics--maybe you'll convince me. I've read Kahled Shek Mohammed lasted 37 seconds before he gave up the names of co-conspirators in the 9/11 attacks. Edited June 11, 2008 by Fairweather Quote
olyclimber Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 Porter, this isn't about a show of hands, or 'what people think'--it's about what is. There is no administration threat to the constitution at this time, but there is a threat held to it within the minds of many liberals as demonstrated here. agree that if such charges are to be brought up, specifics should be supplied. thats why i was asking if anyone read the articles proposed by Kucinich, or to offer up specific breaches of the Constitution. i'm not taking about doing snakey things that skirt the law, but things that are explicitly against the law. Quote
Fairweather Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 I personally dont think it should matter. What you "think" or feel does not matter. This is about the constitution. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 I personally dont think it should matter. What you "think" or feel does not matter. This is about the constitution. it's all about "feelings" for a liberal rather than logic Quote
kevbone Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 Do you think the 800 prisoners being held without representation or being charged without anything is constitutional? Yes or no. Yes. They are combatants and are not on US soil. Additionally, some are being tried as we speak. Do you have a problem with Kahled Shek Mohammed facing a military tribunal? Do you think water boarding is constitutional? Yes or no. I'm not sure torture in general is even addressed in the constitution. If it is prohibited, please show me specifics--maybe you'll convince me. I've read Kahled Shek Mohammed lasted 37 seconds before he gave up the names of co-conspirators in the 9/11 attacks. Let me rephrase the question. Do you think it is ok for our government to hold ANYONE without representation? Do you personally feel it is ok for our government to water board ANYONE? I don’t believe torture works. I believe people crack and tell all just to stop the pain. “Treat people how you would want to be treated”. America has not learned this yet. Quote
kevbone Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 I personally dont think it should matter. What you "think" or feel does not matter. This is about the constitution. it's all about "feelings" for a liberal rather than logic And for republicans its all about who has the biggest house. Quote
Fairweather Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 (edited) Let me rephrase the question. No. You said Bush is shredding the constitution. Tell me where, or STFU. I don't give a fuck about what you feel or believe. Edited June 11, 2008 by Fairweather Quote
Hugh Conway Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 No. You said Bush is shredding the constitution. Tell me where. I don't give a fuck about what you feel or believe. Habeus Corpus? What's that? Quote
underworld Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 I personally dont think it should matter. What you "think" or feel does not matter. This is about the constitution. it's all about "feelings" for a liberal rather than logic And for republicans its all about who has the biggest house. exactly Quote
scott_harpell Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 No. You said Bush is shredding the constitution. Tell me where. I don't give a fuck about what you feel or believe. Habeus Corpus? What's that? Though it was ruled that Habeus Corpus does in fact apply regardless of citicenship, I would think that the Geneva Conventions' categorization of these men would suggest that there is a whole lot more that could be done to these men legally. Quote
canyondweller Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 they use this money to convey the ideals of my like-minded colleagues to those in Congress. well that sums up the process a little too broadly. what you mean is they buy hookers and blow for politicians in order to buy a seat at the table. NO, I don't. Don't put words in my mouth. That is what YOU believe happens. Lobbyists are an extension of our 1st Amendment-guaranteed rights to petition our government for redress of grievances. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.