Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,647 Year: 4,904/9,624 Month: 252/427 Week: 62/103 Day: 6/14 Hour: 0/0


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


Message 68 of 300 (703622)
07-26-2013 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Minnemooseus
07-25-2013 6:33 PM


Re: Franken & Davis as The Rolling Stones - "Under My Thumb"
Minnemooseus writes:
I'm not at all sure how much of the guitar playing is actually Davis and how much of the singing is actually Franken.
It's hard to parody Mick Jagger but I think Mick does it better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-25-2013 6:33 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 70 of 300 (703681)
07-27-2013 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by dronestar
07-26-2013 3:29 PM


Re: Michele Bachmann considering challenging Al Franken for his senate seat
dronester writes:
... it's no wonder clueless americans keep voting in clowns.
Al Franken supports the NSA surveillance program against americans: he voted AGAINST the Amash NSA Amendment (ends the indiscriminate collection of phone and email records) on Wednesday. Besides Democrats Minority Leader Pelosi and Minority Whip Hoyer, and of course Bush Jr. II (Obama), Franken has gone on record AGAINST the fourth amendment:
Your train of thought seems to have missed the switch. Franken was a clown before he was elected. He may have become a nut or a fascist or something else but none of those positions make him a clown.
By the way, there's a reason why we elect representatives and allow them to express different opinions. And it's even permissible to take a position against parts of the Constitution. It isn't carved in stone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by dronestar, posted 07-26-2013 3:29 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2013 8:50 PM ringo has replied
 Message 72 by dronestar, posted 07-29-2013 9:26 AM ringo has replied

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


Message 73 of 300 (703774)
07-29-2013 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dr Adequate
07-28-2013 8:50 PM


Re: Actually
Dr Adequate writes:
ringo writes:
It isn't carved in stone.
... yes it is.
It's going to be a mess the next time they amend it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2013 8:50 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 74 of 300 (703775)
07-29-2013 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by dronestar
07-29-2013 9:26 AM


Re: Michele Bachmann considering challenging Al Franken for his senate seat
DronesteR writes:
Well, IMO, he is now a treasonous clown . . .
Oxymoron. (And IMO, "treason" is an obsolete term that belongs to the feudal system.)
DronesteR writes:
No, we don't bother to elect representatives knowing they might flip their stance AGAINST their oath:
"Supporting the Constitution" doesn't preclude criticizing it.
And you definitely should be aware that anybody you elect may change his/her stance on any issue. That's why you also have the power to un-elect them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by dronestar, posted 07-29-2013 9:26 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by dronestar, posted 07-29-2013 12:42 PM ringo has replied
 Message 76 by dronestar, posted 07-29-2013 12:51 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 77 of 300 (703779)
07-29-2013 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by dronestar
07-29-2013 12:42 PM


Re: Michele Bachmann considering challenging Al Franken for his senate seat
dronester writes:
One cannot support the constitution (as Franken's stated in his oath) and attack it at the same time.
Why not? Can't you maintain your home and repair it at the same time? Since when is maintenance different from maintenance?
dronester writes:
So, yes, when the change is evolutionary progressive as Hanna's change was, that is good.
And when the stance changes to support de-evolutionary, pro-police state, fascism, constitution rejectionism, anti-liberty, attacking of right's . . . then it is bad.
So changes that you agree with are good and changes that you disgree with are treason?
dronester writes:
Once you drive over a cliff (oh no, please Tempe, no more cliff analogies), stepping on the brakes doesn't have much an effect . . .
The Constitution gives you the brakes - and the accelerator that got you into trouble in the first place. You'd better make up your mind whether the Constitution should be "supported" as is or needs to be changed.
dronester writes:
It's imperative to fight the attacks on our liberties now, not the next election cycle....
What can I do?
You tell me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by dronestar, posted 07-29-2013 12:42 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by dronestar, posted 07-29-2013 1:49 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 78 of 300 (703780)
07-29-2013 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by dronestar
07-29-2013 12:51 PM


Re: "treasonous clown"
dronester writes:
I think John Stewart might be today's modern court jester, as he is one of the only corporate media's allowable ways to gain true insight into modern politics.
Personally, I don't find John Stewart the least bit funny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by dronestar, posted 07-29-2013 12:51 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by dronestar, posted 07-29-2013 1:50 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 81 of 300 (703786)
07-29-2013 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by dronestar
07-29-2013 1:49 PM


Re: Michele Bachmann considering challenging Al Franken for his senate seat
dronester writes:
You cannot destroy your home while simultaneously maintaining it.
Sure you can. You can gut the spare bedroom to put in an ensuite bathroom.
dronester writes:
If you are Adolf Hitler you would be in favor of the things I find repugnant.
My views are probably closer to yours than to Hitler's and possibly than Franken's too. I'm not defending either Hitler's views or Franken's. I'm just pointing out how ludicrously over-the-top your criticism is.
It's a democracy. He's allowed to have views different from yours. People are allowed to vote for him. People are allowed to be wrong, for that matter.
Being flatfooted doesn't do you or anybody else any good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by dronestar, posted 07-29-2013 1:49 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by dronestar, posted 07-29-2013 3:04 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 82 of 300 (703788)
07-29-2013 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by dronestar
07-29-2013 1:50 PM


Re: "treasonous clown"
dronester writes:
ringo writes:
Personally, I don't find John Stewart the least bit funny.
Do you find him more truthful/insightful than Faux News?
I find all American politics incredibly boring. It's no wonder nobody votes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by dronestar, posted 07-29-2013 1:50 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by dronestar, posted 07-29-2013 3:05 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 90 of 300 (703879)
07-30-2013 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by dronestar
07-29-2013 3:04 PM


Re: Michele Bachmann considering challenging Al Franken for his senate seat
dronester writes:
I didn't write "bedroom." I wrote 'home." As in 'entire house.'
Are you being deliberately disingenuous? You know very well that you can renovate your home by "destroying" one room at a time. And Franken isn't even advocating destroying the whole Constitution, only a couple of bedrooms.
dronester writes:
Franken is attacking the constitution, not merely re-window dressing it.
You're implying criminal intent, yet he faces no criminal charges. It seems that your position is the unconventional one.
dronester writes:
"Democracy"??? Do you even know what the constitution and its amendments and my argument is all about? . . .
You haven't been very clear about that.
You've mentioned Snowden a couple of times, so maybe he has something to do with your point? In my opinion, he shouldn't be prosecuted (I believe I mentioned that I consider "treason" to be an obsolete idea) but other people have other opinions and they should be allowed to express them.
dronester writes:
Do you know what an oath is?
Yes, it's an empty formality.
dronester writes:
Are you saying you are okay with Hitler being merely wrong?
It might be an interesting aside to discuss whether or not Hitler could have been tried for his crimes. (There's a novel called The Trial of Adolf Hitler by Phillipe van Rjndt that discusses some of the difficulties.) But more appropriate to this topic is whether or not Al Franken can be tried for his "crimes".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by dronestar, posted 07-29-2013 3:04 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by dronestar, posted 07-31-2013 10:17 AM ringo has replied

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


Message 91 of 300 (703880)
07-30-2013 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by dronestar
07-29-2013 3:05 PM


Re: "treasonous clown"
dronester writes:
dronester writes:
Do you find him more truthful/insightful than Faux News?
RingO writes:
I find all American politics incredibly boring. It's no wonder nobody votes.
Do you find him more truthful/insightful than Faux News?
The subtext of my reply is that I don't follow either of them enough to compare them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by dronestar, posted 07-29-2013 3:05 PM dronestar has not replied

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


Message 96 of 300 (703956)
07-31-2013 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by dronestar
07-31-2013 10:17 AM


dronester writes:
Franken is neither attacking the constitution to make it better as Rahvin's example suggested, nor is he attacking the constitution, even in portions, to renovate it, or to repair it, or to criticize it, as you have suggested.
You're drowning in your own opinion. You have no way of knowing what Franken's motivations are.
dronester writes:
(Unless you use an extreme example of relativism, i.e., Hitler wants to 'improve' the constitution by creating a secret police state)
Of course Hitler was trying to create a better world. Even if his vision of a better world was different from yours, it was very popular in Germany.
dronester writes:
Franken continues to support illegal and secret police-state behavior by the government.
I, for one, "support" marijuana use even though it's illegal because I don't believe it should be illegal. My support, in and of itself is not illegal. Using marijuana is illegal; supporting its use is not.
Of course, Franken is not actually establishing a police state even if he does support the idea of one.
dronester writes:
... violating the fourth amendment.
As far as I know, an individual - even a Senator- can not personally violate the Constitution. Only legislation passed by a pertinent body can violate the Constitution. Advocating the passage of legislation that would violate the Constitution is not in and of itself illegal.
dronester writes:
If you've ever made an oath in your life, was it willfully empty?
All oaths are inherently empty whether wilfully or not. 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:
If there may be technical difficulties in trying a monster like Hitler, I would mostly be sad to hear about them.
Not technical difficulties, practical difficulties - like what laws did he actually break? Americans can't try Hitler for breaking German laws or for breaking American laws outside America. "War crimes" and "crimes against humanity" tend to be tried according to laws made up after the fact. It's the equivalent of giving a speeding ticket to Ben-Hur.
You don't like Franken's views so you want him prosecuted even if you have to make up the propaganda occasion to do it.
If he was violating any laws, the officials who actually administer the law would do something about it. If he's abusing the system, the system can deal with him.
Edited by ringo, : Spellig.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by dronestar, posted 07-31-2013 10:17 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by dronestar, posted 07-31-2013 1:21 PM ringo has replied
 Message 98 by dronestar, posted 07-31-2013 1:32 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 99 of 300 (703963)
07-31-2013 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by dronestar
07-31-2013 1:21 PM


dronester writes:
Talk about disingenuous....
Indeed you are. We were talking about tearing down the whole house as opposed to renovating one room at a time and you claimed to know that Franken wants to destroy the whole Constitution. Now you're going off on a different tangent.
dronester writes:
Yes, and Franken wants a similar type of 'better world.' What part of that is not scaring you?
We're not talking about what scares me. 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?
dronester writes:
the National Security Agency HAS BEEN secretly gathering personal data on Americans since 2007, a violation of the fourth amendment, including their internet use and cell phone service.
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.
dronester writes:
Now who is being an absolutist?
I have never said that there are no absolutes.
Edited by ringo, : Inserted missingspace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by dronestar, posted 07-31-2013 1:21 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Rahvin, posted 07-31-2013 1:47 PM ringo has replied
 Message 104 by dronestar, posted 07-31-2013 4:30 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 100 of 300 (703964)
07-31-2013 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by dronestar
07-31-2013 1:32 PM


dronester writes:
ringo writes:
Even if [Hitler's] vision of a better world was different from yours, it was very popular in Germany.
It seems to be slightly less popular in today's Germany.
If people voted with 80-year hindsight, the world would be a very different place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by dronestar, posted 07-31-2013 1:32 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by dronestar, posted 07-31-2013 4:36 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 102 of 300 (703966)
07-31-2013 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Rahvin
07-31-2013 1:47 PM


Rahvin writes:
An individual police officer can perform actions that violate the Constitutional rights of citizens.
I understand that that is the colloquial use of the term "unconstitutional" in the U.S. but I think the distinction is important. Violating the Constitutional rights of citizens is not "violating the Constitution" per se. A law which permitted the violation of those rights would violate the Constitution. Individual police officers who violate citizens' rights are violating a law (which may be unwritten), not the Constitution itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Rahvin, posted 07-31-2013 1:47 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Rahvin, posted 07-31-2013 2:02 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 106 of 300 (703978)
07-31-2013 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by dronestar
07-31-2013 4:30 PM


dronester writes:
Franken HAS BEEN and IS CONTINUING to support the violation of the fourth Amendment.
And you're continuing to be disingenuous. 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.
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.
dronester writes:
Rahvin's already rebutted the 2nd part of your argument.
Yes, it's a quirk of American terminology. "Unconstitutionality" has become the only sin.
But I had hoped that semantics wouldn't take over the issue.
dronester writes:
Seems to me he is at least partly responsible for activities that are directed against the constitution.
Seems to me your position is getting a lot softer. Maybe you'll eventually make it under the top.
Edited by ringo, : Speling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by dronestar, posted 07-31-2013 4:30 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Rahvin, posted 07-31-2013 5:18 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 108 by dronestar, posted 08-01-2013 1:13 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024