And the System just keeps on working!
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Thursday, August 3, 2006 21:59
VIEWED: 7375
PAGE 3 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- You're still using circular logic because you haven't considered a situation where the evidence exists but an indictment or conviction doesn't happen... DOH!! That is exactly the case where the system DOESN'T work.
It's true that the starting point for a conviction is someone developing evidence and presenting it to the system. If this doesn't happen, the process never starts. In a bi-partisan system, why would one party not use such evidence to support and advance their ideology by damaging the standing of the other party? Just as an example, if the Democrats have evidence that Bush, Cheney, et.al. broke the laws, wouldn't it be to their advantage to move for prosecution or impeachment?
Quote:
Also, there are cases where the evidence doesn't exist but a person is convicted anyway. We know that never happens either.
Andrew Johnson would probably disagree with you that this never happens, although he escaped 'conviction' by one vote. I noted this situation as one of the cases in which the system wouldn't work.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I agree. As I said in the Serenity Browncoats site, he's my hero.
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Instead of focussing in on all the wrong that this administration is doing, shift focus to how to make it right.
Nice, SergeantX. Nice!
X marks the spot Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BUSH WAS NOT ELECTED. And it has nothing to do with discrepancies between the popular vote and the electoral vote and everything to do with pervasive intentional fraud.
Not quite. You allege fraud. If it ain't proven in court, it ain't fraud. Innocent until proven guilty. If the Democrats thought they could prove fraud, they should have tried. They didn't. Dead issue.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Maybe this could be seized as a real opportunity. Seriously, is anyone proposing actually shoring up our constitution to cover all the holes the neo-cons have found? It reminds of hiring playtesters for video games, with the specific aim of discovering game-breaking strategies and loopholes. We owe GW a great debt of gratitude for uncovering the weaknesses in our system. We could even throw in a pie in the face and a nice long prison term while we're at it. Sort of our way of saying 'thanks'.
The Bush Administration: Beta Testing the Constitution since 2001.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Just because "the system" hasn't moved its bowels yet doesnt' mean it's a dead issue. And it's sure not a dead issue because you say so! Slavery was a 'dead issue' too... until it wasn't.
Not quite. You allege fraud. If it ain't proven in court, it ain't fraud. Innocent until proven guilty. If the Democrats thought they could prove fraud, they should have tried. They didn't. Dead issue.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Just because "the system" hasn't moved its bowels yet doesnt' mean it's a dead issue. And it's sure not a dead issue because you say so! Slavery was a 'dead issue' too... until it wasn't.
Please explain the relevance of your slavery comment to the topic at hand.
De-lurking to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You don't understand analogies?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Just because "the system" hasn't moved its bowels yet doesnt' mean it's a dead issue. And it's sure not a dead issue because you say so! Slavery was a 'dead issue' too... until it wasn't.
Slavery was settled law until outlawed by a Constitutional Amendment. The outlawing of slavery had a practical effect, as well as being the right thing to do.
As far as the law is concerned, Bush is the President. As far as I know, there is no serious effort afoot to challenge the 2000 or 2004 presidential elections. In a bit over two years, it'll be a moot point anyway, because Bush will have served his second term and can't be re-elected. If there's a legal challenge to the election at this late date, then maybe things will change. Until then it's a dead issue.
You can argue that Bush didn't win the election all you want, but unless someone takes legal action, it's just a philosophical excercise.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer, I see the point of this thread.
It may not be perfect, but our government's far from a totalitarian nightmare.
Do I 'get' it? Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You don't understand analogies?
I do SignyRue, do you?
De-lurking to rhyme.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME