The Political Discussion Thread

[lordofseas]

Modern techniques for drilling are far cleaner then they were back in the day. Technology is a wonderful thing. In america even capatalist do try to keep the earth from becoming a cesspool,unlike 3rd world contries that pay little to no attention to enviromental issues. And what if being a politician is what got the person tossed in prison in the first place?

Sure they are. But they are not zero-carbon ventures.

[aretood2]

To be sure, the way politicians deal with marital fidelity scandals says a lot about their general conduct. Bill "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton comes to mind.

I remember there was a similar scandal in Israel when Netanyahu, then the Likid's frontrunner for Prime Minister position, was being blackmailed by his political opponents with evidence of an extramarital affair he's had. He solved it very simply- admitted the affair on prime time TV, said that it was over and that it was a private matter between him and his wife, and left it at that. It was over in a matter of days and no one made any fuss anymore.

It's like when George W. Bush admitted to doing drugs during his earlier years. Since he didn't deny it forcing the media to dig around and people to accuse him of being a liar, it didn't become a major scandal and people quickly forgot about it.

[lordofseas]

It's like when George W. Bush admitted to doing drugs during his earlier years. Since he didn't deny it forcing the media to dig around and people to accuse him of being a liar, it didn't become a major scandal and people quickly forgot about it.

It's popularly called the "Streisand effect".

[SGalisa]

bold font emphasis in LOS's posting--mine..

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Only people on the stand can commit perjury, as it requires someone to swear a false oath, and lying under oath for the purposes of affecting the legal result.

So in other words, unless a politician specifically takes an oath to tell the truth, simply the act of lying isn't prejury.

You are correct.

As far as I know LOS is correct. It is when a person is in the court(room) of LAW that what they say matters more than what they say and do, while at home or in the office, which is far away from the court(room). That is why so many people (not just politicians, but anyone of any status or work field) do what they do and it never seems to bother them, until or unless they are facing a judge in court or courtroom, where everything said counts.

Whenever people get arrested, whatever (has been declared as being) criminal behavior they've done before they got arrested only matters at the point AFTER they've been read their rights, because at that point, the LAW kicks in (is being enforced into ACTIVE action being taken) and takes over in that particular moment, at least (?) until bail or dismissed by a judge presiding over that specific case in the actual court (which is when the words of the *LAW* itself becomes a "living entity" of sorts).

No one ever watch (any version of) "Law and Order"?? "Adam-12"? or "Dragnet"? I'm not sure if the above was ever implied or specifically stated in either of those TV shows, but that seems to be how the general (USA, anyway) judicial system (seems to) works.
Otherwise, there might be more politicians, doctors, or whoever making some form of "law-abiding oath" trembling in their socks/boots for some of the things they do.


I could be wrong, but I think that's how it works. Otherwise, more people would be penalized regardless of being caught and fined, if they are caught "breaking the LAW" (whatever it is) that is being enforced.

[Goose]

Law and Order probably isn't the best source of legal information. Just sayin'...

[SGalisa]

had to add this in--
News hype over the weekend is claiming both President Obama and Mitt Romney are claiming they can both deliver hopeful Medicare plans and more jobs.

Look on the bright side, if Mitt Romney fails to do his job as president properly then they will turn on him after all the hype of him being able to "defeat president Obama"; as if being able to beat President Obama means anything for my vote, I want the guy elected to have good political policies, do a good job in office and be able to like run the country the way that it's should.

Personally, I think Mitt Romney has a better chance at resolving our lack of job status than whatever the last 4 years have actually produced from the current gov't administration (and that includes everyone making policies and promoting policies, not just those persons at the top levels).
There.. it's been said many times over in the news and on various Tv/radio programs, not just what I just wrote.

So, here's the problem -- look at President Obama's track record for the last 4 years in the JOB market. What jobs did *he* personally create to help the millions of unemployed out there, who are STILL unemployed and NO LONGER being counted into the unemployment census because those people just gave up looking?

Michigan's car industry doesn't count -- that is only ONE job industry, which was to favor Al Gore's amazing GREEN, carbon footprint initiative -- which MOST folks in the USA can't afford to buy those types of vehicles, in the first place.

And don't forget about the people who CANNOT walk to work or shopping places, or ride bicycles to those same places, due to age-related degenerative cartilage spinal and knee ailments. Degenerative cartilage currently has NO cure. It gets worse, and more so because the cartilage (in certain parts of the human body) is grinding down and cannot be replaced. Yes, some medical operations exist to help ease the cartilage problems, but those are not 100% effective, and not everyone can afford such operations.
(I *WANT* my telepathically controlled flying carpet!!..no gas needed, no carbon footprint issues =)

How come it seems to be a stagnant issue ~~ when ideas were popping up all over the internet about
* desalinization to produce more CLEAN (and purified) water, or building some sort of system to help out drought stricken and fire prone areas from flooded zones -- which could send the waters to where it is needed as quickly and efficiently as possible
* or simply desalinization to counteract the effects of the dreaded OCEAN waters rising from environmental, *global warming* (or weather changes), and sending the waters to needed drying up aquafers to help out in areas desperately needing it the most, for crops, homes, businesses, etc..
* converting abandoned industry buildings into vertical farming of smaller crops, to help offset and protect food sources from the weather elements, which the food crops could be grown and produced year-round under controlled methods
~~ the above ideas seem to be mostly non-existant in many areas.

I have seen some reports about vertical farming, hydroponics and aquaponics of food crops in a controlled *environmental* (building) setting ~ being a new field that has many potential job openings that COULD be created, if only TPTB would stop fighting over who is controlling the planet and start helping everyone.. this is our only planet right now. Resources are here. Ideas are everywhere, but there is too much fighting and destruction going on in the world that is blinding all of these wonderful future benefits from being put into action.


Oh, and one more thing, which I've personally been harping on years ago BEFORE the whole bailout fiascos, since "ethanol" is Al Gore's GREEN crop mixture for future vehicles, one item he and everyone else in the entire gov't administration who bought out such rhetoric and dream desires--
What happens when severe DROUGHT hits the crops and whatever ethanol can be produced is smaller in production than what was originally anticipated by TPTB?

Not to also mention the actual food crops that have withered because of those same droughts. Traces of pesticides have been reported growing into some veggies and people getting deathly ill from that... GMO crops have also become a hot issue, and amazingly instead of killing off pesty bugs, have created new, super-bugs eating the actual food crops!

There have been too many articles over the past several months discussing especially ethanol usage, the food and GMO issues, which "world-wide" catastrophic consequences in food shortages because of the few crops that have survived. In areas where there's no drought, then there's been major flooding-- and that seems to be on a world-wide basis, not just in the USA. Yes, it is an aspect of life our world has to live with, but does anyone ever think to create a balance support for the lean years with any surpluses in the more productive years? Doesn't seem like it. Not any more.

And one other item, most of the people going to the food stores might see a drop in meat prices now, but that's because the cattle are being sent to the slaughter sooner, due to a lack of FOOD crops to FEED them. It is expected that within a few months, definitely sometime in 2013, when the stocks dwindle down that --oh guess what-- food prices for meat AND veggies are going to skyrocket..! As if that's *never* happened before.

And people with NO incomes (already on food stamps or similar gov't programs.. meaning, they visit the food pantries, homeless shelters, or FREE food kitchens, supported by the charitable folks sustaining them) or folks on limited incomes now, with no hope of pay raises--what kind of future and hope exists for these people..? *sigh*

~~~ rant/gripe over ~~~

[SGalisa]

As far as I know LOS is correct. It is when a person is in the court(room) of LAW that what they say matters more than what they say and do, while at home or in the office, which is far away from the court(room). That is why so many people (not just politicians, but anyone of any status or work field) do what they do and it never seems to bother them, until or unless they are facing a judge in court or courtroom, where everything said counts.

Whenever people get arrested, whatever (has been declared as being) criminal behavior they've done before they got arrested only matters at the point AFTER they've been read their rights, because at that point, the LAW kicks in (is being enforced into ACTIVE action being taken) and takes over in that particular moment, at least (?) until bail or dismissed by a judge presiding over that specific case in the actual court (which is when the words of the *LAW* itself becomes a "living entity" of sorts).

No one ever watch (any version of) "Law and Order"?? "Adam-12"? or "Dragnet"? I'm not sure if the above was ever implied or specifically stated in either of those TV shows, but that seems to be how the general (USA, anyway) judicial system (seems to) works.
Otherwise, there might be more politicians, doctors, or whoever making some form of "law-abiding oath" trembling in their socks/boots for some of the things they do.


I could be wrong, but I think that's how it works. Otherwise, more people would be penalized regardless of being caught and fined, if they are caught "breaking the LAW" (whatever it is) that is being enforced.

Law and Order probably isn't the best source of legal information. Just sayin'...

True about the TV shows..
However, when I inquired the same question to someone who actually worked as a lawyer, had to go to court with various cases, and reinforces what I said originally is true, then I believe that person. Also, this action includes giving deliberate, deceitful testimony while under oath--in front of (or in the presence of) congress (where the Legislative / other gov't portion of the LAW court is in active session--see the dictionary definition further below for clarification).
Also, I'm not sure if while cases are being discussed --outside of an appointed "COURT" NOT in session (and that includes 5 minutes walking out of the courtroom)-- matters in areas of perjury until the situation is taken into the COURT, when legal action is being enforced a ruling judge, declaring a definitive penalty, excused status, or other action being taken during that particular LAW-enforcement moment.

Also, even lawyers are held accountable to perjury, when they stand in the courtroom or in a Court of LAW with persons in authoritative enforcement present. Otherwise, life doesn't really matter what a person does (on either side of the field or spectrum, and that probably also includes the judge as well being off-duty..!), until they are caught, arrested, or even if speaking testimony merely as a witness on the witness stand in an activated courtroom (LAW is now in session, so to speak, until the judge dismisses the court as adjourned or session over).


updated EDIT-- PS-- the dictionary states perjury this way--
"(Law) Criminal law the offence committed by a witness in judicial proceedings who, having been lawfully sworn or having affirmed, wilfully gives false evidence.

perjury--
deliberate or willful uttering of untruths when under oath in a court or similar tribunal."

[lordofseas]

bold font emphasis in LOS's posting--mine..







As far as I know LOS is correct. It is when a person is in the court(room) of LAW that what they say matters more than what they say and do, while at home or in the office, which is far away from the court(room). That is why so many people (not just politicians, but anyone of any status or work field) do what they do and it never seems to bother them, until or unless they are facing a judge in court or courtroom, where everything said counts.

Whenever people get arrested, whatever (has been declared as being) criminal behavior they've done before they got arrested only matters at the point AFTER they've been read their rights, because at that point, the LAW kicks in (is being enforced into ACTIVE action being taken) and takes over in that particular moment, at least (?) until bail or dismissed by a judge presiding over that specific case in the actual court (which is when the words of the *LAW* itself becomes a "living entity" of sorts).

No one ever watch (any version of) "Law and Order"?? "Adam-12"? or "Dragnet"? I'm not sure if the above was ever implied or specifically stated in either of those TV shows, but that seems to be how the general (USA, anyway) judicial system (seems to) works.
Otherwise, there might be more politicians, doctors, or whoever making some form of "law-abiding oath" trembling in their socks/boots for some of the things they do.


I could be wrong, but I think that's how it works. Otherwise, more people would be penalized regardless of being caught and fined, if they are caught "breaking the LAW" (whatever it is) that is being enforced.

Technically, a person that signed an affidavit with intent to decieve is also guilty of perjury, but that is in essence taking the stand, which is why I didn't bother to mention it.

[SGalisa]

Technically, a person that signed an affidavit with intent to decieve is also guilty of perjury, but that is in essence taking the stand, which is why I didn't bother to mention it.

I think you are correct. How many binding *contracts* do people sign where the fine print states everything that was just submitted as being truthful info is indeed the TRUTH and not some fabricated pile of data? It's always stuff in the FINE PRINT of many documents that people often forget about... that's what gets many industrial people and other employees (not just gov't/Law enforcement working field folks), into so much trouble.. they forgot what was in the FINE print *may* and WILL be held against them at any point in the future, if necessary.

Once that piece of untampered document paper shows up in court or under some other form of authority, the person who signed it is going to be in giant piles of big doo-doo, if the information within relating to whatever got them into trouble ~ has been violated in any way, shape or form.

[SoulReaver]

The earth is much more resilent than given credit for.

only if you assume some extraneous force will step in to fix things

If we let all the other countries drill without green regulations and we can drill with them, how are you really helping the earth anyway?

how about research into alternative sources of energy? evern the good old europeans are ahead of you folks (don't wanna be left in the stone oil age do you?)

We all share this planet.

( you can't use that argument - it's an ecologist one)
exactly: those who are in a position to mess with the planet should remember they share it with those who are not

[SoulReaver]

If it will get gas below $3 a Gal, I say Slaughter,Burn,Destroy and Salt the FUHH DURN EARTH!

the fabled "trickle-down effect"

[The Flyattractor]

the fabled "trickle-down effect"

No. Its called Corrupt Real World Economics

[Graybrew1]

only if you assume some extraneous force will step in to fix things

how about research into alternative sources of energy? evern the good old europeans are ahead of you folks (don't wanna be left in the stone oil age do you?)

( you can't use that argument - it's an ecologist one)
exactly: those who are in a position to mess with the planet should remember they share it with those who are not

I disagree. Some others do as well.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/comme...rticle1389062/

I have no problem with that. I am not just not FOR being dependent on other countries for whatever oil we do use when we have enough under our own land. Bring on the windmills. If I could afford a hybrid then I would buy one. The problem is that they are so damn expensive many cannot afford to get one.

No, we all live and die on it. No earth means no life for any of us. We share the responsibility of that burden no matter how you look at that because we will all share the repercussions as well.

On top of that, perhaps it is all a bit of bunk.
It seems that Global warming has stopped for the last decade.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...le-ice-age.htm

[Graybrew1]

I think the whole "lying" issue was blown out of proportion to it's importance in the OP. The point was simply that it was stated that lying is not illegal and my point was that it can be.

Yes, if a politician is before Congress and lying, it is. If you are the type of person that is willing to lie to the life partner that you agreed to share your life with, then how hard is it to conceive that you might be willing to lie while doing your job?

[Goose]

So, here's the problem -- look at President Obama's track record for the last 4 years in the JOB market. What jobs did *he* personally create to help the millions of unemployed out there, who are STILL unemployed and NO LONGER being counted into the unemployment census because those people just gave up looking?

How many did he PERSONALLY create? Maybe he hired a few people to work in the White House, but probably not that many.