AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Diest TKO,

Avoiding this wont be as easy as just ignoring it Fox. I'm prepared for you to try and use vacancy. Your honor is on the line here. I'm sure any respectable MAC with such advertised principles as yourself cares about backing up their claims.

I'm sure one of those principles MACs cherish is honor right? If not, I do, and you've challenged it with your repeated claims.

Your options and their outcomes are beyond my design:

You will admit you are wrong and apologize to both Cyclo and I
You will stand by YOUR claim that we are the same and take my challenge
You will ignore my challenge, not apologize, be proven wrong anyways

The bottom line here is you are wrong, you can still save a little face here. If you can just make wild claims all you want and never back them up, you're worthless in the free market of ideas; in the intellectual forum; in the square of debate. You've already lost, lets see if your principles include humility.

7

T
K
O

3 Replies

@Woiyo9,

Tax evasion? Why doesn't the GOP make the charge with the attorney general and/or the supreme court if they broke any law?

0 Replies

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

Yep. The rule of Law actually means something to me asshole!

So you agree that the past admin. should be investigated for committing war crimes?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Woiyo9,

I'm not a "partisan tool;" just stating the facts. Tell me how you figure I'm a "partisan tool?" FYI, be careful, because I've already criticized Obama's stimulus plan.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Foxie has already proven she is intellectually bankrupt. No amount of coaxing will you be able to get honest answers or admit she was wrong.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Foxie has already proven she is intellectually bankrupt. No amount of coaxing will you be able to get honest answers or admit she was wrong.

Like I said, shes going to get proven wrong regardless. I'm offering a little mercy. The outcome is already decided, she's lost. Bit off more than she could chew. I'm offering her the chance to admit she is wrong (something that she doesn't do when she needs to) as display to other here that she has the capacity for honesty.

Without the capacity for honesty, why should anyone care about Foxfyre?

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Gotta give her a chance to respond...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

I believe she's already lost her credibility with many participants on these threads.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Oh I wouldn't make it that easy for her to weasel out. I've got things to do, I'll be back later.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

And President Obama is 100% correct in choosing not to go on a witch hunt in the Bush administration. I wish the more looney left who are so enamored with President Obama were able to follow his lead when he gets it right as they are when he gets it wrong.

Torturing and abusing prisoners in the custody of our government is a crime. Conspiring to violate laws that prohibit the torture and abuse of prisoners is a crime. We are a nation of laws and no one is above the law. Investigating allegations of criminal conduct is not a "witch hunt." Having respect for the rule of law and supporting the pursuit of justice does not make a person a looney left wing extremist. If we do not investigate the allegations of criminal torture and abuse of foreign nationals, gather evidence, and prosecute the law breakers, then our great nation will irretrievably lose our moral authority as the leader of the free world. There is no respect when we demand that others do as we say, not as we do. We must lead by example.

0 Replies

@Woiyo9,

It seems you don't know the difference between tax mistakes and "tax evasion." Tax evasion requires that you prove their was criminal intent to not pay taxes. The fact they didn't pay taxes is not proof of criminal intent. In fact the majority of people that are found to owe back taxes are never charged with a crime. You however don't seem to know what "equal under the law" means. You want to charge some people without evidence in spite of what the law says.

I also think you have a hard time recognizing assholes. Have you had your vision checked lately. Most people do start to have problem seeing things close up as they get older.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
MACs stand for Constitutional law and equal protection under the law. The previous administration should not be held to any higher standard than any other administration and the current administration should not set a precedent that would literally hamstring our government from being able to carry out any of its authorized and funded Consitutional duties without threat of being investigated and prosecuted for it by a vengeful and vindictive subsequent administration.

I wasn't talking about any specific administration.

I was talking about the ideology you are propagating on this thread, and the contradictions you've run into. As we've already established, you've come down in favour of torture in order to protect the nation. You also oppose a prosecution of a possible grave violation of the law. Those are clear violations of the principles you are allegedly propagating in your ideology.

In this context, this has absolutely nothing to do with the standard I'm holding this or the previous administration to.

I WAS talking about a specific administration and several administrations. I certainly am in favor of torture or any other means if the alternative is to see my loved ones or hundreds or thousands of innocent people murdered, maimed, mutilated. You are on the record as coming down on that side yourself. I am 100% positive that nobody on this thread would not come down on that side when faced with only those choices.

You are absolutely holding the previous administration to a higher standard if you think there is sufficient justification to warrant a witchhunt looking for somebody who might have deviated from policy or broken a law. Given the tens or hundreds of thousands of people involved in government, not to mention those who work in cooperation with or as extensions of government, it is a certainty that something could be uncovered in such an investigation no matter whose administration it was.

I have presented my opinion, as well as that of the large majority of the country, that there is insufficient evidence of unauthorized intentional wrong doing by the previous administration to justify a special investigation--call it witchhunt--pushed by those who could care less about the welfare of the country but who presume the moral authority to punish those they don't like. It isn't a matter of breaking the law but rather holding accountable those who followed an unpopular policy authorized and funded by the U.S. Congress and the Administration.

It is a matter of setting a precedence for that kind of thing and putting each new administration under a cloud that will render them far less effective in carrying out their Constitutionally mandated duties.

You do not have sufficient evidence to contradict my opinion.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Summary: Unless there are CLEARLY prosecutable violations evident, the new administration will not go on witch hunting expeditions in the old.

According to Foxfyre, all the government needs to do is conspire with a lawyer to write a legal opinion that says their conduct is not illegal, and then our government officials can do whatever it wants to do. And, according to Foxfyre, an investigation is NOT ALLOWED to determine if probable cause exists to prosecute these officials/lawyers to determine if they conspired to violate the laws.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Torture has never been proved to be effective or reliable.

You continue to ignore the simple fact that the US used waterboarding 183 times in one month on one individual without getting anything of value. That proves it is not effective.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

I certainly am in favor of torture or any other means if the alternative is to see my loved ones or hundreds or thousands of innocent people murdered, maimed, mutilated.

This has nothing to do with why we tortured people, and is just a fantasy designed by right-wingers to justify their inner desire to see people tortured.

Quote:

I have presented my opinion, as well as that of the large majority of the country, that there is insufficient evidence of unauthorized intentional wrong doing by the previous administration to justify a special investigation

How Orwellian - there is not enough evidence to go looking for evidence, even though we know violations of the law took place!

Crazy

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

If the need for information is "urgent" like Foxie claims, the conclusion should be obvious that it's already too late - after one month or more. If our intelligence had that kind of info on terrorism, there are better means and choices than trying to get info from one prisoner.

She would rather use "fear" over everything else at our disposal, and allow for torture that is against US and international laws. This woman is sick in the head.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

You dare talk to ME about HONOR? Now that is funny.

Smile

http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/24.gif

I just have a hard time believing two guys about the same age on opposite sides of the country would walk in 100% lockstep, would use identical style of sentence structure, identical misspellings, identical phraseaology, agree on every point, and would so consistently show up to reinforce each other when one gets into a sticky situation. But it's possible.

(At least that is the case since you stopped pretending to not be able to spell, capitalize, or punctuate at all.)

However, if I am wrong, I of course will say so.

I will be on the east coast in the late summer. Where can we meet?

Meanwhile, since you refused my challenge, you are still checkmated.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Don't bother; I have met both Cyclo and Diest in the flesh; they are who they claim to be on a2k.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

There is as much evidence that the enhanced interrogations were properly authorized and pronounced legal as there is evidence of any impropriety.

The unlawful torture and abuse program was NOT "pronounced legal." A legal opinion written by the attorney you keep in your pocket does not have the power or authority to legalize criminal conduct. Good faith reliance on advice of counsel is a defense to the mens rea element of the crime charges. Good faith reliance must be reasonable.

You have never addressed OE's example. If you get a legal opinion that states you may murder your neighbor, do you really think you can escape prosecution and conviction for murdering your neighbor?

Quote:

Remember that our Congress knew of the program and repeatedly voted on a fully bipartisan basis to fund it.

Congress did NOT know of the unlawful torture and abuse program. Four high ranking members of the intelligence committee were briefed in a meeting classified as top secret. What these four people were told is in dispute. Regardless of what they were told, these four people CANNOT discuss the matter with other members of Congress. It is a crime to disclose information classified as top secret. Disclosing top secret information during a time of war is treason punishable by life imprisonment or death. What the hell were these four members of Congress supposed to do if in fact they were informed that the government launched a top secret torture program of prisoners?

0 Replies

@old europe,

Quote:

Exactly, ALV. That's exactly the argument for at least an investigation of violations of the Constitution.

If you want to set the precedent of not prosecuting possible violations of the law and of international treaties in the name of bipartisanship, you might very well run into a situation that you are apparently so afraid of that you started an entire thread about it. If a "legal opinion" is all the White House needs in order to violate the Constitution and get off free, what exactly would prevent the Obama administration from obtaining some lawyer's opinion to cover their actions and then start cracking down on the political opposition?

Actually, I think the Obama has already set the tone in cracking down on the opposition with their DHS report and taking the census away from Commerce.

But tell me, should the Bush admin have pursued Janet Reno for her actions at Waco? Many civil libertarians thought so.

You also didn't address this; should Eisenhower have prosecuted FDR officials for their interment camps? Major violations of the law and constitution there. Interment camps holding US citizens? FDR admin officals would have went to jail.

Clinton allowed sub and missle technology to be sold to China. Where was the prosecution by Bush? Certainly could have done so, with the violations of the law there. Clinton and dem officals, Johnny Huang, Peter Lee... An investigation by the new Bush admin surely would have resulted in charges against Clinton officals for violations of the law there.

My point, again, is admins have tended to, in the past, "look forward". (Quoting Obama there).

Obama has insured this will never happen again.

Actually, I'm all for this. Our entire federal govt is corrupt, and it will be nice to see future right and left admins go to jail after the fact.

Buy those of you on the left; no fair pissing and moaning when a liberal goes to jail in 2013 or whenever...

2 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know