I think it's important to consider that the "generational" and / or "baby-boomer" argument is also complicated by issues of class. This government it ostensibly run by 50-something white men, who may be classified as baby boomers...but more important than their generation is the fact that these "public servants" made a shit-ton of money in the private sector and are typically the wealthiest 5% of Americans as well.
The baby-boomers raised us, and we're not protesting enough. It is difficult to compare the late '60's to now, especially when fundamental rights (voting, civil, etc.) weren't even secured for everyone until 67 or so. The 60's were a decade when people in this nation were fighting to be free. The 00's is a decade when we should fucking know better.
Disliking Bush has turned into a diluted cliche. I think he's a visible representation of a legacy of racism, classism, capitalism, nepotism, paritsanism, etc. like a lot of other people. Yet, most people my age (26) are grossly misinformed and undereducated about what rights can/are being taken from them on a daily basis.
So the baby boomers can blame us for not protesting enough like they did in the Vietnam era, and we can blame our parents for leaving us this legacy, but the fact remains is that they'll be dead one day and we'll be here with no more excuses while rich people continue to run the country we thus enabled.
I DO believe more young people would be out in the streets publically displaying their beliefs if they weren't so pre-occupied with the Internet, the cult of personality and technology in general, don't you??
No. We have made the mistake of assuming our elders could apply their wisdom and experience to not only do what's best moving forward, but also not to repeat previous mistakes.
Fr*nk, If this is your serious answer let me ask you this.... How many years ago did your generation realize that this was not the case, and as Kala asked, for what reasons haven't y'all hit the streets in protest if not the ones mentioned above??
I DO believe more young people would be out in the streets publically displaying their beliefs if they weren't so pre-occupied with the Internet, the cult of personality and technology in general, don't you??
No. We have made the mistake of assuming our elders could apply their wisdom and experience to not only do what's best moving forward, but also not to repeat previous mistakes.
Fr*nk, If this is your serious answer let me ask you this.... How many years ago did your generation realize that this was not the case, and as Kala asked, for what reasons haven't y'all hit the streets in protest if not the ones mentioned above??
6
(i don't understand the 2nd part of your question)
I DO believe more young people would be out in the streets publically displaying their beliefs if they weren't so pre-occupied with the Internet, the cult of personality and technology in general, don't you??
No. We have made the mistake of assuming our elders could apply their wisdom and experience to not only do what's best moving forward, but also not to repeat previous mistakes.[/b]
Fr*nk, If this is your serious answer let me ask you this.... How many years ago did your generation realize that this was not the case, and as Kala asked, for what reasons haven't y'all hit the streets in protest if not the ones mentioned above??
6
(i don't understand the 2nd part of your question)
Hmmmm....I said people weren't protesting because of them being pre-occupied with the Internet, the cult of personality and technology in general"....you answered with the quote in bold above. And I came back with....why haven't there been protests in the years following the realization that your "mistake" was realized.
I DO believe more young people would be out in the streets publically displaying their beliefs if they weren't so pre-occupied with the Internet, the cult of personality and technology in general, don't you??
No. We have made the mistake of assuming our elders could apply their wisdom and experience to not only do what's best moving forward, but also not to repeat previous mistakes.[/b]
Fr*nk, If this is your serious answer let me ask you this.... How many years ago did your generation realize that this was not the case, and as Kala asked, for what reasons haven't y'all hit the streets in protest if not the ones mentioned above??
6
(i don't understand the 2nd part of your question)
Hmmmm....I said people weren't protesting because of them being pre-occupied with the Internet, the cult of personality and technology in general"....you answered with the quote in bold above. And I came back with....why haven't there been protests in the years following the realization that your "mistake" was realized.
Sorry for the confusion.
There have been protests. There's also netroots activism, which I sense you seem to dismiss. For example, we recently took down a 30 year veteran Dem in the VA general assembly for his support of Allen in 06.
Well, that's the only legal justification that the president requires, but ignoring whether or not his decision was ethical would be to miss the point of this thread entirely. I know you're just trying to rile up the likes of Fatback and kala, but I assume that you have still thought about Bush's actions and have an opinion beyond whether or not it was legally sound.
Plenty of things have been legal in this country at one time or another that we could all pretty much agree were unethical/immoral etc.
So my question to you sabadabada (and anyone else who cares to respond) is- given the way that the last two presidents have abused the powers of pardoning and commutation, should this unbridled authority be revoked or modified?
So my question to you sabadabada (and anyone else who cares to respond) is- given the way that the last two presidents have abused the powers of pardoning and commutation, should this unbridled authority be revoked or modified?
No. We make our decision at the front-end with the person we elect and it would require amending the constitution, which isn't going to happen. But, since the democratic congress cant seem to succeed on the single issue that got them elected, I imagine they would welcome any red-herring legislation to divert attention from that fact, so why not give it a try.
So my question to you sabadabada (and anyone else who cares to respond) is- given the way that the last two presidents have abused the powers of pardoning and commutation, should this unbridled authority be revoked or modified?
No. We make our decision at the front-end with the person we elect
True, but we are electing a president, not a king (despite the fact that we treat then as though they were the latter of the two). When presidents routinely abuse the power granted to them I would say these powers should be taken away.
What is it that they say about "absolute power"...?
So my question to you sabadabada (and anyone else who cares to respond) is- given the way that the last two presidents have abused the powers of pardoning and commutation, should this unbridled authority be revoked or modified?
No. We make our decision at the front-end with the person we elect
True, but we are electing a president, not a king (despite the fact that we treat then as though they were the latter of the two). When presidents routinely abuse the power granted to them I would say these powers should be taken away.
What is it that they say about "absolute power"...?
they say that it corrupts absolutely. I would not consider the commutation of one criminal sentence a "routine abuse of power." Unfortunately, [for the party out of power] the executive does have certain powers that can't be taken away by the other branches. Just as they have similarly "sovereign" powers.
Not to mention that King George the Necktard issued hundreds of these "signing statements" dismissing laws that were passed while his party held both branches of Congress.
So my question to you sabadabada (and anyone else who cares to respond) is- given the way that the last two presidents have abused the powers of pardoning and commutation, should this unbridled authority be revoked or modified?
No. We make our decision at the front-end with the person we elect
True, but we are electing a president, not a king (despite the fact that we treat then as though they were the latter of the two). When presidents routinely abuse the power granted to them I would say these powers should be taken away.
What is it that they say about "absolute power"...?
I would not consider the commutation of one criminal sentence a "routine abuse of power."
No, but if every president commutes the sentence of one friend then it becomes routine. Anyway, are you saying that you don't think Bush is going to pardon and commute his ass off the day before he leaves office? Or rather, when he does, are you going to argue that this is not routine behavior for presidents?
so you're not worried about all this unitary executive bullshit? because your party will inevitably loose power. looking like sooner rather than later.
I would not consider the commutation of one criminal sentence a "routine abuse of power."
No, but if every president commutes the sentence of one friend then it becomes routine.
hoooold up. the libby commutation is an entirely different ballgame. we are talking about someone who was working directly under vice president cheney. libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in an investigation...that spread to the whitehouse on an issue that dealt with national security.
please show me any one of the clinton pardons and try to match that up with the present circumstances.
also, has anyone called Bush an enormous hypocrite in this thread yet? mr. enforcement/mr. man of the people has his federal prosecutor and his federal judge preside over libby's case. the jury decides that libby has lied to federal investigators and finds him guilty. bush agrees with the conviction but thinks the sentence is too severe so he commutes it. are you serious??? its one thing for him to commute the sentence of someone completely unconnected to the whitehouse....but dick cheney's right-hand-man??? and this from the guy who everyone wants to have a beer with? please.
so you're not worried about all this unitary executive bullshit? because your party will inevitably loose power. looking like sooner rather than later.
I want Denis Kucinich to enjoy the full compliment of executive powers so that he can take back America!
I would not consider the commutation of one criminal sentence a "routine abuse of power."
No, but if every president commutes the sentence of one friend then it becomes routine.
hoooold up. the libby commutation is an entirely different ballgame. we are talking about someone who was working directly under vice president cheney. libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in an investigation...that spread to the whitehouse on an issue that dealt with national security.
please show me any one of the clinton pardons and try to match that up with the present circumstances.
also, has anyone called Bush an enormous hypocrite in this thread yet? mr. enforcement/mr. man of the people has his federal prosecutor and his federal judge preside over libby's case. the jury decides that libby has lied to federal investigators and finds him guilty. bush agrees with the conviction but thinks the sentence is too severe so he commutes it. are you serious??? its one thing for him to commute the sentence of someone completely unconnected to the whitehouse....but dick cheney's right-hand-man??? and this from the guy who everyone wants to have a beer with? please. Exactly. I was not going to touch the specifics because I was speaking broadly about abuse of power, not degrees of abuse.
But I don't think that Bush's actions should be compared to Clinton's in a manner that downplays how unethical Clinton's pardons and commutations were.
so you're not worried about all this unitary executive bullshit? because your party will inevitably loose power. looking like sooner rather than later.
I want Denis Kucinich to enjoy the full compliment of executive powers so that he can take back America!
has anybody ever got a straight answer out of this fool?
so you're not worried about all this unitary executive bullshit? because your party will inevitably loose power. looking like sooner rather than later.
I want Denis Kucinich to enjoy the full compliment of executive powers so that he can take back America!
has anybody ever got a straight answer out of this fool?
Comments
The baby-boomers raised us, and we're not protesting enough. It is difficult to compare the late '60's to now, especially when fundamental rights (voting, civil, etc.) weren't even secured for everyone until 67 or so. The 60's were a decade when people in this nation were fighting to be free. The 00's is a decade when we should fucking know better.
Disliking Bush has turned into a diluted cliche. I think he's a visible representation of a legacy of racism, classism, capitalism, nepotism, paritsanism, etc. like a lot of other people. Yet, most people my age (26) are grossly misinformed and undereducated about what rights can/are being taken from them on a daily basis.
So the baby boomers can blame us for not protesting enough like they did in the Vietnam era, and we can blame our parents for leaving us this legacy, but the fact remains is that they'll be dead one day and we'll be here with no more excuses while rich people continue to run the country we thus enabled.
Im sorry, rice or potatoes?
only argument necessary.
please move on to something that still matters.
Fr*nk,
If this is your serious answer let me ask you this.... How many years ago did your generation realize that this was not the case, and as Kala asked, for what reasons haven't y'all hit the streets in protest if not the ones mentioned above??
Main reason maybe.
Economics & the fact that people have jobs.
6
(i don't understand the 2nd part of your question)
whats not to like about a decision that fires up the base and pisses off asshats like fatback one and all.
Hmmmm....I said people weren't protesting because of them being pre-occupied with the Internet, the cult of personality and technology in general"....you answered with the quote in bold above. And I came back with....why haven't there been protests in the years following the realization that your "mistake" was realized.
Sorry for the confusion.
Not me.
There have been protests. There's also netroots activism, which I sense you seem to dismiss. For example, we recently took down a 30 year veteran Dem in the VA general assembly for his support of Allen in 06.
Well, that's the only legal justification that the president requires, but ignoring whether or not his decision was ethical would be to miss the point of this thread entirely. I know you're just trying to rile up the likes of Fatback and kala, but I assume that you have still thought about Bush's actions and have an opinion beyond whether or not it was legally sound.
Plenty of things have been legal in this country at one time or another that we could all pretty much agree were unethical/immoral etc.
So my question to you sabadabada (and anyone else who cares to respond) is- given the way that the last two presidents have abused the powers of pardoning and commutation, should this unbridled authority be revoked or modified?
No. We make our decision at the front-end with the person we elect and it would require amending the constitution, which isn't going to happen. But, since the democratic congress cant seem to succeed on the single issue that got them elected, I imagine they would welcome any red-herring legislation to divert attention from that fact, so why not give it a try.
This may be true, but do you disagree w/ KO? He seems pretty on-point.
True, but we are electing a president, not a king (despite the fact that we treat then as though they were the latter of the two). When presidents routinely abuse the power granted to them I would say these powers should be taken away.
What is it that they say about "absolute power"...?
they say that it corrupts absolutely. I would not consider the commutation of one criminal sentence a "routine abuse of power." Unfortunately, [for the party out of power] the executive does have certain powers that can't be taken away by the other branches. Just as they have similarly "sovereign" powers.
No, but if every president commutes the sentence of one friend then it becomes routine. Anyway, are you saying that you don't think Bush is going to pardon and commute his ass off the day before he leaves office? Or rather, when he does, are you going to argue that this is not routine behavior for presidents?
"a precedent"
i was going for plural.
but what about my point? aren't you worried?
you should be.
then that would be precedents.
I would figure that everyone she needed to get pardoned has already been pardoned, unless she is going to try and get her husbands law license back.
No, but if every president commutes the sentence of one friend then it becomes routine.
hoooold up. the libby commutation is an entirely different ballgame. we are talking about someone who was working directly under vice president cheney. libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in an investigation...that spread to the whitehouse on an issue that dealt with national security.
please show me any one of the clinton pardons and try to match that up with the present circumstances.
also, has anyone called Bush an enormous hypocrite in this thread yet? mr. enforcement/mr. man of the people has his federal prosecutor and his federal judge preside over libby's case. the jury decides that libby has lied to federal investigators and finds him guilty. bush agrees with the conviction but thinks the sentence is too severe so he commutes it. are you serious??? its one thing for him to commute the sentence of someone completely unconnected to the whitehouse....but dick cheney's right-hand-man??? and this from the guy who everyone wants to have a beer with? please.
I want Denis Kucinich to enjoy the full compliment of executive powers so that he can take back America!
hoooold up. the libby commutation is an entirely different ballgame. we are talking about someone who was working directly under vice president cheney. libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in an investigation...that spread to the whitehouse on an issue that dealt with national security.
please show me any one of the clinton pardons and try to match that up with the present circumstances.
also, has anyone called Bush an enormous hypocrite in this thread yet? mr. enforcement/mr. man of the people has his federal prosecutor and his federal judge preside over libby's case. the jury decides that libby has lied to federal investigators and finds him guilty. bush agrees with the conviction but thinks the sentence is too severe so he commutes it. are you serious??? its one thing for him to commute the sentence of someone completely unconnected to the whitehouse....but dick cheney's right-hand-man??? and this from the guy who everyone wants to have a beer with? please.
Exactly. I was not going to touch the specifics because I was speaking broadly about abuse of power, not degrees of abuse.
But I don't think that Bush's actions should be compared to Clinton's in a manner that downplays how unethical Clinton's pardons and commutations were.
has anybody ever got a straight answer out of this fool?
Talk sense to a fool and he'll call you foolish.