Re: [OpenHeroQuest] Vote RRRRRRRRRRRRR !!!!!!!!!

From: Julian Lord <jlord_at_YkSWa1Do30VVRg2VJV9LMWpIqLnIiBoD_w-r8JTPajP_mc1YjtYY6zXvP3gIMW80hg4M.y>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 03:01:50 +0200


Chris Franco :

> > Who Bork ? Can I have the commie RR version
>
> Bork was a Reagan judicial nominee that the Democrats
> targeted on the ground that he believed in
> interpreting the Constitution according to what the
> framers said about it. The problem with that position
> is that the Supreme Court made up constitutional law
> in Roe v. Wade. (Actually, that's not quite right;
> they resurrected constitutional law that FDR bullied
> the Supremes into overruling. But it is practically
> the same thing.) Thus, his broad philosophical
> position about constitutional law was construed as
> opposing Roe v. Wade (which, in fairness, it
> necessarily must to be consistent). The Democracts
> went to unprecedented lengths to defeat his
> nomination, which created a new precedent. The result
> is that over a quarter of the federal bench sits
> empty. The Clarence Thomas nomination hearing were
> part and parcel of the new precedent.
>
> It is an awful situation. I suspect many Democrats
> have the same feeling about it as I do about the Davis
> recall: yeah, we won the battle, but did we really
> want this war?

I said I wanted the commie RR version : me small brain : me not understand legalese jargon. Me prefer big cuddly commie RR version.

> > > Second, nothing illegal has happened.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but when the USA proves itself
> > incapable of organising a SIMPLE RECOUNT of
> > cast ballots, then it's just blindingly obvious
> > that democracy has taken the back seat.
>
> Perhaps, but that is incompetence, not illegality,
> driving the car.

Incompetence at that level is IMHO criminal.

> > Not to mention the fact that the unelected
> > Supreme Court decided that its powers were superior
> > to the Electoral College (that "fine" "democratic"
> > institution) in matters of, well, elections ...
>
> The Supremes are correct about this. Our constitution
> makes the Supreme Court the final arbiter

Oh, OK. That's all fine and legal then.

At least in the country next door it's a specific Constitutional comittee that's
the final arbiter, and in the UK it's the Lords and Commons combined.

Having a handful of appointed cronies deciding such vital matters is of course a vast improvement over our own democratically challenged Old European procedures.

> > Not to mention the fact that, constitutionally,
> > Florida ought to have either a) recounted (duh !)
> > b) returned a 'contested' decision if outcome
> > remained uncertain (as it was) and
> > therefore have sent no electors to the College
>
> (a) is not a bad argument, but (if I read the final
> articles on it), no such recount would have changed
> the result. The problem was that the local election
> officials were re-interpreting the ballots arbitratily
> to come to the result they wanted. That is just as
> awful as the Supremes calling a halt to it.

Yeah, the whole thing just stinks at every level.

> I don't think (b) is constitutionally permitted. The
> state legislature gets to send the electors if the
> electorate fails.

That's what I read at the time about "contested states".

I'm no expert though.

> > Frankly, your Electoral College system is outmoded,
> > outdated, and just plain SUCKS !!
> >
> > Face facts !
>
> Fair argument. It does, though, reflect a genuinely
> confederal system.

The South Will Rise Again !!!!

> > > Finally, Bush won Florida, which meant he won the
> > > electoral college. Yeah, it was close,
> >
> > Goddamn close : next time 'round I hope his
> > brother will be more skilful in organising
> > prison sentences for the pinko riff-raff
> > (with accompanying removal of voting rights)
> > and more effective anti-nigger road blocks on
> > election day.
>
> Not to worry. The cemetaries and mental institutions
> full of active Democratic voters make up for it.

LOL
> Besides, at least in the case of felons, you are
> talking about people who are legally barred from
> voting. They got their due process.

Watch that "Lone Star" movie by John Sayles.

It's a bit pinko commie, but it has a true redneck moral to it.

Convicting and imprisoning people has turned into a politically corrupt private enterprise, that disenfranchises the pinko commies of their natural rights.

> > In fact, the "new" EU Constitution is basically a
> > compilation of texts from previous EU treaties.
>
> Which makes its presentation as a new constitution
> even more awful.

No, that's the acceptable bits. If it ain't ratified, those sections will be in force anyway.

> > The one contentious proposal is that decisions
> > be made by a qualified (2/3rds I believe)
> > majority (AKA democracy) instead of requiring
> > unanimous agreement (AKA paralysis).
>
> I.e., each nation would be required to hand over its
> sovereignty to a central institution on those matters,
> rather than keeping it subject to national control.
> Sounds like a pretty important decision not to ask the
> people about.

That's right, that's the contentious bit.

The non-contentious bits are :

the elected EU president : either this goes through or it doesn't. Who cares ? (Yes : so what ?! No : so what ?!)

common defense ministry: see above.

other common ministries: ditto.

> > I understand that the Bush administration is keen
> > to have the new constitution blocked. Hmmm. Wonder
> > why ?
>
> Because it calls for a military headquarters to be set
> up independently of NATO (rather than next door as
> some have suggested), thus threatening the
> transatlantic alliance that has been the basis of
> peace and prosperity in western Europe for the last 55
> years?

North America is (supposedly) no longer part of western Europe. Anyway, that's just a quarrel, not a contention.

The Constitution doesn't depend on it, and frankly I can't see that article succeeding.

> re: ballot fraud
> > Omigod, you guys are sooooo screwed.
> >
> > Unfortunately, you have all the WMDs, and so are we.
> > :-(
>
> Nah. The cheaters cancel each other out, by and
> large.

But not the WMDs. BTW I'm glad Bush is scrapping some of them. But it's likely just a budgetary concern.

But far better than the ex-USSR dodge of simply _losing_ them.

:-o

> > Because you guys routinely veto any international
> > treaties you dislike, and also unilaterally
> > denounce any past treaties that may become
> > personally irksome to your present
> > commanders-in-chief ?
>
> It's good to be the USA. Must suck not to be. That
> said, every other country on earth does it. No one
> complains about them.

Just to be 100% crystal clear : I'm pro-American.

I am however seriously anti-Bush. And anti-Blair.

Pro-French-wine, anti-"Freedom-Fries", pro-Issaries.

Anti-gasoline, though. Seriously anti-gasoline.

(That's anti-petrol in my home dialect, BTW)

> > Not signing the treaties you dislike doesn't
> > make your chemical and biological weaponry
> > any less illegal.
>
> Huh? What law do we then break?

A moral one.

> > Using your rationale, Saddam's old US-financed
> > arsenal (that he destroyed) was perfectly OK
> > according to Iraqi law, and so is North Korea's
> > nuclear one, for similar "legal" reasons.
>
> Saddam did sign stuff (the Nuclear Non-proliferation
> Treaty, frex) and there were relevant UN resolutions.

Oh right : So :

  1. Sign treaties
  2. Destroy illegal weapons
  3. Be invaded by foreign powers
  4. Be unable to defend oneself because of 1) & 2)
  5. Hide in a corner
  6. Wait for bullet

Next_Dictator

Goto 1) ?

Yeah, Bush has _reallly_ sent a positive signal to the world, hasn't he ... :-(

(and that evil faux-rouge Blair, too)

> Unfortunately, North Korea is actually on solid legal
> ground because they refused to sign in the first
> place.
>
> Which brings us back to Bush's point: because the UN
> is a bunch of weak-wristed commies, we're gonna take
> out whoever we have to, whenever we have to. If not,
> what's the alternative? Living with a nuclear-armed
> North Korea? Given that they have enough artillery
> dug in north of Seoul to reduce it to rubble (i.e.,
> they already have one WMD, it's just conventional
> weaponry), there's nothing military we can do, but
> threats might get them to the bargaining table.

No. The alternative, indeed the inevitability, is that unless the US can agree to abide to a framework of International Law, then countries will continue to develop WMDs for self-Defence. Defence against whom ? The USA of course. Not so much against the military as against the ideology and the commercial clout.

"Weak-wristed commies" ? I don't think so ...

> > Seriously, what pisses me of most about Bush
> > (and Blair) is that they didn't have the brains
> > to say the simple truth : they wanted Saddam
> > removed NOT because of any non-existent WMDs,
> > but because he was a blood-thirsty dictator who
> > ordered a genocide or three, and needed punishing
> > and removal.
> >
> > If _this_ had been given as the reason for the
> > war, well, I think far more people would be
> > supporting you now.
>
> Hmm. I don't think so, because that rationale would
> apply to half of the countries in the world. E.g.,
> China, almost all of Africa, etc.

:-/

China is a permanent member of the Security Council, with Veto powers. No argument could work with China.

Do you think that Syria's proposed anti-Israeli Resolution has a snowball's chance in hell ?

> The winning argument is oppresion plus the apparent
> intent

I'm sorry, the only really "winning" argument, to my mind, would be actual genocide.

> to develop weapons that, like North Korea's,
> puts him beyond the reach of American military might.

I'm sorry, but why should it be a given that American military might must have such a far reach ?

> (And yeah, so we didn't find weapons. Lay aside the
> partisanship for a moment: go back to the time just
> before the invasion and assume it is OK to attack if
> you really think he has WMD.

I'm sorry, but it appeared obvious to me at the time that no WMDs would be found.

Face it, we were lied to.

I can never support a war, but I would have understood a war waged for clear reasons.

> I think we made the right
> assumptions about his intent; the assumptions just
> turned out to be wrong. So, oops, we rid Iraq of an
> evil despot on our own nickel. No harm, no foul.)

Saddam was the 9/11 scapegoat, let's face it.

I say good riddance, but yes harm, yes foul.

The USA has sent a clear message to the World : OK to unilateral action and "pre-emptive wars".

After what happened in Iraq, how could any country continue to trust the US to keep its word ?

Remember : you financed the guy !!

Julian Lord            

Powered by hypermail