55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 02:14 pm
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:



Then you would agree Janet Reno should be pursued by Obama for homicide for authorizing the feds action at Waco? No statue on this crime.

It was a universal belief she violated the law, after all...

No, it is NOT a universal belief she violated the law. I suggest you find and read the report by John Danforth who was appointed Special Counsel to look into the incident.
This is from his press release on the report.
Quote:
This Report unequivocally reaffirms the
conclusions contained in the Special Counsel’s Interim Report of July 21, 2000.
Specifically:
(1) Government agents did not start the fire at Waco;
(2) Government agents did not shoot at the Branch Davidians on April 19, 1993;
(3) Government agents did not improperly use the United States military;
(4) Government agents did not engage in a massive conspiracy and cover-up. There is
no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Attorney General Reno, the present and
former Director of the FBI, other high officials of the United States, or the individual
members of the FBI Hostage Rescue Team who fired three pyrotechnic tear gas
rounds on April 19, 1993.
(5) Responsibility for the tragedy at Waco rests with certain of the Branch Davidians and
their leader, David Koresh, who shot and killed four ATF agents, wounded twenty
others, shot at FBI agents trying to insert tear gas into the complex, burned down the
complex, and shot at least twenty of their own people, including five children.


Of course you are free to look like a far out wacko and deny the results of the 2.3 million documents, 1000 witnesses and thousands of pounds of evidence Danforth looked at to reach his conclusions.

Here is one link to the full report
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b10a03.html
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 02:17 pm
@parados,
Isn't it amazing how conservatives believe everything about democrats that are not only without evidence but completely erroneous, but they want real crimes committed by Bush and gang to go free from investigation.

0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 02:19 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Foxie wrote:
Quote:
MACs stand for Constitutional law and equal protection under the law.


She evidently doesn't understand the definition of "equal protection under the law."

Ah. . . our defining national principles are defined however SHE says they are defined. Thus, she claims moral superiority by claiming she supports liberty and equal protection under the law while she simultaneously abuses the authority of the state to oppress and torture those she disfavors. Because she redefines oppression and torture to mean "not oppression" and "not torture," MACists can do no wrong. That's the beauty of Foxfyre's MACism.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 02:22 pm
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:
But tell me, should the Bush admin have pursued Janet Reno for her actions at Waco? Many civil libertarians thought so.


There was no investigation? Yes, the Bush admin should have opened an investigation.


A Lone Voice wrote:
You also didn't address this; should Eisenhower have prosecuted FDR officials for their interment camps?


There was no investigation? Yes, the Eisenhower admin should have opened an investigation.


A Lone Voice wrote:
Major violations of the law and constitution there. Interment camps holding US citizens? FDR admin officals would have went to jail.


Possibly. That's always a risk when you violate the law.


A Lone Voice wrote:
Clinton allowed sub and missle technology to be sold to China. Where was the prosecution by Bush?


There was no investigation? Yes, the Bush admin should have opened an investigation.


A Lone Voice wrote:
An investigation by the new Bush admin surely would have resulted in charges against Clinton officals for violations of the law there.


If you say so. That's the great thing about being a country of laws though, isn't it? Nobody is above the law....


A Lone Voice wrote:
Obama has insured this will never happen again.


That remains to be seen.


A Lone Voice wrote:
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.


... or actually act within the framework of the Constitution and laws. Yes, that would be great.


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


Agreed.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 02:26 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Danforth's report speaks for itself on Waco. No one has provided any substantial rebuttal with evidence.

As to the Cox report. It states that China was actively involved in espionage which was considered inflammatory. It also states that very little of military value was sold to China which was not controversial except for the loony right. Most of what they appeared to have received was taken through theft or other nefarious means. The Cox reports makes several claims about what China had stolen that wasn't well supported. It was possible, though thought unlikely by some, that China could have developed some of the technology on their own.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 02:31 pm
MARKING PRESIDENT OBAMA'S FIRST 100 DAYS.

Excerpt
Quote:
"We had an election which was about our differing views of the direction our country was going in," Pelosi said at a press conference a week after Obama's inauguration. "The American people agreed with us."

Whether the American people continue to agree with Democrats won't be tested until the 2010 elections. Given their significant majorities, it's likely that Democrats will build up a significant legislative resume for voters to judge -- with or without the bipartisanship that eluded Congress' first 100 days.


Quote:
Bipartisanship didn't last long in Obama's first 100 days
Slew of legislative achievements have come at the cost of bipartisanship
Democrats: GOP making a political calculation to be the party of "no"
Republicans say Democrats have shut them out
Real reason for partisan divide may be genuine philosophical differences

By Dana Bash
CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- There's little debate that Democrats who run Congress mark President Obama's 100-day milestone with some significant victories.

First and foremost, they passed the president's $787 billion measure intended to stimulate the economy with warp speed, meeting his February deadline.

Congressional Democrats also made good on promises to push through several priorities that President Bush had refused to sign into law.

They finally approved last year's bill to fund the government, with significant increases in spending for things such as education, health care and transportation.

And Democrats passed long stalled legislation for children's health insurance -- the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as S-CHIP -- as well as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act mandating equal pay for women in the workplace.


But the slew of legislative achievements during Obama's first 100 days have come at the cost of bipartisanship.

The president's stimulus package passed with three Republican votes.

Obama's budget blueprint passed the House of Representatives and the Senate without a single GOP vote. And the $410 billion bill to fund the government turned into a partisan clash.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, opened the Senate in January declaring that "when we allow ourselves to retreat into the tired, well-worn trenches of partisanship, we diminish our ability to accomplish real change." Watch Reid in January predict Congress will work together »

Now, that feels like ancient history.

So does Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's more hopeful tone in January.

"If we see sensible, bipartisan proposals, Republicans will choose bipartisan solutions over partisan failures every time," said McConnell of Kentucky. Watch McConnell in January say that Republicans will cooperate, not compromise »

In the blame game over the breakdown of bipartisanship, Republicans said Democrats shut them out and never really considered GOP ideas. Democrats accused Republicans of making a political calculation to be the party of "no."

But the real reason for the partisan divide may be genuine philosophical differences, especially when it comes the No. 1 issue during the president's first 100 days -- the economy.

Republicans working to recover from their drubbing during the last two elections said they are trying to return to their small government roots. That means opposing Obama's economic prescriptions.

"We've been throwing trillions of dollars around like it was Monopoly money," McConnell said in the heat of the spending bill debate. Watch Reid and McConnell argue over the spending bill »

"A way of looking at it is we have spent more in the first 23 or 24 days of this administration, in other words, charged more, than it cost post-9/11 for the war Afghanistan, the war in Iraq and the response to Katrina already."

Yet most Democrats fundamentally believe government spending is the only way to jump-start the economy.

"We're going to have to spend some money to get out of this hole. The government's the only body that has any money," Reid said.

The reality is that bipartisanship on big, controversial issues is usually born out of necessity -- the ruling party historically reaches across the aisle only when it needs votes to prevail.

The Democrats' wide majority has meant that, for the most part, they haven't had to compromise.

It's not clear whether things will be any different over the next 100 days.

Democrats last week, at the behest of Obama's team, decided to use a rule that ultimately will prevent Republicans from waging a filibuster against the overhaul of health care. At the end of the day, if they can hold their own members in line, Democrats won't have to make concessions to Republicans to pass health care legislation.

Perhaps House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, was the most honest in her early assessment of the new Democratic-dominated Washington dynamic.

"We had an election which was about our differing views of the direction our country was going in," Pelosi said at a press conference a week after Obama's inauguration. "The American people agreed with us."

Whether the American people continue to agree with Democrats won't be tested until the 2010 elections. Given their significant majorities, it's likely that Democrats will build up a significant legislative resume for voters to judge -- with or without the bipartisanship that eluded Congress' first 100 days.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/27/congress.100.days/index.html
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 02:36 pm
I take it that Fox does not have the gumption to accept a bet re: dual identities.

You don't have to meet anyone in person, Fox; we can settle this today. Just ask RG to certify that our IP addresses are not only dissimilar, but entirely different. What say you?

I say that you will not accept the challenge, and will instead retreat from the field.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 02:41 pm
@Foxfyre,
Bipartisanship doesn't work when 100% of the GOP says "no." You'll never guess why. Obama now wants the GOP members of congress to participate in a universal health care plan for Americans. We'll have to wait and see how that works out.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 02:42 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

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.


The government wasted thousands and thousands of valuable man hours chasing down worthless information coerced from the mouths of torture victims.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 02:43 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I would rather meet in person. You're welcome to have RG look into anything you wish. That would not prove anything to me, however, as I can post even using my own identity under different IP addresses with no problem at all. Even from the same office.

Again, if you're not the same person then you aren't. But the similarities of style, words, the way you use the same argument to put out your personal insults and ad hominem, the same style, the identical arguments, the way you misspell the same words, and the way when one is away the other is usually away and when one returns so does the other all is really uncanny. And for guys on opposite coasts you seem to have a lot of personal information about each other.

But anyway I will be on the east coast for awhile by late summer and I will be in the Bay area in the fall. Where can we meet?
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 02:46 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
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.


Fear mongering, hate mongering, and playing the victim are the key components of her arguments in favor of oppression and torture.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 02:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Woiyo and those conservatives who continue to make claims about "tax cheats" still hasn't shown any proof or evidence. Just conjecture and assumptions without any legal standing. They still think a blow job is a bigger crime than torture.


I'm pretty sure that Clinton consulted with his lawyer and obtained a legal opinion stating that a blow job was not sex. Therefore, when Clinton swore under oath that he did not have sex with that woman, he was acting in good faith reliance on the advice of counsel. Using Foxfyre's logic, Clinton should not have been investigated for perjury because doing so amounted to nothing more than a witch hunt by looney partisan right-wing conservative/GOP extremist numbnuts.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 02:57 pm
@Foxfyre,
That would be a neat trick: Cyclo lives in Berkeley, and Diest lives in Washington DC. Same people? You really need to use a whole lot of imagination and cycle babble to connect these two people as the same.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 02:59 pm
@Debra Law,
That about covers it 360 degrees.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 03:00 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Correction: "looney left."


Absolutely. I think, if we use most of the descriptions in her arsenal, it's looney partisan insulting witch-hunting extremist left wing numbnuts who lack understanding, intelligence or the ability employ critical thinking and who put words in her mouth that she did not say . . .
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 03:04 pm
@Debra Law,
Clinton IS a lawyer, so doesn't that mean anything he says could be a legal opinion and therefor exempt him from prosecution.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 03:08 pm
@parados,
But a defendant who represents himself is a ...................... (fill in).
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 03:09 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I would rather meet in person. You're welcome to have RG look into anything you wish. That would not prove anything to me, however, as I can post even using my own identity under different IP addresses with no problem at all. Even from the same office.


Wow, you really don't know much about IP addresses, do you?

You are correct that it is possible to post under different IP addresses. But, they are sort of like a map; a pointer to your position. If you post from your office, even using two different hookups to the 'net, your IP addresses will still be somewhat similar to each other or will point to the same general location.

However, as we are separated by nearly 4k miles, I feel quite confident that TKO's address will be completely different than mine, to the point where it isn't just a question of switching computers. Once again, RG can clear this up in a cold second. But, you don't really want it cleared up, do you?

Quote:
Again, if you're not the same person then you aren't.


Wow, really?

Quote:
But the similarities of style, words, the way you use the same argument to put out your personal insults and ad hominem, the same style, the identical arguments, the way you misspell the same words, and the way when one is away the other is usually away and when one returns so does the other all is really uncanny.


Our arguments aren't all that similar in style, and I don't remember us misspelling the same words over and over. And how you can tell which of us is 'away' and which is 'returning' is beyond me.

Quote:
And for guys on opposite coasts you seem to have a lot of personal information about each other.


Maybe that's b/c we read A2K, where the other person posts about themselves. I've seen Diest's Video weblogs that he puts up, he's likely read my thread (which needs to be revived) on my upcoming wedding. Stuff like that. I'm not exactly quiet about my personal life and neither is he.

Quote:
But anyway I will be on the east coast for awhile by late summer and I will be in the Bay area in the fall. Where can we meet?


Diest can meet you if he likes, but I don't believe a meeting between the two of us would be particularly productive. I don't think you are a very good person and I would likely take the opportunity to say things which I later would regret saying to anyone, let alone you. I certainly would gain little out of it; and as for your question re: my identity, it is meaningless to me in the long run.

Sure has changed the subject away from your approval of torture and the inherent contradictions between your stated political position and your actual one, though. Why don't we get back to that?

Cycloptichorn
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 03:13 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
May I just add that you two don't look very similar at all - but I'm sure, even here Foxfyre would find some similarities Very Happy
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 03:14 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

May I just add that you two don't look very similar at all - but I'm sure, even here Foxfyre would find some similarities Very Happy


Well, her theory relies on one set of pictures of us being manufactured fakes. As to why anyone would go to such trouble, I have very little to offer Smile

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 05/06/2025 at 10:37:54