Quote:
Italians in my family say, "Fuck You!" to just about everybody.

Then you're a bunch of stupid, egg stealing WOP's with no grace. Better to be an Italian than to be a WOP with no style.

Now you make more sense to me, Commissar LS. You think "fuck" and "shit" come from your brain and you mistake dull for self indulgent and self indulgent for pithy. If your family says they aren't a bunch of WOP"S, they're not telling the truth, which is what WOP's do.

No wonder you bore me.

It really is ridiculous to talk about the government having or not having a major role in the economy and major industries. In Japan and Germany the government has MUCH more of a role in not only the economy but labor unions and labor policies compared to the U.S., and they have been very successful in many respects. I can't think of ANY major country where the government is NOT heavily involved in social and economic policies.

And for those who like to whine about "creeping socialism", one might want to consider Sweden, which has 10 times the socialism of the U.S., AND the highest standard of living in the world, including excellent education and free medical services and average wages almost double those in the U.S.

The fact of the matter is that we have had a lot of socialism in the U.S. since 1933. The problem is that in the U.S., socialism is a dirty word, so we don't do a very good job of it, because we are ambivalent about it (which is stupid).

Properly managed socialism simply means regulating the excesses of the greedheads (think AIG and Bernie Baddo) so that the majority of the people don't get screwed too badly; we need a bit more of it. And furthermore, as far as I am concerned, any government worth spit should be able to provide free basic health care to every citizen; anyone who disagrees with that statement is a first-class moron!

Oh, and by the way...the Romans started "Fascism"; the "fasces" was a Roman symbol of power of the Senate (and also the power of officials), and it stood for representative rule of Rome, among other things. Mussolini adopted that symbol in Italy to evoke the former greatness of Rome, which he aspired to (and we have the fasces on our dime, to represent the link to our modern representative form of government...).

Quote:
Then you tried to pass of a 1970 decision that ruled individual States do not have the right to decide their citizens are absolved from fighting in a Congressionally declared war. A "Congressionally" declared war! Unless you care to pay attention to who does the declaring of war in this ruling this is even less useful to the issue.

The specifically 'declared war' in the case was Vietnam..did Congress declare war in the manner you believe is necessary in Vietnam? Nope...the court ruled that the congressional actions taken sufficed. The actions taken by Congress for Vietnam were less than taken for Iraq.

Quote:
Try this one ...

'This one' is simply an opinion piece and not a legal case or argument.

Quote:
Do you seriously think you're going to prove anything that hasn't been laughed out of court when Bush's lawyers have argued the case?

If the case had been laughed out of court you would have a court case to reference..you do not.

Quote:
The only way to figure out which war was illegal is to look at who was put on trial and what the verdict was.

True..or which court case stopped the 'illegal' activity. It also has to be a US court...

Veit Nam was a police action and never went beyond that in legislation. Once again you are blinded to the real issues, the judgement you referred me to pointed to Congressional action in the declaration of war, it did not provide for imperial executive war powers. So, thanks for making my case for me but you really need to get off this topic since you have nothing but BS to spout about it.

Quote:
The actions taken by Congress for Vietnam were less than taken for Iraq.

This is getting tiresome, that does not make the Iraq invasion legal. The actions taken for the two conflicts both legislatively and militarily were quite different. None the less, Executive War Powers do not include the power of the Executive to wage war without the consent of Congress. That's still Civics 101.

Unless this is really how you work things out in your head, stop trying this worthless tack. The spaghetti is falling off the wall and I'm tired of rebutting nonsensical BS.

This is not addressing the issue of this thread. You think you are going to trip me up and it isn't going to happen. The two sides vehemently disagree on this issue and there is nothing short of a court trial that will settle this.

So move on. This became tedious long ago.

Quote:
'This one' is simply an opinion piece and not a legal case or argument.

I never tried to present a legal argument. You're the one who brought case law into this discussion and insisted it would prove me wrong but you can't or won't provide case law to support your claims. You would have been dismissed from any real court long ago for the BS you tried to pass off as case law. So give it up and discuss something of value - not your typical Rushbo "I hope he fails" nonsense.

Show me the case law or shut up about this.

What I showed you in that article was the opinion of the Republican Senate Majority leader under Bill Clinton. Just a few years before the Iraq invasion but with the White House under Democratic control Dole wanted to reign in Presidential powers and bring them back to the Congress where the Constitution originally placed them.

I find it ever so interesting that all that was forgotten once the Republicans saw political advantage and leverage to be gained by having their party in possession of a "war time President".

You don't think that's interesting?

Hmmmmmmm?

Don't you remember when, with Clinton in the Oval Office, the Repubs accused Bill of "wagging the dog" and Trent Lott stood on the Senate floor and announced, "We can support our troops without supporting this President"? Don't you find it interesting that "this President" was overwhelmingly supported and advantage was taken once he became "our President"?

Hmmmmmm?

You must be so proud of how your party conducts politics at the expense of the people's interest.

Quote:
If the case had been laughed out of court you would have a court case to reference..you do not.

Oh, my! And what case are you referring to now?

And what does this have to do with the present situation other than the incompetence and greed of the Republicans has taken what the American people were promised would be a "cakewalk" and a "slam dunk" six month adventure at the most and turned it into seven year long with no end in sight constant drain on the US economy, it has boosted our enemies stature while weakening our own, it has endangered our military's ability to wage combat, cost trillions and will continue to cost trillions for the unforseeable future and shattered the lives of hundreds of thousands of people worldwide? And when Petreaus was asked by a Republican Senator if the invasion and continued ocupation of two nations had made us any safer, the General answered, "I don't know, sir."

You must be so proud of how your party conducts politics at the expense of the people's interests.

Confine your comments to those categories or move on, this is ridiculous that you can't let go of this.

Quote:
True..or which court case stopped the 'illegal' activity. It also has to be a US court...

Bullshit! We're talking international law. No matter what Bush and Limbaugh told you, the US is legally bound by its treaties and obligations. That's why many of the Bushies will soon find themself confined to the borders of the United States fearing arrest if they set foot in the wrong country.

I can hear them gnawing their foot off now to get out of the trap.

You guys just better hope Odbama stays focussed on what's ahead and doesn't look too far behind him; http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/us/politics/01terror.html?th&emc=th

To return to the mistitled subject of this thread, this not particularly partisan article on the banking crisis should be required reading for those who continue to insist that government has no role in the process of US banks and businesses sorting out their problems: www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
You guys just better hope Odbama stays focussed on what's ahead and doesn't look too far behind him; http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/us/politics/01terror.html?th&emc=th

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/02/us.torture.documents/

Actually I did read it, though I'm surprised you took the time - not nearly enough right wing nut job words in there for you to thrive on.

Quote:

Quote:
To break this cycle, the government must force the banks to acknowledge the scale of their problems.

Sounds like he wants a national cure.

See? I knew you wouldn't get this straight. Sounds like he wants what Obama has promised. So, naturally, it wouldn't make sense to your addled pate. But, then, this guy has experience with this sort of situation and you, of course, don't know what the hell you're talking about.

There is nothing to be gained from arguing this point with Jan...He or she does not understand the law.

Try This, sports fans; take the information that makes sense in a post by Jan and divide by the total number of words in the post. The result is always equal to zero! Isn't that amazing? It works every time.