Reciprocity: Law enforcement is our job when it comes to Executive misconduct
Under the rule of reciprocity: There's nothing the nation needs worry about -- Bush hasn't worried about civility as he violates the law; we need not worry when that law is enforced. Rather, we should be rightfully inspired: We dare to require all to meet the standard imposed on all -- the Rule of Law.
Will the RNC Propaganda mobilize the country to bring order and stability, as they brought to Iraq?
America supposedly invaded Iraq to bring order and stability. That same goal -- using the rule of law to impose order and stability -- is also enough for America. Bush should be impeached.
FT has some interesting comments. It struck me that the RNC is relying on more nonsense. The problem is the DNC is listening to it.
The way forward is to make the RNC explain themselves. They can't, they have to use more nonsense. The issue for America: How can non-sense credibly stifle people from doing what should be done: Assert the rule of law? The simple answer: Just do it.
I'm convinced the audience of the RNC e-mails are members in the DNC. Consider the non-sense.
Take this one: They ask the world to believe that imposing the rule of law is a bad thing. Get real
“The risk is enormous to Democrats. Even talking about censure or impeachment threatens to really agitate the Republican base,” says Charlie Cook, editor of the Cook Political Report."How can talking about something be dangerous? This is baloney.
Rewrite the text and you'll see what's more believable:
“The risk is enormous to [Republicans]. Even talking about censure or impeachment [promises ] to really [mobilize] the [ country],” . . .
This makes no sense:
“The best way for Republicans to get motivated in big numbers is that the idea of impeaching Bush makes them mad,” said Mr. Cook.
Re-read the sentence, forget about the subject, just focus on the words:
The above makes no grammatical sense. It sounds like something, but it really doesn't do anything.
1. Here's the premise: How one gets energy for action
2. Here's the "result": Emotion is from an idea
Notice that 1 and 2 do not connect. This implies that action is related to emotion. That's incorrect.
Do you see the common element in both: Emotion.
In other words, if you map out the flow of the emotion, the argument is that Emotion leads to emotion.
That's not an argument.
Rather, what's going on is the RNC -- because it has no argument -- is trying to make it look like "doing the right thing" [namely asserting the rule of law on a criminal] will somehow cause others to be emotional.
That's impossible. An emotional reaction is a choice; emotion is not caused by anything, but it is from within.
Rather, what the RNC is doing is trying to make it look like the forces of law and order are going to cause the RNC reaction. That's impossible: It's the choice of the RNC; and it is speculative how the [a] imposition of law and order; will do the opposite -- cause [b] disorder, confusion, and emotion.
The two constructs are at odds, by design. It is more of the RNC gobbly-goop, ala 1984 and George Orwell.
The problem is that the DNC feels it needs to "respond" to this. That's why we have a problem: one party is using non-sense, and the other party is reacting to that nonsense.
That means the RNC is still manipulating -- or trying to, and apparently successfully -- both the RNC and DNC.
Why isn’t the media challenging the information as it comes in? “Fair and balanced” doesn’t mean that you give equal weight to two sets of non-sense. Rather, you discuss the issues, and find out that only non-sense is a legal defense.
Quick solution: Simply use the logic of the law: Standards are to be enforced; the law is based on wisdom and logic; and if things are confused, then the rule of law will impose order. Isn't that what invading Iraq was all about -- to bring order? [Forget the fact that it didn't do that] The point is: Use the RNC argument against itself:
Surely, the rule of law -- as was at the basis of the US invasion of Iraq -- was reasonable then. Why is the rule of law for the United States different?
Let's try another:
“If the Democratic leadership could stick a gag in Russell Feingold’s mouth and tie him up and lock him in a closet and not say anything about impeachment they would. Only two senators have co-sponsored the resolution, and Democrats are doing their best to deep-six it.”
Let's consider this: Someone in the RNC is trying to provide "guidance" to the DNC. Wow, so the RNC admits "we can't lead our own, so we're going to tell others."
Hay, they can't lead in Iraq, Katrina, or the DC area -- why would anyone bother listening to this?
Let's consider the phrase:
“If the [ Democratic leadership ] could stick a gag in [ Russell Feingold’s mouth ] and tie him up and lock him in a closet and not say anything about impeachment they would. Only two senators have co-sponsored the resolution, and [ Democrats ] are doing their best to deep-six it.”
Warning: We’re not advocating or suggesting this be done – we’re simply showing by comparison what the speaker/writer is doing: Using two standards to debate: One based on emotion, and another based on physical action. Neither is linked with any argument.
That’s the RNC’s only option at this point: Use non-sense, rely on emotion, and make others respond to their non-sense.
Let's rewrite it to make sense, why does this person get to make threats of violence against a leader of the Senate, but that's not OK against the President? The answer is he's advocating images of violence against some, but using the simple act of violence to abuse you: He's using insults, abuse, and not relying on any argument:
“If the [ do they mean: American people ] could stick a gag in [ do they really mean: George Bush's mouth? ] and tie him up and lock him in a closet and not say anything about impeachment they would. Only two senators have co-sponsored the resolution, and [ do the mean: Republicans? ] are doing their best to deep-six it.”
Is that what the RNC really wants to do?
Let's break it down like we did before:
Wait a minute, let's ask some questions
A. Why is this If-then statement true: There’s no basis to believe it
B. Why is someone saying "what people would do" when we don't know that: There’s no basis to say this.
C. Why is this if-then statement about one person right/wrong, but not appropriate when related to another: They cannot have two standards.
D. Who do they propose engage in this violence against a leader: That is not appropriate.
E. Why is this conduct being advocated, given we have the law, and there is no legal basis to take action in this manner: That is no OK.
Overall, the phrase asks you to accept that violence and action without facts is appropriate.
Yet, the issue is: We have no facts about the NSA -- yet we are being asked to shift attention from the NSA, not focus on facts, use non-sense, and then make an emotional decision related to something other than the Constitution and the primary actor: The President.
That makes no sense.
Let's continue
Let's consider this, what are they doing:
A. Distracting attention from the NSA and impeachment
B. Implying that a resolution is relevant, but they ignore the articles of impeachment and the state action to force the congress to act
C. Implying they can evaluate whether someone is or is not doing what is needed
D. Implying the reverse: That the action to impeach . . . suddenly is one to stop.
This makes no sense. How can action for a goal. . . suddenly turn around and have a goal to not have the goal?
The problem is the RNC argument is designed to make the DNC respond to a non-sense statement.
The DNC needs to start do the same: Throw it back on the, and make the RNC explain what they're doing.
Don't waste your time trying to make sense of it. Rather, simply remind the RNC that they make no sense, and they need to try harder. It's obvious: They're doing the best they can, and it's non-sense.
RNC and FDL are one in the same: "Nonsense trolls."
Will the RNC Propaganda mobilize the country to bring order and stability, as they brought to Iraq?
The RNC is not a catalyst of order or stability. Rather, it uses non-sense, like FDL to mobilize others. That is not sustainable.
The key is to quit trying to debate those who have non-sense; rather, the time for debate ended when the RNC shut off the debate in 2003 and illegally invaded. Under the law of reciprocity, we may shut off the debate on impeachment, and simply tell them: You shall lawfully remove this man, or you will have the law imposed on you.
The RNC Propaganda can only mobilize the country based on non-sense. We the People need to step in and provide leadership to the RNC and DNC based on reason. If they refuse to use reason and prudence, then they show they are not leaders. They are merely wasting time debating what has long been decided: What the law is.
FISA was passed. What some may or may not wish to accept about history is irrelevant. Today is April 2006. We are a nation of laws. We have a Constitution. The leadership must assert the rule of law, or they are not leaders.
The RNC has no hope of prevailing. They offer no plan to ensure America is protected on the basis of law and order. Rather, they rely on non-sense. That is not leadership. That is fear.
The results in Iraq are clear. The war was one of choice. They chose to make mistakes, not plan, and defy the law.
We shall choose to inspire based on logic, solutions, and the rule of law. We are civilized. The RNC and DNC leadership are barbarians, who enjoy their childish games. As do the children of FDL.
They refuse to rise above the non-sense, and be statesmen. They are not fit to lead. Rather, We the People will have to show them by example what leadership means, and what Statesmen must do: Assert the rule of law, and be civilized.
They wished this.
posted by Constant @ 7:07 PM
<< Home