Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

In my opinion you are blowing this totally out of proportion.

This part is especially off the wall and borderline frothing at the mouth description of actions that are legal procedure for the rest of the 99.9999% of the country.

So, I"M 'frothing at the mouth" am I?   Your argument is is ALL opinion, short on facts and short on debate . But, that doesn't surprise me.

You're asserting the next step is Bush attempting a military coup based on the FBI and the Justice department and a Federal Court following legal procedures and not tradition.

Said  no such thing. Check out my reply to Steyr AUG above.

Farmerkev wrote:

You have claimed Congress has some special right to secret legislation but provided no proof.

Sure they do. If Executive Privilege is real so is Congressional Privilege. Prove me wrong! 

Farmerkev wrote:

You have claimed Congress is above both other branches (when the constitutional checks and balances clearly prove differently) and provided nothing but your opinion.

I said no such thing. Read the post again -- carefully. I said Congress has the power of OVERSIGHT of both the Executive and Judiciary. That includes the power of impeachment, or have you forgotten Clinton? Really, kev, read your Constitution.

Impeachment is a check on the overstep of power by the Executive and the Judiciary. Makes perfect, logical sense. Both the Executive and the Judiciary have the agency of enforcement of the law, therefore, Congress is the check on them in the event they use bad judgment or use the law improperly.

Want to know more about the history and function of the Congress, I suggest you go to CSPAN on line and look for the last three days of 3 hour broadcasts of The Capitol? Very interesting, not to mention enlightening. The entire history of the Capitol building, the House and the Senate are encapsulated in a 9 hour documentary. It may not be as entertaining as Michael Moore, but it's very informative to all who care about the country and the Congress that runs it.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

C'mon, Farmerkev! The reason why I call it the "Bush Administration" is because he is the head of the current administration and he responsible for selecting, directly or indirectly, the people who were taking these actions. It is also the reason why I did not write "Bush."

And I have to ask: you have evidence that Hastert and other members of Congress knew about Jefferson's bribery? Or are you buying into the slander by that anonymous "administration official" that Hastert is "out of sync" on corruption?

Hassert is out of sync with his IL voters, at the the central IL voters all want to give him a swift kick in the rump.
I've no evidence that Hassert and the other congressmen watch the news. I think that is a reasonable expectation though especially considering what they do for a living.
I don't think they should have kicked him out based on charges and not a conviction, but an ethics committee investigation wouldn't have been unreasonable if as it has been claimed they are a self-regulating body outside the reach of any other branch of govt..
I think people are trying to spin this as terribly evil by tying this to our idiot President. I think this is one "they" actually got right for a change.