AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@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...

You're fudging the truth. The government investigated WACO to the nth degree. Volumes have been written. Criminal and civil trials took place. The Dividians were not justified in using armed conflict to resist the service of search and arrest warrants. In the end, the Dividians chose death rather than surrender and set the fires themselves. They are responsible for their own deaths. Thus, there is no probable cause to arrest or prosecute Janet Reno for homicide.

But the fact remains that Janet Reno's actions were investigated, whereas you are arguing that former government officials involved in the unlawful torture program should NOT be investigated.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

It's all part of the left conspiracy.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I also noticed that she didn't address the actual subject from that point on; that is, her rhetorical attempts to prove that a lack of evidence is justification for denying an investigation with which to find evidence, even when you know the violations have been committed.

Cycloptichorn

She bends over backwards to contort her arguments. Here's a picture of Foxfyre at her keyboard:

http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:CKVHq5vbMH_lqM::valentino-

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Lone Voice wrote:

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

* * *

We are seeing a bit of a double standard from you LV. You bring up things that WERE investigated and then say we should treat Bush the same way and NOT investigate.

Another contortionist working to twist, wrench, and bend an argument out of shape.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Your argument boils down to this: if the previous administration were to be prosecuted for violating the Constitution, then a new administration would be far less effective in protecting the Constitution, because it couldn't violate the Constitution without fear of being prosecuted.

Now, let me ask you a simple question: Do you think that, in order to protect the Constitution, the President should be allowed to occasionally violate the Constitution?

But, but, but OE!!!!! The next person who wants to break the law in the future might be afraid to do so if we investigate and prosecute those who have broken the law in the past! OMG! The sky is falling.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

And now, it gives me great pleasure to introduce the best contortionists in the world, I present to you, Foxie.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Clinton IS a lawyer, so doesn't that mean anything he says could be a legal opinion and therefor exempt him from prosecution.

ABSOLUTELY. It's a proven fact in America that lawyers are never investigated for alleged criminal activity because they have get-out-of-jail-free cards in their legal brains.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I'm a conservative, and I say good for them.

0 Replies

Is federal funding to combat the deadly swine flu considered pork?

0 Replies

Foxfyre, parroting the talking points of the talking heads, alleges that investigating former government officials for violating the law sets an "ugly precedent." Glenn Greenwald addressed this looney argument on his website:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

1 Reply

@old europe,

I get a million hoax e-mails from the right. I can now see that it is Bush who sends them out.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Even the biased media people can't see their own contradictions about torture and law(s). They all speak with forked tongues in trying to rationalize their belief about "no one is above the law," but they also bring (again) fear into their premise about "vengeance." When did all these people lose their common sense and logic? That in of itself is scary.

1 Reply

Glenn Greenwald wrote:

Punishing politically powerful criminals is about vindicating the rule of law. Partisan and political considerations should play no role in it. It is opponents of investigations and prosecutions who are being driven by partisan allegiances and a desire to advance their political interests. By contrast, proponents of investigations are seeking to vindicate the most apolitical yet crucial principle of our system of government: that we are a nation of laws that cannot allow extremely serious crimes to be swept under the rug for political reasons. That's true no matter what is best for Obama's political goals and no matter how many Democrats end up being implicated -- ethically, politically or even legally -- by the crimes that were committed.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Excellent piece by Greenwald, and I agree with him 100%. It doesn't matter who is implicated; they should all pay the piker for knowingly authorizing torture.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I believe that "Foxfyre" is actually Slappy Do Hoo. Anyone want to challenge me on that?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Even the biased media people can't see their own contradictions about torture and law(s). They all speak with forked tongues in trying to rationalize their belief about "no one is above the law," but they also bring (again) fear into their premise about "vengeance." When did all these people lose their common sense and logic? That in of itself is scary.

Unfortunately, far too many news anchors and journalists are being replaced by unethical pundits (like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck) who sidestep the facts (because facts are inconvenient) and resort to unsupportable grandstanding to inflame their viewers and to boost their ratings (and the money in their pockets).

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

Close, but you didn't earn a cupie doll.

The real funny news today: a) Obama is now enjoying a 69% approval rating, and b) only 21% identify themselves as republicans.

They're calling it the 21% Club: Isn't that the current approval rating for Bush? ROFL

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Close, but you didn't earn a cupie doll.

The real funny news today: a) Obama is now enjoying a 69% approval rating, and b) only 21% identify themselves as republicans.

They're calling it the 21% Club: Isn't that the current approval rating for Bush? ROFL

Which means, when Sarah Palin and her running mate, Samuel "Joe" Wurzelbacher, vie for the presidency in 2012, Palin will achieve approximately 21 percent of the popular vote. The other 79 percent will go to the incumbent. Yes. We can see how the "MACists" are driving potential supporters of the GOP away in huge numbers. Keep up the good work, you "MACian" devils!

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

I believe that "Foxfyre" is actually Slappy Do Hoo. Anyone want to challenge me on that?

Well, she might not be the alter ego of Slappy, but she is certainly duplicitous. To quote Joan Rivers (Celebrity Apprentice), "when she goes in for a face lift, she'll need two doctors."

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra wrote:

Quote:

Well, she might not be the alter ego of Slappy, but she is certainly duplicitous. To quote Joan Rivers (Celebrity Apprentice), "when she goes in for a face lift, she'll need two doctors."

Thanks for my good laugh of the day.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know