|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Senator Al Franken? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
dronester 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.
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!). dronester writes:
You would need to show that "supporting" the Constitution does not permit any possibility of changing the Constitution. You haven't done that.
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. dronester writes:
Try to think this through. My original post should have read that Al Franken ACTIVELY supports the NSA surveillance program against americans . . .
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dronester writes:
I also declared in Message 96 that, "I would trust a person less, not more, if he did what he did only because of an oath. I'd rather see him act on his convictions, whether I agree with them or not."
You declared that an oath is an empty formality. dronester 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. The ability to admit your mistakes is also a sign of integrity.
So does Franken have integrity or not? dronester writes:
No, I will not use those words because they are the wrong words. You have in no way shown that Franken is violating the Constitution.
Use the words I am using: "violating or attacking." dronester writes:
You're still equivocating "support" with blind obedience and "attacking" with challenging.
On the other hand, you have presented NO evidence to show that taking the oath:
quote:. . . allows one to attack the constitution. dronester writes:
Let me walk you through how the system works (short version): Seems to me he is at least partly responsible for activities that are directed against the constitution. First a bill is written, for example the Patriot Act, and sponsored in both the House and the Senate. Then Representatievs and Senators vote on the bill. If it passes in both chambers it is signed into law by the President. Can we spot Franken's "crime"? He voted. So did most of the other Senators. So did most of the Representatives. Some of them voted the same way he did. So, how do we distinguish Franken's actions from the standard process? What makes his vote a "crime" and that of the guy next to him not? Where's Waldo?
dronester writes:
So, to amend your initial rant, all of the Senators and Representatives who voted the same way as Franken are "treasonous clowns". And Franken is not single-handedly responsible for turning america into a police state by actively supporting the violation of the 4th amendment. Or am I committing a crime by suggesting an amendment?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dronester writes:
You're going to have to be more clear about what you're trying to say.
Now try applying it to this specific case: support against Amash NSA Amendment; violation of the the fourth Amendment; Franken; and violating his oath. dronester writes:
On the contrary, I'm saying that you are equivocating.
Translation: I can not argue against your rock-steady argument unless I unilaterally change your words into a strawman I can attack.
Don't be afraid to repeat yourself. While you're at it, answer the simple question: What has Franken done that the other Senators and Representatives who voted with him haven't done?
dronester writes:
How is that relevant? The only "approval rating" that counts is an election. You've already said that you think Americans are voting the wrong way. Your contempt for democracy is noted but none of that makes Franken a criminal.
You SEEM genuinely ignorant that american Senators and Representatives are receiving a 10-20% approval rating from the public. dronester writes:
"Only claiming" is the operative phrase there. You haven't done anything to back up that empty claim. ... in this thread, I am only claiming Franken is violating/attacking the 4th amendment. You haven't even shown that Franken wants to change the Constitution. All you've shown is that Franken has done his job, working within the system by the means prescribed by the system. Please, just tell us how voting on a bill can be equivocated with attacking the Constitution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Yes. We all have an individualistic side that only cares what's good for me. But we also have a social side that takes other people's needs into account. Some men are capable of controlling their individualistic side. Others need society to slap them down.
Were men really pigs all along?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
How can you do right by them when they help to vote the Republicans in?
Let's not forget that ultimately this is not about the politicians but about our sister, aunts and daughters. We must do right by them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
So you can "do right" by your daughter by getting rid of the guy she wants to vote for?
I think that is irrelevant who my daughter votes for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
NoNukes writes:
I think he did the right thing (politically) to resign. But I think he should run again to let the voters decide. Democracy is on a slippery slope when we start deciding a priori who somebody else "should" be allowed to vote for.
I support him being gone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
When a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
Was I sexually assaulted?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Rrhain writes:
No, I'm trying to determine what "sound" is. Is it a wave in the air caused by a falling tree or is it what is perceived by an observer? ringo writes:
What's that have to do with anything? We're trying to determine if the tree fell down or was chopped down. When a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? I'm trying to determine what a "sexual assault" is. Is it what the victim perceived or is it what the perpetrator intended? Both "assault" and "sexual" are open to interpretation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
In the end, only the justice system can say. They have their own thresholds for both "sexual" and "assault".
As long as a person feels it was sexual assault, that means it is? Rrhain writes:
I think Franken was right to resign but I think he should run again to let the voters decide. And the voters should have the right to decide on Moore, too. If they choose to elect an accused child molester or a convicted serial killer, they should have the right to do so.
...a man who can't pay attention to where his hands go over and over again is not exactly a paragon. And that may be enough to say he should resign.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
I know that. But he nearly won. Almost half of the people who voted either didn't believe the allegations or didn't care if they were true. If he chooses to run again, he might very well win.
ringo writes:
They already decided, he lost. And the voters should have the right to decide on Moore, too. If they choose to elect an accused child molester or a convicted serial killer, they should have the right to do so.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024