Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,648 Year: 4,905/9,624 Month: 253/427 Week: 63/103 Day: 7/14 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Senator Al Franken?
ringo
Member (Idle past 498 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 109 of 300 (704005)
08-01-2013 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by dronestar
08-01-2013 1:13 PM


dronester writes:
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!).
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.
dronester writes:
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.
You would need to show that "supporting" the Constitution does not permit any possibility of changing the Constitution. You haven't done that.
dronester writes:
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 highly invasive PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps in February 2011.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by dronestar, posted 08-01-2013 1:13 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by dronestar, posted 08-02-2013 11:22 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 498 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 111 of 300 (704042)
08-02-2013 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by dronestar
08-02-2013 11:22 AM


dronester writes:
You declared that an oath is an empty formality.
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."
dronester writes:
So does Franken have integrity or not?
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.
dronester writes:
Use the words I am using: "violating or attacking."
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.
dronester writes:
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're still equivocating "support" with blind obedience and "attacking" with challenging.
dronester writes:
Seems to me he is at least partly responsible for activities that are directed against the constitution.
Let me walk you through how the system works (short version):
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:
And Franken is not single-handedly responsible for turning america into a police state by actively supporting the violation of the 4th amendment.
So, to amend your initial rant, all of the Senators and Representatives who voted the same way as Franken are "treasonous clowns".
Or am I committing a crime by suggesting an amendment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by dronestar, posted 08-02-2013 11:22 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by dronestar, posted 08-02-2013 1:26 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 498 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 115 of 300 (704050)
08-02-2013 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by dronestar
08-02-2013 1:26 PM


dronester writes:
Now try applying it to this specific case: support against Amash NSA Amendment; violation of the the fourth Amendment; Franken; and violating his oath.
You're going to have to be more clear about what you're trying to say.
dronester writes:
Translation: I can not argue against your rock-steady argument unless I unilaterally change your words into a strawman I can attack.
On the contrary, I'm saying that you are equivocating.
dronester writes:
Wow. I spelled out my case pretty well in my opening post Message 69.
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:
You SEEM genuinely ignorant that american Senators and Representatives are receiving a 10-20% approval rating from the public.
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.
dronester writes:
... in this thread, I am only claiming Franken is violating/attacking the 4th amendment.
"Only claiming" is the operative phrase there. You haven't done anything to back up that empty claim.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by dronestar, posted 08-02-2013 1:26 PM dronestar has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 498 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 179 of 300 (824559)
11-30-2017 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Phat
11-29-2017 4:28 PM


Re: Et tu, Garrison Keillor
Phat writes:
Were men really pigs all along?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Phat, posted 11-29-2017 4:28 PM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 498 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 192 of 300 (825020)
12-06-2017 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by NoNukes
12-06-2017 2:48 PM


Re: Lefties on the bullseye?
NoNukes writes:
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.
How can you do right by them when they help to vote the Republicans in?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by NoNukes, posted 12-06-2017 2:48 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by NoNukes, posted 12-06-2017 6:28 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 498 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 199 of 300 (825072)
12-07-2017 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by NoNukes
12-06-2017 6:28 PM


Re: Lefties on the bullseye?
NoNukes writes:
I think that is irrelevant who my daughter votes for.
So you can "do right" by your daughter by getting rid of the guy she wants to vote for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by NoNukes, posted 12-06-2017 6:28 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by NoNukes, posted 12-07-2017 2:52 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 498 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 206 of 300 (825121)
12-08-2017 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by NoNukes
12-07-2017 2:52 PM


Re: Lefties on the bullseye?
NoNukes writes:
I support him being gone.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by NoNukes, posted 12-07-2017 2:52 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 498 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 221 of 300 (825502)
12-15-2017 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Rrhain
12-15-2017 3:50 AM


Re: Assault and Pepper Spray
Rrhain writes:
Was I sexually assaulted?
When a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Rrhain, posted 12-15-2017 3:50 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Rrhain, posted 12-16-2017 1:43 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 498 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 234 of 300 (825596)
12-16-2017 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Rrhain
12-16-2017 1:43 AM


Re: Assault and Pepper Spray
Rrhain writes:
ringo writes:
When a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
What's that have to do with anything? We're trying to determine if the tree fell down or was chopped down.
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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Rrhain, posted 12-16-2017 1:43 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Rrhain, posted 12-16-2017 9:07 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 498 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 238 of 300 (825716)
12-17-2017 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Rrhain
12-16-2017 9:07 PM


Re: Assault and Pepper Spray
Rrhain writes:
As long as a person feels it was sexual assault, that means it is?
In the end, only the justice system can say. They have their own thresholds for both "sexual" and "assault".
Rrhain writes:
...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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Rrhain, posted 12-16-2017 9:07 PM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-17-2017 3:13 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 498 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 242 of 300 (825839)
12-18-2017 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Tanypteryx
12-17-2017 3:13 PM


Re: Assault and Pepper Spray
Tanypteryx writes:
ringo writes:
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.
They already decided, he lost.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-17-2017 3:13 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but 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