[excon]

To be direct we should not prosecute the previous administration's officers, moreover we must not engage in torture in the future.

Hello again, mr:

If nobody is held accountable for THIS episode of torture, what's to stop future administrations from engaging in it?

Are we a nation of laws? Or do we pick?

excon

[tomder55]

As far as Arab Muslims Hating Americans that is not the case. I am guessing like Excon you have not resided in another country or been to many native places around the world.

Now where in my post did I suggest that "Arab Muslims hate America" .
I guess I will surprise you when I tell you that I was in Tehran 1975-76... and that I spent travel time in some European cities and Beirut.

Are your priorities more important than other peoples? If your values impede those of others do you have the right to enforce them? We all have to compromise to get most of what we want in a fair manor.

Well yes , I think people do vote for parochrial interests,and think they have a pretty good idea how the person views issues and have expectations based on the candidates expressed views.

Are you suggesting I should vote for someone without an understanding of their core values and an understanding on how they would lead ? I tell you that if what you say about the President is true,(and I tend to disagree when you claim he in not doctrinaire ), then there will be a whole lot of buyer's remorse .

[mrsinclair]

Hello agian, mr:

If nobody is held accountable for THIS episode of torture, what's to stop future administrations from engaging in it?

Are we a nation of laws? Or do we pick and choose?

excon

Being held responsible is not the same as being prosecuted. We can hold them accountable without prosecution. We are a nation of laws and of reason. We don't pick our laws but we always pic the level of punitive actions. The concept of reason in law shows itself in judges having the discretion on penalties, sentences, judgments and even the validity of the case itself.

We as a country have to get passed being angry at the previous administration, many people seem to want to be vindictive and to "PROVE A POINT" and my question is

Prove a point at what cost?

And I have yet to hear a answer to that.

[excon]

The concept of reason in law shows itself in judges having the discretion on penalties, sentences, judgments and even the validity of the case itself....

many people seem to want to be vindictive and to "PROVE A POINT" and my question is Prove a point at what cost? and I have yet to hear a answer to that.

Hello again, mr:

Well, you'll have to ask one who thinks that way. I'm not one of them. I'm simply not a believer in selective prosecution. I have no point to prove, and I'm not vindictive either. If the judge wants to give 'em probation after they've been convicted, I have no problem with that. I have a problem with being lenient by NOT prosecuting them.

excon

[mrsinclair]

Now where in my post did I suggest that "Arab Muslims hate America" .
I guess I will suprise you when I tell you that I was in Tehran 1975-76.... and that I spent travel time in some European cities and Beirut.




Well yes , I think people do vote for parochrial interests,and think they have a pretty good idea how the person views issues and have expectations based on the candidates expressed views.

Are you suggesting I should vote for someone without an understanding of their core values and an understanding on how they would lead ? I tell you that if what you say about the President is true,(and I tend to disagree when you claim he in not doctrinaire ), then there will be a whole lot of buyer's remorse .

I am sorry for misconstruing your comment of: "....the Mullahs have time and again demonstrated to us that they consider the US an enemy...." I don't know if I would say surprised, reading your posts you seem a bit more focused than Excon. However the above referenced statement seems a bit generalized. So I will apologize for the assumption.

I think it is very important to know were the candidate stands. There core values, well if you mean moral values, that's a bit ambiguous. But wanting a candidate that will "stand for what I believe in" (I being plural) and forsaking others is egocentric. I think people should vote for a candidate that shows he has the ability to make proactive decisions. And of course the only way to evaluate a candidate is to hear what they believe in, how they voted in the past, and where they stand on all issues.

We should ask ourselves will this candidates Ideas help our country as a whole? Will he make impartial decisions?

not

do I agree with his moral values? Will he lower my taxes? Will he help my demographic?

As far as my opinions on Obama, I am pleasantly surprised at his pragmatism, but believed he was voted for for all the wrong reasons.

IDK about buyers remorse. I am not sure yet. I would like to see the Dems & Repubs being mature. But one thing is for sure for better or worse by 2012 our country will have been notably changed.

[mrsinclair]

Oh, I forgot something. Having traveled and living in Tehran and Beirut. You understand why prosecuting the previous administration's officers is a problem. As I stated in my first post I do think we should forgo torture. And utilize medical coercion

[mrsinclair]

Hello again, mr:

Well, you'll have to ask one who thinks that way. I'm not one of them. I'm simply not a believer in selective prosecution. I have no point to prove, and I'm not vindictive either. If the judge wants to give 'em probation after they've been convicted, I have no problem with that. I have a problem with being lenient by NOT prosecuting them.

excon

If the ADA can decide what crimes are worthy of pursuing why can't the same be here?

[excon]

If the ADA can decide what crimes are worthy of pursuing why can't the same be here?

Hello again, mr:

The ADA doesn't choose between WORTHY crimes and the ones not so worthy. That isn't his call. He chooses between those where he can get a conviction and those where he can't. Let the investigation begin.

excon, the unfocused

[tomder55]

As for as voting for someone who will vote on isses that you think are important. Are your priorities more important than other peoples? If your values impede those of others do you have the right to enforce them? We all have to compromise to get most of what we want in a fair manor.
...
I think it is very important to know were the candidate stands. There core values, well if you mean moral values, that's a bit ambiguous. But wanting a candidate that will "stand for what I believe in" (I being plural) and forsaking others is egocentric. I think people should vote for a candidate that shows he has the ability to make proactive decisions. And of course the only way to evaluate a candidate is to hear what they believe in, how they voted in the past, and where they stand on all issues.

We should ask ourselves will this candidates Ideas help our country as a whole? Will he make impartial decisions?

not

do I agree with his moral values? Will he lower my taxes? Will he help my demographic?

This is an interesting position. I think that the hell bent pursuit of government "nanny-state "solutions are flat out wrong and have been leading the country in the wrong direction since the 1930s . Therefore I oppose any candidate who's core values (I did not say moral values ) would make them tend to believe these perscriptions are best for the country . Despite the claim that they are weighing all options making pragmatic decisions based on "facts " ,their natural bias/prejudice/inclination/ideology (whatever) favors taking the country in a direction I think has been harmful .

Some historic perspective.
Although the founders paid lip service to pragmatism ;and claimed to despise the forming of self interest parties ;the country did not make it through Washington's 2nd term before political parties were formed based on parochrial interests and basic political philosophical reasons . Our political parties since then have survived or failed based on how they catered to and recruited constituencies into a coalition;not on how open and fair minded they will be.
It can be argued that this catering to interests has served our country pretty well ,although there needs to be reforms to prevent permanent entrenchment of one party or individuals . These can be addressed .

You understand why prosecuting the previous administration's officers is a problem.

Yes it is indeed a slippery slope .In other postings I called it criminalizing political decisions.

I could easily make a case that Bill Clintoon and Al Gore violated American laws and their oath of office by treasonously selling national secrets to the Chinese for campaign funds. While he was in office I had thought this was the only issue worthy of impeachment ;although I'm sure the Clintonoids will say what they did was perfectly within the powers of the President . I do not ask for either prosecutions or investigations now . I am content to let history be the judge.

[mrsinclair]

This is an interesting position. I think that the hell bent persuit of government "nanny-state "solutions are flat out wrong and have been leading the country in the wrong direction since the 1930s . Therefore I oppose any candidate who's core values (I did not say moral values ) would make them tend to believe these perscriptions are best for the country . Despite the claim that they are weighing all options making pragmatic decisions based on "facts " ,their natural bias/prejudice/inclination/ideology (whatever) favors taking the country in a direction I think has been harmful .

Some historic perspective.
Although the founders paid lip service to pragmatism ;and claimed to despise the forming of self interest parties ;the country did not make it through Washington's 2nd term before political parties were formed based on parochrial interests and basic political philosophical reasons . Our political parties since then have survived or failed based on how they catered to and recruited constituencies into a coalition;not on how open and fair minded they will be.
It can be argued that this catering to interests has served our country pretty well ,although there needs to be reforms to prevent permanent entrenchment of one party or individuals . These can be addressed .

Yes it is indeed a slippery slope .In other postings I called it criminalizing political decisions.

I could easily make a case that Bill Clintoon and Al Gore violated American laws and their oath of office by treasonously selling national secrets to the Chinese for campaign funds. While he was in office I had thought this was the only issue worthy of impeachment ;although I'm sure the Clintonoids will say what they did was perfectly within the powers of the President . I do not ask for either prosecutions or investigations now . I am content to let history be the judge.

For the most part I agreed, However, I am not sure it is fixable. At this point these parties are acting more like clicks in a playground than parties for the masses. Our current system has parties refusing to think outside their "party lines" I believe the two party system has out lived their usefulness. It seems the Dem's for the most part are looking for a nanny state, but he repubs are boarder line fascists. And the moderates on both end are treated as malcontents. This system no longer functions.

[excon]

Oh, I forgot something. Having traveled and living in Tehran and Beirut. You understand why prosecuting the previous administration's officers is a problem.

Hello again, mr:

I'm sorry. I miss the connection...

In fact, contrary to your assertion, I'm quite traveled and I speak several languages. Having done so, I don't see how being worldly has ANYTHING to do with why we SHOULD or SHOULDN'T punish our lawbreakers...

In fact, having traveled widely, having visited rouge nations, having seen wretched poverty first hand, having seen corruption on a magnitude that we can only imagine, I see a need for nations to adhere to their laws.. Indeed, I do.

But, that's just me.

excon

[tomder55]

Dem's for the most part are looking for a nanny state, but he repubs are boarder line fascists

The Republicans are flawed ;that is true... mostly because they drift from conservative principles . But fascism (national socialism) is a socialist construct mortally opposed to capitalism. Expansion of the state control of the economy is definitely not conservatism but inherently fascist.

and the moderates on both end are treated as malcontents

How can that be when we are constantly told that the moderates and centrists are the majority ?

[mrsinclair]

Hello again, mr:

I'm sorry. I miss the connection.....

In fact, contrary to your assertion, I'm quite traveled and I speak several languages. Having done so, I don't see how being worldly has ANYTHING to do with why we SHOULD or SHOULDN'T punish our lawbreakers....

In fact, having traveled widely, having visited rouge nations, having seen wretched poverty first hand, having seen corruption on a magnitude that we can only imagine, I see a need for nations to adhere to their laws.. Indeed, I do.

But, that's just me.

excon

You missed it because it was not directed to you.

[excon]

You missed it because it was not directed to you.

Hello again, mr:

I missed it because there ain't none. You're an empty suit. You got nothing. Let me know when you want to argue instead of hurl insults...

excon

[mrsinclair]

The Republicans are flawed ;that is true ....mostly because they drift from conservative principles . But fascism (national socialism) is a socialist construct mortally opposed to capitalism. Expansion of the state control of the economy is definitely not conservatism but inherently fascist.


How can that be when we are constantly told that the moderates and centrists are the majority ?

moderates are not the majority that is only the two parties complaining.

How do conservative principles help anyone? It is my opinion that conservative principles are very exclusionary and alienate a whole groups of people. And socially penalize any one else who does not fall into the conservative principles.

the liberals say that their party is drifting away from their liberal principles as well.


The liberal values boarder on socialism (I don't think there is anything wrong with socialism, but that is for another time), It seems that they are looking for a government to pacify the populous, as you put it a "nanny-state" . Which in turn promotes ethical bankruptcy (but again for another thread)

How are either productive?

[mrsinclair]

Hello again, mr:

I missed it because there ain't none. You're an empty suit. You got nothing. Let me know when you want to argue instead of hurl insults....

excon

Oh this is mature. "I am an empty suit", and you claim that I am insulting you. OK, I will continue my treads with "stable" people.

Have a good day

[tomder55]

moderates are not the majority

That must mean that the "extremes " are the majorities ?

It is my opinion that conservative principles are very exclusionary and alienate a whole groups of people.

Perhaps ;but when there was a conservative who most faithfully articulated ,and governed the best he could ,by conservative principles;that person garnered the biggest coalition the Republicans achieved in my life time.As the Republicans have drifted to the center their support has eroded .

[mrsinclair]

That must mean that the "extremes " are the majorities ?


Perhaps ;but when there was a conservative who most faithfully articulated ,and governed the best he could ,by conservative principles;that person garnered the biggest coalition the Republicans acheived in my life time.As the Republicans have drifted to the center their support has eroded .

But what of the various minorities that are ostracized by the republican party: Gay, poor, atheists, muslin, women, children, blacks all of the "other" people what of them they are very much Americans and the republican party has consistently objectify and ostracized these people.

[tomder55]

But what of the various minorities that are ostracized by the republican party: Gay, poor, atheists, muslin, women, children, blacks all of the "other" people what of them they are very much Americans and the republican party has consistently objectify and ostracized these people.

I don't agree with the premise . But I can only speak for conservativism not the Republicans. We see people as individuals and not groups .We try to live to the ideals expressed by Martin Luther King ;that all people should be judged by the content of their character .

I would say that the American liberal Democrat ,by playing to identity politics ,have tried to permanently bond groups to the party by appealing to as Kennedy said "what the country can do for you " . Once that dependency exists it is hard to break free of . Such a bondage is a soft tyranny made doubly worse by the cynical belief that the act is done for the interests of the group.

[excon]

ok, I will continue my treads with "stable" people.

Have a good day

Hello again, mr:

If you wish to have an idle conversation about politics, then start your own thread. THIS thread is about TORTURE!

I will NOT be dismissed by you on my own thread. I'll be doing the dismissing, thank you very much. If you don't wish to engage me, that's fine. But, I'm not going to stop calling you out on your outlandish positions. No way - no how.

You've been asked countless time by me to tell me WHY we shouldn't prosecute past crimes... You don't say. All you say is we shouldn't. I believe that you haven't got a clue why. You just repeat what you hear from the likes of Rush Limprod.

You have intimated that if I was as smart as tom or you, I'd understand why... But, I'm not, so I'm ready for you to explain it to me - if you can.

But, of course, you can't.

Tom, at least, has put forth the premise that we shouldn't criminalize policy, and we've argued about that at length. But, you ain't got nothing!

excon