Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Holder on Banning Home Schooling


  • Please log in to reply
169 replies to this topic

#166    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,863 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:51 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 26 February 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

In your opinion the country could not take the "fallout".

Instead, the country has taken the "fallout" of coming to terms with the fact that men responsible for law breaking are not prosecuted.  The country has now come to the cynical realization that the rule of law does not apply to men in government.

Which is worse?
That the rule of law doesn't apply to the men in government is the worse.

Obama didn't have anywhere close to the leadership needed to do the right thing and fall on his own sword if necessary.   I'm sure we're shocked about that.  Keep hiring from the same bipartisan pool and expecting a different result, because he once made a speech against Bush's war, and then voted for it every chance he got.    If he prosecuted the Bush administration instead of giving them an unofficial pardon, he wouldn't have gotten reelected.  Compared to his contemporaries, he would have gone down in history for bringing actual "change" to the establishment.  A controversial figure in a sea of sameness.  If he proved to be the most fiscally conservative President we've had in 30 years, some liberal right wing nut case probably would have tried to assassinate him by now as he drove the precious establishment into the ground, savaging it with political upheaval.   The solution to the worse of the two problems, as it were.

But he was too self-interested for all that, and burying those republican sins were much too fashionable, why?  Because he was going to continue committing them all himself, as history has proven.   Because once these crooks get into office there's not a dime's worth of difference between them.   People are sadly indoctrinated in this country to prefer their party's politics and actually they think they're more intelligent for being so.   Fox News Channel and MSNBC are partisan soapboxes that pound the airwaves 24-hours a day to make us think that reality comes in a partisan shaped box.  How do I strain THIS through my partisan filter?  That's the first screen these garbage networks ask before they report on anything.

I'm with you brother.  I have enough respect in the rule of law to actually insist on it without letting outlandish partisan fear mongering rule my better judgment.

"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#167    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,523 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 27 February 2013 - 06:26 PM

View PostYamato, on 26 February 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

That the rule of law doesn't apply to the men in government is the worse.

Obama didn't have anywhere close to the leadership needed to do the right thing and fall on his own sword if necessary.   I'm sure we're shocked about that.  Keep hiring from the same bipartisan pool and expecting a different result, because he once made a speech against Bush's war, and then voted for it every chance he got. If he prosecuted the Bush administration instead of giving them an unofficial pardon, he wouldn't have gotten reelected.  Compared to his contemporaries, he would have gone down in history for bringing actual "change" to the establishment.  A controversial figure in a sea of sameness.  If he proved to be the most fiscally conservative President we've had in 30 years, some liberal right wing nut case probably would have tried to assassinate him by now as he drove the precious establishment into the ground, savaging it with political upheaval.   The solution to the worse of the two problems, as it were.

But he was too self-interested for all that, and burying those republican sins were much too fashionable, why?  Because he was going to continue committing them all himself, as history has proven.   Because once these crooks get into office there's not a dime's worth of difference between them.   People are sadly indoctrinated in this country to prefer their party's politics and actually they think they're more intelligent for being so.   Fox News Channel and MSNBC are partisan soapboxes that pound the airwaves 24-hours a day to make us think that reality comes in a partisan shaped box.  How do I strain THIS through my partisan filter?  That's the first screen these garbage networks ask before they report on anything.

I'm with you brother.  I have enough respect in the rule of law to actually insist on it without letting outlandish partisan fear mongering rule my better judgment.

Obama is an intelligent guy.  I'm sure he understands in his head that JFK was assassinated for not being a team player with CIA and the MIC.  So, he plays along so that his daughters will not become fatherless.  I can understand that line of reasoning, but considering his oath of office, I cannot respect that line of reasoning.  By his actions, he is a domestic enemy of the USC.


#168    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,523 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 27 February 2013 - 06:30 PM

View PostTiggs, on 26 February 2013 - 08:45 PM, said:

I'm going to go with "A civil war involving the deaths of millions of innocents, with still no guarantee of being actually able to prosecute the men who broke the law".

Which of course is a hypothetical.

It's funny, your mention of "no guarantee of being actually able to prosecute" is almost the very same thing that Holder said in his press conference explaining why there would be no indictments in one of the high profile banking cases a few months back.

He, the AG, presumed to speak for the jury in claiming that no jury would convict.

I say, Mr. AG, give a jury a chance, and make sure it is a fully informed jury while you're at it.


#169    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,134 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 27 February 2013 - 09:56 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 27 February 2013 - 06:30 PM, said:

Which of course is a hypothetical.
As is any unwritten course of history.

Such as any alternative timeline proposing that a second civil war wouldn't be the result - even though it's obvious enough, even to you, that the assassination of Obama by the CIA would be a likely first consequence.

The ideal position is obviously prosecution. On that, we both solidly agree.

I'd personally be extremely happy to see cabinet level prosecutions for advocating institutionalized torture (though, I also personally think that prosecuting anyone below that level who followed the legal guidelines handed out by the Government is an extremely dangerous idea). I don't see anything that so far has been enacted that would stop those cabinet level prosecutions from occurring in the future, during less volatile times.

We currently live in a country where literally less than six months ago, almost half of the population willingly voted for a Presidential candidate that publicly stated that he thinks that water boarding is not torture. As long as it remains an issue with that distinct partisan divide, prosecuting it will always be spun into being an unprovoked partisan assault to imprison the opposition for political crimes, with subsequent dire consequences.


Quote

It's funny, your mention of "no guarantee of being actually able to prosecute" is almost the very same thing that Holder said in his press conference explaining why there would be no indictments in one of the high profile banking cases a few months back.

He, the AG, presumed to speak for the jury in claiming that no jury would convict.
Part of the Attorney General's job is to decide which cases are worth spending the Government's limited resources prosecuting.


Quote

I say, Mr. AG, give a jury a chance, and make sure it is a fully informed jury while you're at it.
Choosing to believe that you have infinite resources to prosecute everything is obviously the much easier path.

Edited by Tiggs, 27 February 2013 - 10:04 PM.


#170    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,523 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 27 February 2013 - 10:14 PM

Tiggs

You and I are coming at the very same thing, from different perspectives in life.  It sounds like you work in the field of which you speak, and I don't.  I happily accept all your knowledge and respect your opinion in it.

But I have the luxury of judging torture all by itself, in and of itself, not as a political perception phenomenon, but more as a moral absolute.  I equate torture with assault, personally.

I think  the law should too.

You and I do not share that fear of civil disobedience.  If the system would actually indict of few of those criminals, actually send them to jail, then there would be far less of that sort of financial crime.  The deterrent effect does work within the world of tepid bankers and fraternity men.  Send a few to jail for a few years, and the others tighten up their collective act. :w00t:





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users