What I saw for Obama last night was a Gregory Peck like moment. Here was the calm, cool candidate, who has had his race dragged through the mud by McCain and his new henchwoman, Palin, (who’s been out there labling him a terrorist sympathizer while simultaneously running from any reporters or journalists questions and interviews that would challenge her smearmongering campaign of hate) yet he never stopped smiling.

And he has a GREAT smile.

He just sat there, calm, cool, Gregory Peck like, towering over the little old meanmouthed man standing next to him, mocking him, calling him “that one”, and didn’t miss a beat.

But when his moment came, was when McCain tried to interupt him, and started across the stage to try and intimidate him, and said “thank you”, interupting Obama. Obama instead of “reacting” just sucker punched him as we walked right into it. It was the ole “ONE TWO”.

He smacked him down on the BombomBom Iran song, AND his statements on anihilating North Korea.

McCain visibily REELED at this one, and I felt for a moment there that I was watching a prize fight where the knockdown blow had just been delivered.

Obama, like Gregory Peck, showed the coolness there of a man who “walks soft, and carry’s a big stick” something Mccain was bragging about, and that made the debate for me a clear win.

I didn’t give the last one to Obama. I called it a wash. But this one, … this one Obama bitchslapped him across the room there, and there is no doubt, who was victorious last night.

Thank God.

“An Obama victory brings the promise of justice.” Only if people keep his feet to the fire. Obama does not have plans to pursue the illegalities committed by cheneybush. His campaingn manager this morning said Obama wasn’t ready to renegotiate mortgages. Obama voted for FISA and the bailout. That’s why I worry so much about people’s ideas that Obama will “bring justice”. Obama has many flawed policies. They indeed look good in comparison to McCain but they are still flawed. If the left wing will not hold Obama accountable no one will. We have had 8 years of complete unaccountability in our politicians. We cannot afford any more of this. I feel so strongly that we cannot afford any illusions about Obama. People in power will do as they please unless the people say NO. If he’s given a free pass by the left wing, he’ll take it and there will be no justice. I completely share your concerns about McCain and believe with you that people are very angry. We do need justice and American has lost all moral authority due to the lack thereof.

Obama came out of his shell a little.

If he does it a little more, he’s got this thing won.

Criminal prosecution of the Bush Administration and possibly the entire GOP leadership will be REQUIRED to fix America. “Liberty and justice for all” is not just an ad blurb. That ALL is really important. If Cheney and Bush are not prosecuted and prosecuted successfully, the US will remain a joke abroad and further deciline into fascism. Prosecution or not, there will be a price to be paid. People know evil when they see it unless they’ve drank the GOP kool-aid. I favor prosecution but there is a hard reality behind this. Prosecution involves a lot less bloodshed and violence than the alternative. An Obama victory brings the promise of justice. A McCain victory brings the very real possibility of civil unrest and/or civil war. People are ANGRY. It’s not going to just fade away without judicial remedy in the form of penalties and incarceration as a palliative.

LEO

“I don’t know what other actions are or would be possible, advisable or prudent in the long term, but I’m pretty sure that if the President is under indictment (i.e. impeached) he cannot issue pardons. Ceratinly this is an appropriate site to ask such a Constitutional question.”

****
This has been suggested previously here, RC, but never answered as far as I know. JT?

We have to continue to insist something substantive be done now to protect our interests. It’s too important. The next (Obama) administration is going to have its hands full in addition to learning ‘the culture’ and unless we stay on message I fear this will fall through the cracks not only initially, but entirely. That must not happen.

“…White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the administration was pleased that the court had recognized that “there are serious questions regarding the separation of powers between the branches.”

Darn tootin’! (Laurel & Hardy)

I think that House Judiciary will renew the subpoenas at the outset of the next Congress and pursue them vigorously.

Let’s see what happens.

I’m glad you joined in. What’s your explanation?

Sorry about the verbiage. The term “dictates of the law” just refers to the current state of the law. The Latin phrase,as you know, is a legal maxim holding that when the reason for the law disappears so does the law.

On your passion for etymology, I think you are in good company. Plato, Socrates, Plutarch, and Nietzsche likewise shared your affinity.

I share your frustration illustrated in your posts. That is what brought me to this forum; in search of some legal sense or explanation regarding the absence of the rule of law regarding Bush et al.

They were further asked to request, on Cheney’s behalf, the contents of their FBI files. One of the forms…{was} a blanket waiver of ‘any liability with regard to seeking, furnishing or use of’ the confidential information. No expiration date was specified.” (pp9-10)

I believe this is 1. a hell of a lot of information on a hell of a lot of people and 2. a real look into dick’s mind and what he’s willing to do for his own ends.

Thanks for the Latin phrase:

“Cessante ratione legis cessat, et ipsa lex”

I do not understand the “dictates of the law”; however, I have a love for Latin from by biological background.

The “ethics and aesthetics of orthography” and the etymology of our languages have always intrigued me.

Thanks for your interesting quote. bush is a kind of person with a low, cunning intelligence, but he knows everything he needs to know about how to successfully violate the law with impunity.

Hamilton was one verbose fellow! He states (in the Federalist 74 (?)):

“The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel. As the sense of responsibility is always strongest, in proportion as it is undivided, it may be inferred that a single man would be most ready to attend to the force of those motives which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance. The reflection that the fate of a fellow-creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution; the dread of being accused of weakness or connivance, would beget equal circumspection, though of a different kind.”

One biased man, such as Bush, should not have the power to overrule the courts and the years and money spent during legitimate jurisprudence.

We all know Bush is a fool and he knows nothing about procedural law.

How are any of these things freedom? Many of the people who believe most fervently in the above call themselves christian. Rafflaw always asks this, which of these would Jesus engage in? How are these completely antithetical ideas of complete church/state power over the population made into “freedom”. Worship and complicity (courts and Congress) in raising up an all powerful executive branch removes freedom from our nation. Someone please explain this to me, because truly, I don’t get it.

I don’t know what other actions are or would be possible, advisable or prudent in the long term, but I’m pretty sure that if the President is under indictment (i.e. impeached) he cannot issue pardons. Ceratinly this is an appropriate site to ask such a Constitutional question.