come on "constructionists"

[j2k4]

So you would be happy for your calls to be monitored without warrant?...For this exercise let's assume that Clinton is in office while this is happening.

Ooops.

I think this belongs to you, vid.

Clocker, are you paying attention?

Hey, whatever.

The foaming-mouth Dems will dissect the issue within an inch of it's life and beyond-nothing will come of it; not because they can't carry the ball, not because the major media won't bore us to tears with repetitive detail, but because there is no illegality involved, and no innocent parties were injured.

I am not necessarily defending Bush's actions, just pointing out political reality-the Dems will push the rhetoric for show, but if they push too hard, it'll come back to bite them on the ass, 'cuz they've done it too-not for reasons of national security, but to forward their political agenda.

As I've alluded earlier, there is a rather fevered legal battle being fought just now as to whether or not certain heretofore-hidden political dirt ought to see the light of day; stay tuned, because of it does, there will be eggs, dirt, and actual shit flying, and it'll be sticking to people you guys like...

[vidcc]

[QUOTE=j2k4]

So you would be happy for your calls to be monitored without warrant?...For this exercise let's assume that Clinton is in office while this is happening.

Ooops.

I think this belongs to you, vid.

Clocker, are you paying attention?

yes it is my quote, but it was to get your view as to if you would be happy if clinton tapped your line. we were simply stating that because someone else did something doesn't make it right, and to use clinton to excuse bush is simply not justification.

I will say it for the record. If this was clinton i would be just as miffed.

Hey, whatever.

The foaming-mouth Dems will dissect the issue within an inch of it's life and beyond-nothing will come of it; not because they can't carry the ball, not because the major media won't bore us to tears with repetitive detail, but because there is no illegality involved, and no innocent parties were injured.

this remains to be seen. It does however answer my original question, Constructionists (and i believe you are one, correct me if i am wrong) are not really that bothered about the constitution unless it suits their purpose. I am not saying this as a personal attack Kev. but it really is coming across this way. If there is a law that Bush can show does allow this then that law appears to be unconstitutional. I say a law that allows, in time of war he has temporary overruling powers but this seems to be stretching it a tad.

I believe that Bush escaping would have more to do with the numbers of seats held by the republicans at the moment than actual justice.

I am not necessarily defending Bush's actions, just pointing out political reality-the Dems will push the rhetoric for show, but if they push too hard, it'll come back to bite them on the ass, 'cuz they've done it too-not for reasons of national security, but to forward their political agenda.

Ok my own bit of "this is getting old" but didn't the republicans do the same over a blow job?

As I've alluded earlier, there is a rather fevered legal battle being fought just now as to whether or not certain heretofore-hidden political dirt ought to see the light of day; stay tuned, because of it does, there will be eggs, dirt, and actual shit flying, and it'll be sticking to people you guys like...

You think Abraimtryingtogetoff is only going to tell on Democrats? I don't care who it is.

Or are you talking about the history of clintons impeachment process?

[j2k4]

There you go fucking things up with the quote function again.

Just a few posts in and you've already made a hash of the thread.

I'll deal with you later, young man.

[clocker]

Clocker, are you paying attention?


The foaming-mouth Dems will dissect the issue within an inch of it's life ...

Yeah, I was.
Then you decided that this "non-issue" was only of interest to "foaming-mouth Dems" and I lost interest.

Fortunately, I believe that the midterm elections and the 2008 Presidential election will sweep you "calm, rational, yet consistently wrong" Republicans from power so I'm just biding my time.

Then I can define what is an issue and what is not.

[vidcc]

There you go fucking things up with the quote function again.

Not sure what you mean



besides you put so much into your limbaugh scripted rant i felt i had to answer it all.

btw. There are some principled conservatives and right wingers foaming at this.

Just a few posts in and you've already made a hash of the thread.

Ah this means i have touched on a sore point.

I'll deal with you later,

Got to read coulter or rush to find out how you feel about the subject ?

young man.

does me being ( i believe only a couple of years) younger make you that angry?


Besides Kev, the reason i used the title i did is because i honestly feel that this goes against the constitution. I have been searching and Phylis is silent on this..... I can't understand why....Phylis will take on GW..... unless it is the case that the constitution is only to be used when it's convienient.
Look at the foaming we got on the right when miers was nominated "because she is not a constitutional lawyer"

[j2k4]

I find your over-use of the split quote distracting and deflective, as it makes the proper 2-3 minute response into a 15-minute chore, and I am not inclined to invest that amount of time just now.

Clinton has made another unfortunate appearance in this thread due to your mention; it is not my duty to observe your flexo-bendy brand of contextual convenience, vid.

As to the actual issue, you can bet that Schumer, Pelosi and Reid et.al., will institute a proper investigation, and if Bush's "over-step" warrants impeachment, you'll get your wish, won't you?

I myself don't see what the problem is, given the current situation vis a vis terrorism, and no matter who is President.

You might begin your debate by determining just what is required to validate a marginally exceptional exercise of war-time executive power before delving into your usual bloviations.

In the meantime, leave the investigation to the liberal Democrats-they can handle it just fine.

Don't get your panties in a bunch.

[vidcc]

so that's your answer then Rush.

Deflect from the debate by trying to make it sound as if there was a "liberal witch hunt" going on. The 4th is of little importance to you it appears

As to the actual issue, you can bet that Schumer, Pelosi and Reid et.al., will institute a proper investigation, and if Bush's "over-step" warrants impeachment, you'll get your wish, won't you?

I was unaware that Arlen specter, Dick Lugar, Lindsey Graham et al were "foaming democrats" as they are calling for the investigations as much as any democrat. try to spin it into a partisan issue if you wish, but it would be just that....spin.

[3RA1N1AC]

What's a "constructionist".

I looked it up.

"A person who construes a legal text or document in a specified way: a strict constructionist."

I thought everyone did that.

Do you chaps have a more specific meaning for it in the USA.

in the usa, as far as the constitution is concerned, a constructionist supposedly reads the constitution according to the literal definition of every word, without further interpretation or speculation about things not explicitly mentioned in the text. a synonym might be "literalist." for example, to follow the logic of constructionism, one might say u.s. congress is entitled to pass laws to ban manual letter-writing, painting, sculpture, smiling, frowning, singing, computerized communication, and sign-language because (although they are forms of personal expression) those methods of expression are neither press nor speech. furthermore, one might say the state & local governments are allowed to ban press and speech because those governments are not the u.s. congress.

personally i reckon that someone described (or self-described) as a constructionist is usually a conservative and the claim of literalism, or however constructionists care to describe this non-interpretationism, is false. a mere pretense for ascribing to their interpretations a higher degree of faithfulness than they ascribe to other interpretations. but some might disagree.

also: i think some of the people who call themselves constructionists, when they describe their beliefs, could be more properly called "originalists." people who believe that the text should be interpreted according to the definitions & intentions (as much as can be detected) that the authors had in mind at the time of the constitution's writing... without necessarily forbidding elaboration/extension of the ideas contained therein. almost like the distinction between puritan and orthodox christianities -- is puritanism truly more literal than orthodoxy, and so forth.

[vidcc]

personally i reckon that someone described (or self-described) as a constructionist is usually a conservative and the claim of literalism, or however constructionists care to describe this non-interpretationism, is false. a mere pretense for ascribing to their interpretations a higher degree of faithfulness than they ascribe to other interpretations. but some might disagree.

spot on

[JPaul]

What's a "constructionist".

I looked it up.

"A person who construes a legal text or document in a specified way: a strict constructionist."

I thought everyone did that.

Do you chaps have a more specific meaning for it in the USA.

in the usa, as far as the constitution is concerned, a constructionist supposedly reads the constitution according to the literal definition of every word, without further interpretation or speculation about things not explicitly mentioned in the text. a synonym might be "literalist." for example, to follow the logic of constructionism, one might say u.s. congress is entitled to pass laws to ban manual letter-writing, painting, sculpture, smiling, frowning, singing, computerized communication, and sign-language because (although they are forms of personal expression) those methods of expression are neither press nor speech. furthermore, one might say the state & local governments are allowed to ban press and speech because those governments are not the u.s. congress.

personally i reckon that someone described (or self-described) as a constructionist is usually a conservative and the claim of literalism, or however constructionists care to describe this non-interpretationism, is false. a mere pretense for ascribing to their interpretations a higher degree of faithfulness than they ascribe to other interpretations. but some might disagree.

also: i think some of the people who call themselves constructionists, when they describe their beliefs, could be more properly called "originalists." people who believe that the text should be interpreted according to the definitions & intentions (as much as can be detected) that the authors had in mind at the time of the constitution's writing... without necessarily forbidding elaboration/extension of the ideas contained therein. almost like the distinction between puritan and orthodox christianities -- is puritanism truly more literal than orthodoxy, and so forth.

Thanks for that, I appreciate the obvious effort you put in. It's very much appreciated.