Current Events - Actual things on the News

[ken]

Doc, you gotta calm down.

[someone]

I think this is the part of the conversation where shin is supposed to be all offended for ANY kind of Nazi sympathizing, considering he's Jewish, and where he notes that ANY level of Anti-Semitism is unacceptable, and then flips out and leaves the boards forever.

Or at least until a few people beg him to stay, and where, full of self righteousness in his hollow validation, he complies.

[RocDoc]

I didn't know this specific case was directly connected with people in your life.

So...this specific case and this one only.
Lord, I'm crestfallen.
You mean, man, I should just forget and dismiss my friends' dumb Nazi sympathizer Dads', these people with whom I grew up because 'shin's rule' says quote 'It has nothing to do with now'.

Man, thanks!
All clear now.

Yes, the few e-mails I received repeated that 'Yes, shin's a disingenuous transparently manipulating prick', but I didn't wanna believe 'em....man, frankly, I'm gutted.

...?
Yah, refer to the above.

[RocDoc]

Where do you get the idea of me not being calm, Kenny?

My facts are as simple as life here. I'm living this...shin's the one sweating while he 'manipulates' so masterfully about shit he doesn't know.

Google would be rich if it actually charged per search, if just from him.

[ken]

But dude, why would you post something at the CE board if you didn't want anyone to debate what you post? You don't have to agree with Shin, and I might be copletely wrong, but it seems like you're freaking out to me.

[shin]

This is what I get for trying to debate with the undebatable.

[ken]

Vote Yak/Ken 08?

[shin]

Seriously, I'll admit it, you're the premier authority on all situations similar to this. No one can possibly deny your complete grasp of the situation and all situations like it. No matter who, no matter what, no matter when, your experiences and your experiences alone are the foundation for the understanding of the rest of us. It's irrelevant whether or not what you've known differs from this case, all cases like it fall within your immense depth of wisdom. We look to you to guide us along this treacherous road. We put our trust in you and pray you do not lead us astray.

_{You wonder why we don't get along? It's arrogance. And there's nothing that I, ken, CF nor anyone else can do to make you recognize this.}

[shin]

ken said:

Vote Yak/Ken 08?

Vote Shin CE Mod 05!

[chrisfan]

rocdoc said:

CF, give me a break...'the line' here is one for fucking Einstein.

...a seperate situation that has no connection with your life experiences.

Yes, it does. It's on these pages. Black and white.

Try reading AND comprehending

Sorry Doc, but the line is not as clear in the eyes ofanyone but you. See, Shin is right - if you're going to look past a Nazi's actions because they could have been coerced, then you have to look past the actions of anyone under Sadaam's regime. If you are going to dismiss charges based on one witness, do you KNOW how many murderers we are going to release? For your logic to really work in this case, it has to be applied equally to all cases. I'd have to review the case, but I think that there was not a single eyewitness to McVeigh. Are you okay with his being found guilty?

[RocDoc]

Me saying that this is an Einstein-level question doesn't make it clear to you that it's FAR from a certain 'line' in my eyes either, that it's gotta be case by case by case?

In many other cases there's been some Nazi 'verified' evidence that yes a guy with this name, with this 60 year old pass photo, was at this place at this apx time where some sort of a roundup or cruelty or worse had happened to a group of Jews.

They didn't need eyewitnesses to OKC's bombing because there was a paper trail. That pile's oranges, this is apples.

Nevermind, I gotta go.
Shin's frothing again...

[ken]

This would never happen if Shin were board administrator.

[RocDoc]

Kenny, re 'not wanting to debate'...shit, if there's BEING a debate here, isn't someone flatout telling me I'm fulla shit without leaving me even a bit of wiggle room, some space where someone say...'Doc you make good points'...or interesting points, or something.



I most certainly AM trying to leave room for discussion.
But cut-and-dried B&W telling me, that 'No! Fuck, that's the kindest thing that they could do to this old fart' who has a very good chance of never having been there...

So jeez, I dig in my heels, perhaps then not expressing my thoughts in a precise manner which is something shin's certain to attest to cos he kain't read..

C'mon, you don't see that then that's where my side of the discussion comes with me using my 'conviction' (interch w/ 'arrogance' sure wtever...fkit)in the way that part of the world's been forever demonized regarding the Holocaust without seeing any cause/effect during the 5 years occupation....and the bigger question of the honest reactions and motivations as the region was buffeted by the Russians and Germans...with MOST of the world having been proven as to not YET having the knowledge of the full extent of how far Hitler's 'final solution' was indeed going.


The 'unspeakable' is only so totally clear to us all in hindsight here, but the historical perspective is very lacking here for the most part, for what went on day-to-day in those countries...now, really, I'm gone.

[shin]

Doc you make good points.

Now will you stop having a temper tantrum and accept that perhaps you're wrong? Or at least not 100% right? Maybe only 98%? That maybe you've allowed your personal experience to cloud your perceptions?

Or is that impossible?

And I'll say it again...the Nuremberg Trials clearly stated, not being able to resist with your life intact was no excuse for not resisting...at some point people need to start making those kind of decisions or else EVERYONE is going to say they had no choice!

When there were only 5 Nazis, did the 6th one go along with the plan because he didn't have a choice? At some point people have to stand up and say NO...

[stratman19]

DED, since you seemed to be so bothered by Bolton's recess appt., this might give you a bit of perspective. Then again, maybe not...


Recess Appointments Not Unique

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

WASHINGTON — As a recess appointee, John Bolton, the newly placed U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is neither unique nor necessarily politically and diplomatically hamstrung.


"Here in Washington, it may look a little tainted, but in foreign ministries around the world they know that they're dealing with somebody who has the authority of the president and indeed of the United States when he signs his commission," said Stephen Hess, scholar emeritus at the Brookings Institution.

The president's power to make a recess appointment was originally conceived by the framers of the U.S. Constitution to fill sudden vacancies during the long congressional recesses. But such appointments have become increasingly common even as the recesses have become ever shorter. Appointments are set to expire at the end of the Senate's next session.

So far, President Bush has made 110 recess appointments. Among the most controversial were William Pryor to be a judge on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and Charles Pickering to be a judge on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Pryor was appointed in February 2004. After the 109th Senate convened this year, the body confirmed Pryor in June. Pickering was appointed to the appeals court in January 2004. Facing continued Senate hostility, he retired from service when his recess appointment expired last December.

"Usually, when you have a Republican president, the Democrats don't like recess appointments, and when you have a Democratic president, Republicans don't like recess appointments," said Michael Barone, author of the Almanac of American Politics 2006.

Modern presidents have used this power of recess appointments to side step a variety of Senate obstructions. President Clinton made 140 recess appointments during his two terms. The first President Bush made 77 in one term. Ronald Reagan had 240 in two terms.

"There's firm basis for the recess appointment, there's nothing immoral, even you could say unethical about it, it's just part of the government structure in the United States," Hess said.

The recess appointment dates to earliest days of the Republic when President George Washington tapped John Rutledge as Supreme Court chief justice in 1795. The Senate had rejected the nomination.

President Eisenhower placed three justices on the Supreme Court through recess appointments — Earl Warren in 1953, William Brennan in 1956 and Potter Stewart in 1958. The Senate later confirmed all three.

President Kennedy used his recess appointment power in 1961 to put Thurgood Marshall on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, placing him on a path to become the nation's first black Supreme Court justice.

"Thurgood Marshall was the very successful advocate for the NAACP legal defense fund, the Southern segregationists opposed him root and barrel and President Kennedy appointed him with a recess appointment," Barone explained.

In many cases, including Bolton's, presidents have used recess appointments to counter a Senate filibuster or the threat of one. As a matter of checks and balances, the recess appointment is more firmly rooted. It's actually in the Constitution whereas the filibuster, a Senate delaying tactic first applied with regularity in the 1850s, is not.