That Guy - 5/11/2005 1:58 PM
Botnst - 5/11/2005 1:44 PM
That Guy - 5/11/2005 1:04 PM
Botnst - 5/10/2005 9:58 PM
Hell, I ain't cheer-leading, I'm a-trolling for suckerfish. Now git outta my way, I think I see a lunker back there.
On this website, the preponderance of political posting is decidedly anti-conservative (but not pro- anything that I can discern). Therefore, it amuses me to provide information that supports the conservative agenda.
Posting libertarian screeds wouldn't be nearly as exciting, would it?
I understand where you are coming from, however I do miss more of your intellectually honest analysis on these items. I find it much more interesting reading than the trolling and cheerleading.
Personally, I've given up on hoping for any sort of accountability and transparency with this administration. I guess taking Scalia on duck hunts paid off for Mr. Cheney. GREAT! My faith in the independent judicial branch is strong as ever[xx(]
Thanks for the vote of near-confidence. But review your own thinking, here. You ask me for objectivity, which is fine and I certainly understand why you ask it of me. Why hold me to a higher standard than you hold for yourself?
I'm being intellectually honest here. I've posted how I truly feel about the topic. You haven't. Like I said, I know it will take away from your trolling capability, but I always enjoy it when you post your actual opinions on the topic rather than choosing to represent a viewpoint that is not truly and wholly your own.
Oh, honesty is what you want. What does that mean, exactly?
The best I can do for you, if honesty is what you seek, is to honestly answer, "it depends".
If you ask what I think the constitutionality is of executive privilege, well I don't see it enumerated in the constitution. So if the exec wants to be secretive I think they should present a compelling argument in favor of their position. Who decides what a fair argument is? Me? You? Well according to the constitution, that's the role of the judiciary. They heard the argument on appeal and they sided with the executive branch.
Because they accepted the executive argument that it needs private input in its deliberations. Th executive argued that since no votes were taken by a formal commitee and the people consulted were unpaid that there was no formal act of government involved requiring disclosure. One justice likened it to requiring disclosure of congressional staffers' deliberations with outside entities and citizens--which do not require disclosure, either.
From a libertarian point of view I don't like it worth a shit. I think, philosophically, that the gov should be fully transparent except for some few things that might put law officers, the military, and intelligence personnel in danger or might disclose mission, methods, and sources of military, police, and intelligence. But practically speaking, it would be catastrophic to have full public access to every gov flunkie. The gov would spend so much time responding that it would be even less effective and responsive than it is now.
From an environmentalist point of view, it sucks. I think the Repos in general are incredibly stupid and short-sighted when it comes to the environment and letting them be secretive in their planning prevents environmentalists from anticipating the next assault.
I don't believe a reasonable person who gives this issue more than a passing knee-jerk reaction could possibly give a completely truthful response without boring everybody shitless.