Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Dieval · Jan 16, 2005, 06:26 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Lou Minotti

You're simply softpeddling now....

What I did was go from no opionion and no information about this action to being able to see the logic in their decision to use someone like the ex-head of the KGB, but not necessarily agreeing with it.

Lou Minotti · Jan 16, 2005, 06:32 pm

You are sitting on the fence. Nothing more....

Dieval · Jan 16, 2005, 07:40 pm

The last few posts(& pages) have been nothing constructive for this thread.. Feel free to continue, but I'm done until something new and interesting occurrs..

Lou Minotti · Jan 16, 2005, 07:49 pm

Agreed. So does anyone else think hiring ex KGB is a good thing? What's next, hiring Manuel Noriega as a CIA agent?The Northern Alliance to fight the Taliban?

Milton Bradley · Jan 17, 2005, 12:33 am

I guess what I find the most amusing about the whole situation is the fact that Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, and pretty much everybody in the modern political arena are doing far more damage than this one appointment could ever do. After all, these are the people who swore an oath to defend the constitution, yet work to dismantle it at every turn. These are the people who dole out your money to anybody that wants it, except you. These are the people letting corporations ruin your life, liberty, and happiness. These are the guys exporting your childrens jobs before the have a chance to get hired. These are the guys that let big business LILO Lease Billions of dollars out of your economy, and devalue your money with the Federal Reserve.

Why rebel against this appointment just because he wears a recocnizable label? The guy appointing him is a far bigger criminal, and responsible for far mor damage to you personally.

I guess its just an attempt to get a Republican, or Democrat label attached to his name, then just like all the rest of the Republicans, and Democrats, most Americans won't reconize him as an enemy.

Dieval · Jan 17, 2005, 04:12 am

Quote:

Quote by: Milton Bradley

I guess what I find the most amusing about the whole situation is the fact that Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, and pretty much everybody in the modern political arena are doing far more damage than this one appointment could ever do. After all, these are the people who swore an oath to defend the constitution, yet work to dismantle it at every turn. These are the people who dole out your money to anybody that wants it, except you. These are the people letting corporations ruin your life, liberty, and happiness. These are the guys exporting your childrens jobs before the have a chance to get hired. These are the guys that let big business LILO Lease Billions of dollars out of your economy, and devalue your money with the Federal Reserve.

Why rebel against this appointment just because he wears a recocnizable label? The guy appointing him is a far bigger criminal, and responsible for far mor damage to you personally.

I guess its just an attempt to get a Republican, or Democrat label attached to his name, then just like all the rest of the Republicans, and Democrats, most Americans won't reconize him as an enemy.

It's funny how you talk about our leaders supposedly dismantling the Constitution, yet you are guilty of that yourself. "The guy appointing him is a far bigger criminal" ("The guy" is referring to the President, I take it?) You just flushed the constitution down the toilet by calling someone a criminal, saying he is guilty of a crime, yet he has never been proven guilty in a court of law.....remember the whole Innocent until proven guilty thing?

Milton Bradley · Jan 17, 2005, 03:12 pm

It does not take a genious to understand that Bush is indeed in violation of the constitution.

Sugar caot it any way you like, but at the end of any fair trial, the man would be found guilty of not honoring his oath to uphold, and defend the constitution from ALL enemies, foreign, and domestic.

Tell me smart guy, is an Executive Order (which Bush has issued many) allowable under the constitution?

How about not repealing other unconstitutional laws made by his his predecessors?

The Dunedan · Jan 17, 2005, 03:15 pm

Dieval,
"Innocent until proven guilty" applies only in a Court Of Law, not in the "court of public opinion." Considering how your Republicrat bretheren were raising Hell about Billy-Jeff being "guilty as sin" when he was never found guilty of anything, you have zero room to point fingers on this.
Clinton was guilty.
So is Bush.
Period.

Dieval · Jan 17, 2005, 03:45 pm

Is it not trampling on the Constitution by calling someone guilty who has not been proven guilty in a court of law? Talking about EO's and Clinton is just sidestepping the issue of you trying to trample the Constitution...

The Dunedan · Jan 17, 2005, 03:49 pm

Oh, this is RICH.
The Constitution applies to the GOVERNMENT, not to the Citizens. The BoR is a list of limitations placed on the GOVERNMENT, not the Citizens. "Innocent until Proven Guilty" is a limitation placed upon a COURT OF LAW, NOT THE CITIZENS.
Yes I'm yelling, because you are being deliberately obtuse, disingenious, and dishonest. A private CITIZEN cannot "trample on the Constitution;" only a Gov't Official/employee can do that, for the simple reason than the BoR is does not limit Citizens, it limits the GOVERNMENT.

Dieval · Jan 17, 2005, 07:22 pm

I never said it didn't apply to citizens...but he is basically trying to apply guilt to someone not proven guilty, thus overriding the constitution...does he have any power to legally do that? Of course not...but is he not doing that by claiming people are guilty of crimes when they haven't been found guilty yet, let alone arrested..?

Jan 16, 2005, 07:40 pm	#123 (permalink) (top)
Dieval Right of Center Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 2,969	The last few posts(& pages) have been nothing constructive for this thread.. Feel free to continue, but I'm done until something new and interesting occurrs.. "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." -- Winston Churchill

Jan 17, 2005, 03:45 pm	#129 (permalink) (top)
Dieval Right of Center Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 2,969	Is it not trampling on the Constitution by calling someone guilty who has not been proven guilty in a court of law? Talking about EO's and Clinton is just sidestepping the issue of you trying to trample the Constitution... "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." -- Winston Churchill

Jan 17, 2005, 07:22 pm	#131 (permalink) (top)
Dieval Right of Center Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 2,969	I never said it didn't apply to citizens...but he is basically trying to apply guilt to someone not proven guilty, thus overriding the constitution...does he have any power to legally do that? Of course not...but is he not doing that by claiming people are guilty of crimes when they haven't been found guilty yet, let alone arrested..? "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." -- Winston Churchill

Jan 16, 2005, 06:32 pm	#122 (permalink) (top)
Lou Minotti BANNED (Multiple usernames after another ban) Posts: 1,337	You are sitting on the fence. Nothing more....

Jan 16, 2005, 07:49 pm	#124 (permalink) (top)
Lou Minotti BANNED (Multiple usernames after another ban) Posts: 1,337	Agreed. So does anyone else think hiring ex KGB is a good thing? What's next, hiring Manuel Noriega as a CIA agent?The Northern Alliance to fight the Taliban?

Jan 17, 2005, 12:33 am	#125 (permalink) (top)
Milton Bradley BANNED Location: Ohio Province, Rep. of Comerica Posts: 7,320	I guess what I find the most amusing about the whole situation is the fact that Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, and pretty much everybody in the modern political arena are doing far more damage than this one appointment could ever do. After all, these are the people who swore an oath to defend the constitution, yet work to dismantle it at every turn. These are the people who dole out your money to anybody that wants it, except you. These are the people letting corporations ruin your life, liberty, and happiness. These are the guys exporting your childrens jobs before the have a chance to get hired. These are the guys that let big business LILO Lease Billions of dollars out of your economy, and devalue your money with the Federal Reserve. Why rebel against this appointment just because he wears a recocnizable label? The guy appointing him is a far bigger criminal, and responsible for far mor damage to you personally. I guess its just an attempt to get a Republican, or Democrat label attached to his name, then just like all the rest of the Republicans, and Democrats, most Americans won't reconize him as an enemy.

Jan 17, 2005, 03:12 pm	#127 (permalink) (top)
Milton Bradley BANNED Location: Ohio Province, Rep. of Comerica Posts: 7,320	It does not take a genious to understand that Bush is indeed in violation of the constitution. Sugar caot it any way you like, but at the end of any fair trial, the man would be found guilty of not honoring his oath to uphold, and defend the constitution from ALL enemies, foreign, and domestic. Tell me smart guy, is an Executive Order (which Bush has issued many) allowable under the constitution? How about not repealing other unconstitutional laws made by his his predecessors?

Jan 17, 2005, 03:15 pm	#128 (permalink) (top)
The Dunedan Hot Lava Posts: 925	Dieval, "Innocent until proven guilty" applies only in a Court Of Law, not in the "court of public opinion." Considering how your Republicrat bretheren were raising Hell about Billy-Jeff being "guilty as sin" when he was never found guilty of anything, you have zero room to point fingers on this. Clinton was guilty. So is Bush. Period.

Jan 17, 2005, 03:49 pm	#130 (permalink) (top)
The Dunedan Hot Lava Posts: 925	Oh, this is RICH. The Constitution applies to the GOVERNMENT, not to the Citizens. The BoR is a list of limitations placed on the GOVERNMENT, not the Citizens. "Innocent until Proven Guilty" is a limitation placed upon a COURT OF LAW, NOT THE CITIZENS. Yes I'm yelling, because you are being deliberately obtuse, disingenious, and dishonest. A private CITIZEN cannot "trample on the Constitution;" only a Gov't Official/employee can do that, for the simple reason than the BoR is does not limit Citizens, it limits the GOVERNMENT.