[mburbank]

"Max, for a country to legalize something, they generally pass laws, right? In a very basic sense, that's how it goes, correct? All of this outrage is over a piece of legislation, so you can't jump up and down about it at one turn, and then dismiss the legislative aspect to it at the next."

I don't understand what you're saying here at all. I can't find the passage of an what I believe are unconstitutional laws outrageous? Why? And if I think not passing any law is better than passing a really awful one, that means what, now? Laws don't get passed every day. Most laws don't get apssed. I don't understand what you're saying.

"If it's a "constitutional crisis," then the courts should see that, right? "

Absolutely. Does that mean constitutional crisis are meaningless events that no one should find troubling? And what about what happens between now and when the courts rectify matters?

"I think your interpretation (to compare, when I state these things they're called "arrogant") is a lot of hyperbole, and not consistent with the bill."

I know you think that Kev. I asked you a series of questions about your interpretation of the bill. Don't just tell me where I'm wrong. THAT's th arrognt part. Show me where I'm wrong.

You don't need to put it in caps, Kev. I believe you alrady know what I'd do. I'd propose alternative legislation, and I'd vote against any compromise I thought was awful, like, say, legalizing torture. If I had any method by which I could prevent an awful bill from becoming law, I'd use it, and leave the President to act as he has up to now in wjhat he thinks is a gray area. He would have to think about what consequenbces he might face, as opposed to having a law on the books that said he was immune. That's what I'd do. Does this seem an unfathomable course to you? Am I missing some basic points of civics that you can enlighten me on? Do you not see why I find your method of discourse arrogant?

"Max, the other side of the argument believes you're a Nazi and a totalitarian if you don't agree with him. Should I respect that argument? "

Deliberate sophistry. You choose to diagree with the most extreme aspects of an extreme argument so you don't have to adress your own.

Let me be clear, and quote myself. I DO NOT think America is on the ferge of Nazi style Facism. There is more than one other sie to the argument. You choose to see only the polar side. I asked you a series of questions about the legislation, noe of which compare you in any way to a Nazi. I am, however, starting to feel like comparing you to Non Nazi Sgt. Schultz.

"On the meat thing-- this is, btw, what Max Burbank does now."

If by that you mean making a joke, you're on to me. But just in case you are feeling sensative, let me state categorically, I do not feel in any way the changes I believe I see in your poltical attidtudes and method of expressing yourself is related to your diet.

"Kahl highlighted some of the actual bill's text for you, so as to cool the hyperbole and rhetoric that's being thrown around in this thread. You didn't respond to that, but you did take the time to take a personal shot at me"

You must have posted while I was continuing, as I did adress what I beleiev were the serious faults of Kahls post. A personal shot? The meat eating thing, or the arrogant thing? I don't honestly care what you eat. I stand by the arrogance remrk, and I realte it speciffically to what you're posting. I don't think it's personal, any more than I think you writting posts to me as if I am an idiot. I would argue that on the whole, I treat your posts with a great deal respect than you treat mine. Settle down.

"It's most certainly hysterics, and it is, after all about a bill on Capitol Hill. We weren't a step away from dictatorship two weeks ago, were we? What triggered all of the Third Reich talk? A bill. "

HOW is it hysterics? And since no one argues that this bill is going to be law, WHY is it out of line to be worried by it? I find it ironic that you mention my inability to adress issues. To simply say it's hysterics isn't meaningful. Ellucidate. Make a case. Speak to the actual bill, or the arguments I've made about it.

"I'm not ecstatic about this bill."

You've also stated you think it's better than no bill at all, which I think is ytroubling. Would you care to say why you think that, or will you just say it again?

"if the courts knock this down I won't shed a tear"

I'm relieved. Will you shed any tears about anybody who gets tortured or trown in a hole while the courts are mulling it over, or about a congress that thinks legalized torture is okay for our country? Or does the eventual intervention of the court make all that not worth being upset by? Suppose the law that was going to be found unconstitutional was more agregious? I think you are taking about personal moral lines, and not basic civics.


"But the notion that this has codified torture, disabled habeus corpus, and granted dictatorship to the executive is hyperbole, to say the very least."

Great. Would you care to sate in what ways habeus corps has not been disabled? Would you care to state how giving the executive an unchecked ability to delcare enemy combatants is not a dictatorial power? Would you care to state how this bill does not legalize torture? Or would you just like to say again it's hyperbole? Okay, you're not 'ecstatic' about this bill. I've told you I think it's shameful. What do you think about it, apart from the fact that it doesn't trigger your endorphins?

"`(C) Such term does not include any alien determined by the President or the Secretary of Defense (whether on an individualized or collective basis), or by any competent tribunal established under their authority, to be-- `(i) a lawful enemy combatant (including a prisoner of war); or `(ii) a protected person whose trial by a military commission under this chapter would be inconsistent with Articles 64 through 76 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949. ' "

Better. Now tell me what branch of government is empowered to question the executives interpretation of the Geneva convention, or how a branch of government would aquire any information regarding a prisoner? This section of the law, barring oversight, is a toothless sham.

"I'm not going to defend 100% of the bill, b/c I don't support 100% of the bill."

What parts of the bill do you object to? How strongly? You are on record as objecting to people who passionately disagree with every aspect of it. Good. I have no sense at all of where you stand on it. The article is a starting point. You note you think it's real bad, which is your privilidge, and one I've excercise when I think something you post is real bad.

Here's why the article speaks to me. The author is very upset by where our country is going. I think that's appropriatte. I think not being ecstatic, not being %100 percent behind it, not shedding a tear if the courts eventually knock it down, is kind of tepid, and as I respect your opinion when you actually state it (which you can believe or not) and I am personally shocked when I find intelligent people of good concience such as yourself don't seem engaged by what strikes me as majorly awful stuff, I am interested in why.

I'm 44 years old. I've followed politics since I was about thirteen. I don't claim the levels of unquestionable expertise or ex cathedra infallability Alphaboy does. But as an observer since Ford, as an adult citizen and voter under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, I feel like we are way out in territory of legislative abuse, the abdication of duties assigned by the constitution and moral terpitude than at any previous time in my life. None of the Presidents made me 'ectsatic'. I was not 100% behind any of them. I did not shed a tear over any of their scandals. But I've never, ever, not even during Iran contra, felt anything like what is happening now happened.

Why do you think that is? A change in my diet? Or maybe there's some substance to my fears. Screw Keillors untenable position if you don't like it, How about mine,if you can see past 'what max burbank does now' ? And what is yours?