Che'_Moderator Posted September 14, 2005 Report Share Posted September 14, 2005 well if there could be an antithesis to the protagonist, there you have it. chuck you are bereft of any manner of conciliatory prose. blunt as a sledgehammer. cracks me up.Subvert the dominate paradigm is what I tell all my little dogmatic employees. The great thing about issues such as these is there is no right answer. But to me its like fighting on if a comet will slam into earth and kill us all tomorrow. It does not really matter to me. I am either dead or alive and facing life one day at a time much as I am now. If you really feel this strongly, I think people should do something about it. If you really think we're on the downward spiral leave. If you do not have the means or the ability are you at least stocking supplies you will need in post war neo-america? As much as I do not like this country, it does have two things going for it. One is land mass. No single attack will throw us into darkness or obscurity. Two, if we do destabilize the entire world is going with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenhoeve Posted September 14, 2005 Report Share Posted September 14, 2005 Subvert the dominate paradigm is what I tell all my little dogmatic employees. The great thing about issues such as these is there is no right answer. But to me its like fighting on if a comet will slam into earth and kill us all tomorrow. It does not really matter to me. I am either dead or alive and facing life one day at a time much as I am now. If you really feel this strongly, I think people should do something about it. If you really think we're on the downward spiral leave. If you do not have the means or the ability are you at least stocking supplies you will need in post war neo-america? As much as I do not like this country, it does have two things going for it. One is land mass. No single attack will throw us into darkness or obscurity. Two, if we do destabilize the entire world is going with us.don't get me wrong, wasn't condescending. on the contrary, i respect the stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Che'_Moderator Posted September 14, 2005 Report Share Posted September 14, 2005 don't get me wrong, wasn't condescending. on the contrary, i respect the stance.I know. I was just busting Volfan's chops. Plus Ken your smart and healthy. I have no doubt neo-america has a place for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StickThatClutch Posted September 14, 2005 Report Share Posted September 14, 2005 (edited) wait! let me try.In order to really appreciate this concern, you need to recognize the historical aspect of rights infringement. They don't all go away at once, but often gradually. One step in the wrong direction is a slippery slope. That's all I'm saying.Yeah, but therein lies a rub. If let's say the President were to step in the Padilla case it would be a huge infringment of the seperation of powers. Padilla's issue is a judicial issue not one of the executive branch. Like I stated earlier, the President's implied power on this matter (his ability to detain a combatant under the joint resolution) was legistalitvely given to him - he did not create it. So historically, it would be a gross misconduct for the executive to step in at this point. There is a legal remedy waiting in the wings. The case will be heard. The only problem at this point is the timing. Even that isn't necessarily an issue of politics. Padilla's outside counsel had a chance. They fibbed it. If the executive steps in on this issue its going to be a scarier breach of power. The fact that a single person could alter the long standing legal standards is something much more discerning in my mind than Padilla's case.The same people who bee-itch about Padilla not getting his due process will be the same people that will bee-itch if the legal process is sped along by an external force. Edited September 14, 2005 by StickThatClutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts