Bush Admin. Cleared-Again

Threedee said:
You just don't like him because he's Jewish, which is why you stalk him accross the board whenever he arrives.
Click to expand...

No. I like him fine. I just argue the neocon bullshit he spews, just like i do with the other noahide neocon bullshit spewers. you included. Mabye he'll let you blow him if you renounce christ a little harder.
 
AssHatZombie said:
No. I like him fine. I just argue the neocon bullshit he spews, just like i do with the other noahide neocon bullshit spewers. you included. Mabye he'll let you blow him if you renounce christ a little harder.
Click to expand...

I missed the part where a Goldwater Conservative suddenly, and without warning, becomes a neocon. Or do you just like parroting the term around liberally ala Taicheeze?
 
Threedee said:
I missed the part where a Goldwater Conservative suddenly, and without warning, becomes a neocon. Or do you just like parroting the term around liberally ala Taicheeze?
Click to expand...
I use it properly. Taicheeze doesn't.

by neocon i mean a perversion of free market politics such that putting americans out of work , outsourcing all possible activietes, to devastate american workers is considered a positive end in itself. The cost of foreign goods would be in proper ratio if we stopped externalizing the their costs into the american war machine, which intimidates foreign governments into turning their workers into slaves.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I use it properly. Taicheeze doesn't.

by neocon i mean a perversion of free market politics such that putting americans out of work , outsourcing all possible activietes, to devastate american workers is considered a positive end in itself. The cost of foreign goods would be in proper ratio if we stopped externalizing the their costs into the american war machine, which intimidates foreign governments into turning their workers into slaves.
Click to expand...

We had politicians supporting the monopolies of the Gilded Age. Were they neocons?
 
Many liberals are becoming neocons because now "business principles" plus globalization idiocy = a powerful tool to destroy america.
 
AssHatZombie said:
"monopolies" was not how I defined neoconism. learn to read, dipshit.
Click to expand...

You defined them as turning workers being turned into slaves. Unless you haven't bothered to read up on the Gilded Age a little, you will recall the workers in the factory towns, and immigrant workers living in the tennements, and so forth.
 
Onceler said:
Why do you love GW so much?

I'll never get that...
Click to expand...


Personally, I think it has less to do with Bush worship, and more to do with the fact that rightwingers love torture.

As you know from your years of message board experience, many in the rightwing are in favor of waterboarding and abusing prisoners.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Maybe i was just skimming and missed it. But I really don't know what he's referring to. And he's too much of a stuck up prick to answer a simple question.
Click to expand...

i'm just thinking that anyone who can't see the obvious constitutional crisis we've been dealing with over the last 70 years just really doesn't have a clue.
 
DonQuixote said:
bho does not want to set a precedent - this is not good:(
Click to expand...

But not unexpected....IMHO, he's so afraid of giving any real credence to the rants and tirades of the birther's and teabaggers and neocon pundits that he's avoiding any hard core challenge to the Shrub's bogus legacy. He's got 3 years to convince me otherwise in order to get my vote a second time.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
i'm just thinking that anyone who can't see the obvious constitutional crisis we've been dealing with over the last 70 years just really doesn't have a clue.
Click to expand...

I'd say there are many constitutional crises.

I just though he might have meant something specific. *shrug*

I guess he just means generally.


maybe someday his stuck up ass will choose to grace us with clarification.
 
I like this particular response to the finding that these sociopaths did not violate the oh-so extremely high standards of professional conduct of lawyers:

Margolis concludes that Yoo and Bybee exercised poor judgment and made bad legal arguments. But lawyers often make arguments that are bad or even laughably bad, and this by itself does not violate the very low standard set by rules of professional responsibility. These rules are set up by jurisdictions to weed out the worst offenders, leaving the rest of the legal profession to make entirely stupid, disingenuous and asinine arguments that normal people with functioning moral consciences would not make. That is to say, rules of professional misconduct are aimed at weeding out sociopaths and people driven to theft and egregious incompetence by serious drug and alcohol abuse problems; they do not guarantee that lawyers will do right by their clients, or, in this case, by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America. In effect, by setting the standard of conduct so low, rules of professional conduct effectively work to protect all those lawyers out there whose moral standing is just a hair's breadth above your average mass murderer. This is how the American legal profession simultaneously polices and takes care of its own.
Click to expand...


Heh.


http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/02/justice-department-will-not-punish-yoo.html
 
Cypress said:
Personally, I think it has less to do with Bush worship, and more to do with the fact that rightwingers love torture.

As you know from your years of message board experience, many in the rightwing are in favor of waterboarding and abusing prisoners.
Click to expand...
Torture is listening to you libtards insist that waterboarding a terrorist is torture. :palm:
 
This is the thinking of the legal minds in the Bush DoJ:

Q: I guess the question I'm raising is, does this particular law really affect the President's war-making abilities ....

Yoo: Yes, certainly.

Q: What is your authority for that?

Yoo: Because this is an option that the President might use in war.

Q: What about ordering a village of resistants to be massacred? ... Is that a power that the president could legally--

Yoo: "Yeah. Although, let me say this. So, certainly, that would fall within the commander-in-chief's power over tactical decisions.

Q: To order a village of civilians to be [exterminated]?

Yoo: Sure.
Click to expand...


Nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top