- #1
ComputerGeek
- 383
- 0
What is the most dangerous action?
Pengwuino said:Why don't we toss in Nigerian trade infringments while we're at it.
No, I got a better one that is much more related to American Democracy: Congressional hearings on video game ratings. Is this thread on how we should impeach Hillary? I'm sure someone will be around soon to help you better understand, without the sarcmas, why this thread is one of the worst polls one could imagine...
cyrusabdollahi said:I don’t like your poll; it’s got too few choices and is not worded very well. It’s tilted to bush, and as a result you will get unfair poll answers. Sorry. A threat is a treat is a threat. You are comparing shades of black. Not even shades of grey. Bad is bad, and unacceptable.
russ_watters said:If you want to ask if Bush is worse than Clinton, just ask if Bush is worse than Clinton.
WarrenPlatts said:The question doesn't make any sense because warrantless wiretaps of American citizens who talk to foreigners on terrorist watchlists actually reduces danger to American democracy.
Who "set Clinton up"? Did someone put his pecker in that woman's mouth? Did they tell him he had to lie about it too?ComputerGeek said:It is a serious deal, and unlike Clinton, the democrats did not set Bush up to break a law, Bush did it on his own.
TheStatutoryApe said:Who "set Clinton up"? Did someone put his pecker in that woman's mouth? Did they tell him he had to lie about it too?
To say that what Bush has done is worse than anything Clinton ever did is one thing but to make Clinton out as some sort of victim on top of it is just ridiculous.
All he had to do was tell the truth, or perhaps not have done such a thing in the first place.ComputerGeek said:Explain to me what the entire line of questioning from Ken Star had to do with illegal deals in Arkansas that Hillary had been accused of back in the 80's.
You see the set up? Get Clinton on the stand, get him to lie about something (knowing he will lie about having intimate relations like any human) and look... you have a president breaking the law in the most technical sense there is since in reality, a prosecutor would not bother charging a grand jury witness with perjury for something like that unless it actually pertained to the prosecution of any case, or had an impact on any indictments.
TheStatutoryApe said:All he had to do was tell the truth, or perhaps not have done such a thing in the first place.
If it had nothing to do with the case in question then object to the prosecution side tracking from the actual issue of concern.
There was no need what so ever to lie.
So you're telling me then that in such a legal proceeding the president doesn't have recourse to any of the same rights that normal citizens have? He can't refuse to answer a question because it has nothing to do with the proceedings he is taking part in? I find that hard to believe.ComputerGeek said:In a grade jury, the prosecutor is the person running it. There is no judge, and you can not object.
Actually I said nothing of the sort. I'd thank you not to put words in my mouth.ComputerGeek said:Basically, you are saying that because he got a BJ from some one who was not his wife, he should have been impeached anyway.
Yes. Not that he should be impeached for it but that he should not lie and rather refuse to answer the question on the grounds that they have no right or reaso to ask it for the purposes of their proceedings.ComputerGeek said:I mean, would you have the same attitude if they asked him if he liked getting it from hillary using a strap on and he lied about that?
Sorry, strike that.me said:In my state at least there are laws against such things.
ComputerGeek said:But, if he did direct the NSA to wiretap American citizens (there are no exceptions) without going to FISA, that is a direct violation of the FISA act. Violating FISA carries a felony charge o $10,000 fine and 5 years in prison for EACH instance... That is around 1500 years in prison if served consecutively.
loseyourname said:That's for a court to decide, not us. According to Gonzales, there has been other legislation passed that gives the president the power to bypass FISA. It is quite common for the provisions of one piece of legislation to violate another, in which it is a matter of figuring out which legislation takes precedence. A case like that usually isn't resolved until something like this happens to bring to light a conflict between two acts. Personally, I think Gonzales is pulling this out of his ass and will bend any ambiguous language to make is sounds like the president has whatever power he wants to have, but I'm not a federal judge or a legal expert. These things are way too technical for amateurs on an internet message board to be deciding on. About all we can say is this stinks and something, anything needs to be done to stop it. Hopefully something happens because it's obvious that Bush is still convinced that he has the legal power to order these wiretaps and is continuuing to do so.
Impeahment is not the process by which we fire a president - elections are. Impeachment can only be for crimes - specifically, "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". Unfortunately, the Constitution isn't specific about whether the "misdemeanors" refer to "gross misdemeanors" (domestic assault, for example), "misdemeanors" (driving under the influence of alcohol, for example), or "petty misdemeanors" (driving over the posted speed limit, for example).TheStatutoryApe said:Sorry, strike that.
I checked and I think I mistook another law.
In any event such things are generally firable offenses and impeachment is the process by which we fire the president. It was decided through the process that we would not in fact fire him for it and that was that.
Bush said:So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It's vital. And others will describe what that means.
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
And even then companies don’t necessarily fire the individual. Good Lord, if people were fired for having extra-marital affairs in the workplace, no one in America would have a job.BobG said:Regardless, having sex with a subordinate isn't a crime unless it's associated with illegal sexual harrassment.
Or that if it did come to light, fellow Republicans would come to his defense, and nothing could be done about it.Amp1 said:Nope, he probably thought that the policy of secrecy his admin has instituted, the 'under the cloak of secrecy' scheming and abuse of power would never come to light. lol
Well, almost no one. Maybe I need to find a better place to work.SOS2008 said:And even then companies don’t necessarily fire the individual. Good Lord, if people were fired for having extra-marital affairs in the workplace, no one in America would have a job.
A "Greater Threat to American Democracy" is a phrase used to describe a situation or event that poses a significant risk to the stability and functioning of the United States' democratic system. This can include things like political polarization, foreign interference in elections, or erosion of civil liberties.
Some examples of "Greater Threats to American Democracy" include foreign interference in elections, such as the Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election; political polarization and division, leading to a lack of compromise and cooperation in government; and attempts to suppress voting rights and access to fair elections.
Addressing "Greater Threats to American Democracy" requires a multifaceted approach. This can include measures to strengthen and protect voting rights, promote political unity and bipartisanship, and increase transparency and accountability in government. It also involves educating the public about the importance of a strong and functioning democratic system.
The consequences of "Greater Threats to American Democracy" can be far-reaching and damaging. They can include a loss of trust in government and institutions, weakened democracy and governance, and increased division and polarization among citizens. Ultimately, "Greater Threats to American Democracy" can undermine the core principles and values of the United States.
Individuals can help mitigate "Greater Threats to American Democracy" by staying informed and engaged in the political process, exercising their right to vote, and holding elected officials accountable. They can also support organizations and initiatives that work towards promoting a stronger and more inclusive democracy. Additionally, individuals can strive to have respectful and informed discussions with those who hold different political views, promoting unity and understanding rather than division.