Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Senator Al Franken?
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 104 of 300 (703975)
07-31-2013 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by ringo
07-31-2013 1:42 PM


RingO writes:
We were talking about tearing down the whole house as opposed to renovating one room at a time
Franken is NOT criticizing, renovating, repairing, upholstering, painting, wallpapering, using excess duct tape, or spackling the 4th amendment.
Franken HAS BEEN and IS CONTINUING to support the violation of the fourth Amendment.
RingO writes:
We're talking about whether or not Senator Franken should be prosecuted. No matter how scary his views may be, are his views illegal? Can any view be illegal? Should any view be illegal?
You're going off-topic, but, Bush Jr made impeachable offenses in the white house (though never tried, go figure). But outside of that reference, I don't know or care what the legal mechanisms/prosecutions/sentences are for a senator actively supporting the violation of the 4th amendment, however an immediate stoppage to the active support would be minimal.
RingO writes:
Unless Franken controls the NSA, he isn't the one breaking the law. And as I mentioned, only acts of legislation can violate the Constitution, not acts of individuals or acts of institutions.
Rahvin's already rebutted the 2nd part of your argument. As for the first, Franken is the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law. Franken writes:
quote:
"As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, a big part of my job is making sure that our privacy laws are keeping up with our technology."
Seems to me he is at least partly responsible for activities that are directed against the constitution. Especiailly since he swore an oath to protect the constitution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by ringo, posted 07-31-2013 1:42 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by ringo, posted 07-31-2013 5:08 PM dronestar has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 105 of 300 (703976)
07-31-2013 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by ringo
07-31-2013 1:46 PM


RingO writes:
If people voted with 80-year hindsight, the world would be a very different place.
Agreed, unfortunately, those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by ringo, posted 07-31-2013 1:46 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 108 of 300 (704002)
08-01-2013 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by ringo
07-31-2013 5:08 PM


RingO writes:
The question we were discussing was whether Franken was trying to destroy the entire Constitution or just taking issue with one part of it. My point was that he can, without compromising his overall "support" of the Constitution.
Sorry Ringo, I believe you are still wrong.
This is the 14-word oath Franken pledged:
quote:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
I know you said your personal experience with people's oaths and words have been empty (that's sad you are in contact with so many people without integrity!). And I understand that you are desperate to argue that this oath REALLY means Franken can compromise any part or parts of the constitution he later chooses. I heard you, . . . repeatedly. You can repeat it again if you want, but it would simply mean you are continuing to be wrong.
RingO writes:
But I had hoped that semantics wouldn't take over the issue.
Irony . . .
RingO writes:
And I'll repeat that "supporting" a violation is not the same as participating in a violation. Note my example of marijuana. For another example, I support retroactively the killing of Saddam Hussein, though I wouldn't support it proactively and I can't be held responsible for it.
Well, I was using the word "support" to mean "ACTIVE support". My original post should have read that Al Franken ACTIVELY supports the NSA surveillance program against americans . . .
quote:
[Al Franken] Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps in February 2011.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/al_franken.htm
Edited by dronester, : added link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by ringo, posted 07-31-2013 5:08 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by ringo, posted 08-01-2013 2:14 PM dronestar has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


(1)
Message 110 of 300 (704039)
08-02-2013 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by ringo
08-01-2013 2:14 PM


RingO writes:
I didn't say that. I said that I would rather a person have integrity than pay lip service to an oath - and if he has integrity oaths are irrelevant.
You declared that an oath is an empty formality.
It mostly appeared as a failed attempt to marginalize my damaging oath evidence.
". . . if he has integrity oaths are irrelevant." "IF." So does Franken have integrity or not? It appears not. Do you concur?
RingO writes:
You would need to show that "supporting" the Constitution does not permit any possibility of changing the Constitution. You haven't done that.
Not "changing." Not "criticizing," not "renovating," not "repairing," not "upholstering,' etc. Use the words I am using: "violating or attacking." I am claiming you cannot support the constitution by violating/attacking it. Stop being a slippery eel.
My supporting evidence:
quote:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
While not specifcally showing one must support the WHOLE constitution, it can be universally understood as being supportive of the whole. The spirit of the letter (oath) is understood by most people (except Hitler as we already agreed).
The opposite would quickly show how intelligentlly-bankrupt an idea of taking such oath is in the first place: What ethical person is gonna take such an oath while knowing they can violate up to 99% of the constitution? That is not in the spirit of the oath, that would be ludicrous. C'mon, what is the general rule and what is the ludicrous exception?
On the other hand, you have presented NO evidence to show that taking the oath:
quote:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
. . . allows one to attack the constitution. You haven't shown ANY evidence, just bare assertion and semantic acrobatics.
RingO writes:
Try to think this through.
Franken voted.
Who created the proposition that he voted on? Why is that body not responsible for giving him the choice? If the question itself was illegal, why are his counterparts who voted NO not guilty of collusion?
Yes, I am way ahead of you. I already ackowlegded this by writing this in a previous post:
Drone writes:
Seems to me he is at least partly responsible for activities that are directed against the constitution.
Though you were erroneously attacking me for some type of soft back-pedaling, my statement is an acknowledgement that Franken is not attacking the constitution single-handedly.
Gebbels is not single-handedly responsible for Nazi Germany.
Himmler is not single-handedly responsible for Nazi Germany.
Perhaps, even Hitler himself is not-single handedly responsible for Nazi Germany.
And Franken is not single-handedly responsible for turning america into a police state by actively supporting the violation of the 4th amendment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ringo, posted 08-01-2013 2:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by ringo, posted 08-02-2013 12:13 PM dronestar has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 113 of 300 (704047)
08-02-2013 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by ringo
08-02-2013 12:13 PM


RingO writes:
It is possible to change your position and still have integrity. In fact, it may be necessary to change your position if circumstances change.
Of course. Now try applying it to this specific case: support against Amash NSA Amendment; violation of the the fourth Amendment; Franken; and violating his oath.
Drone writes:
Use the words I am using: "violating or attacking."
RingO writes:
No, I will not use those words because they are the wrong words.
Translation: I can not argue against your rock-steady argument unless I unilaterally change your words into a strawman I can attack.
RingO writes:
You have in no way shown that Franken is violating the Constitution.
Wow. I spelled out my case pretty well in my opening post Message 69 and Message 87. You are being deliberately concrete-headed.
RingO writes:
Let me walk you through how the system works (short version):
No need, I've seen "I'm Just a Bill" many times.
RingO writes:
So, to amend your initial rant, all of the Senators and Representatives who voted the same way as Franken are "treasonous clowns".
You SEEM genuinely ignorant that american Senators and Representatives are receiving a 10-20% approval rating from the public.
RingO writes:
Or am I committing a crime by suggesting an amendment?
I understand your desperation to change the topic, but in this thread, I am only claiming Franken is violating/attacking the 4th amendment.
Edited by dronester, : added: and Message 87

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by ringo, posted 08-02-2013 12:13 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by ringo, posted 08-02-2013 1:49 PM dronestar has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 114 of 300 (704049)
08-02-2013 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by xongsmith
08-02-2013 12:52 PM


Re: Amash NSA Amendment
Xong writes:
Dronster, is there any reason to suspect that passing the Amash NSA Amendment to the Dept. of Defense Budget bill would have torpedoed the whole Budget bill?
Hey hey Xong,
(Give me a jeer will ya, why I oughta . . .)
Franken's words and actions have been very clear, he wants to continue spying on americans in a desperate hope to prevent another terrorist attack.
However, if you have evidence that Franken has economic reasons as well, by all means present the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by xongsmith, posted 08-02-2013 12:52 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by xongsmith, posted 08-02-2013 2:37 PM dronestar has not replied
 Message 117 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 08-02-2013 5:02 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024