John McCain has always been a phony & a scumbag; want proof?

I advocate higher taxes and reducing government spending, not the expansion of it. I'm not looking to see the gov't get any bigger then it currently is.
Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I advocate higher taxes and reducing government spending, not the expansion of it. I'm not looking to see the gov't get any bigger then it currently is.
Cycloptichorn

But from what I have read and heard, the Obama plan will result in a massive increase in govt spending.

Are you opposed to that, or will you support his plan completely?

From the Justice Department to the Just Us Department
By: Steve Benen @ 1:10 PM - PDT

I don't want to alarm anyone, but it appears the Justice Department, throughout Bush's two terms, flagrantly and repeatedly broke the law by politicizing the hiring process. Yes, I know we knew that before, but the DoJ's Inspector General has made it official.

Justice Department officials over the last six years illegally used "political or ideological" factors to hire new lawyers into an elite recruitment program, tapping law school graduates with conservative credentials over those with liberal-sounding resumes, a new report found Tuesday.

The blistering report, prepared by the Justice Department's inspector general, is the first in what will be a series of investigations growing out of last year's scandal over the firings of nine United States attorneys. It appeared to confirm for the first time in an official examination many of the allegations from critics who charged that the Justice Department had become overly politicized during the Bush administration.

"Many qualified candidates" were rejected for the department's honors program because of what was perceived as a liberal bias, the report found. Those practices, the report concluded, "constituted misconduct and also violated the department's policies and civil service law that prohibit discrimination in hiring based on political or ideological affiliations."

According to the investigation, the Justice Department began ignoring merit and making employment decisions based on politics in 2002, when then-Attorney General John Ashcroft restructured the honors program, taking decisions away from career officials in each section of the department, giving power to Bush appointees. When Alberto Gonzales took the reins, the illegalities expanded and were intensified.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I advocate higher taxes and reducing government spending, not the expansion of it. I'm not looking to see the gov't get any bigger then it currently is.
Cycloptichorn

But from what I have read and heard, the Obama plan will result in a massive increase in govt spending.

Are you opposed to that, or will you support his plan completely?

What the f*ck is wrong with you, MM and Tico and McG and Foxy and Foofie and ...

Your sense of morality, like your postings, is pretty much not there.

JTT wrote:

<snip>

Sense of morality? Who the **** are you?

Sense of morality? Who the **** are you?

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I advocate higher taxes and reducing government spending, not the expansion of it. I'm not looking to see the gov't get any bigger then it currently is.
Cycloptichorn

But from what I have read and heard, the Obama plan will result in a massive increase in govt spending.

Are you opposed to that, or will you support his plan completely?

What the f*ck is wrong with you, MM and Tico and McG and Foxy and Foofie and ...

Your sense of morality, like your postings, is pretty much not there.

Quote:

From the Justice Department to the Just Us Department
By: Steve Benen @ 1:10 PM - PDT

I don't want to alarm anyone, but it appears the Justice Department, throughout Bush's two terms, flagrantly and repeatedly broke the law by politicizing the hiring process. Yes, I know we knew that before, but the DoJ's Inspector General has made it official.

Justice Department officials over the last six years illegally used "political or ideological" factors to hire new lawyers into an elite recruitment program, tapping law school graduates with conservative credentials over those with liberal-sounding resumes, a new report found Tuesday.

The blistering report, prepared by the Justice Department's inspector general, is the first in what will be a series of investigations growing out of last year's scandal over the firings of nine United States attorneys. It appeared to confirm for the first time in an official examination many of the allegations from critics who charged that the Justice Department had become overly politicized during the Bush administration.

"Many qualified candidates" were rejected for the department's honors program because of what was perceived as a liberal bias, the report found. Those practices, the report concluded, "constituted misconduct and also violated the department's policies and civil service law that prohibit discrimination in hiring based on political or ideological affiliations."

According to the investigation, the Justice Department began ignoring merit and making employment decisions based on politics in 2002, when then-Attorney General John Ashcroft restructured the honors program, taking decisions away from career officials in each section of the department, giving power to Bush appointees. When Alberto Gonzales took the reins, the illegalities expanded and were intensified.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

Is this what conservatives stand for? Where is that sense of honor and decency that is always being trumpeted? You know how much it says about conservatives as a whole that there are no complaints with respect to the frequent criminal actions being perpetrated by this government.

Wasn't John Dean so so right when he said this group will make Nixon look like a piker.

Isn't it ironic that Republicans, who were so outraged at Bill Clinton's sexual escapades, support John McCain, a world-class womanizer, panderer, money chaser, and phony?

BBB

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I do not support your greed, sir, and will be voting for the candidate who will take more of your money in taxes - and mine as well. I would remind you that greed is hardly a virtue, but instead, a vice.

Cycloptichorn

My property is my property and the Govt has no right to take it and give it to others. That is called freedom.

Apparently, you do not believe in freedom.

Are you not a Native American, Woiyo? That's exactly what the government did.

I advocate higher taxes and reducing government spending, not the expansion of it. I'm not looking to see the gov't get any bigger then it currently is.

I'm not really interested in having a conversation with you about socialism, because you aren't really interested in anything other then insults; and what more, it's boring. Can't you come up with something more productive to talk about then tired Conservative tropes, such as labeling anyone who isn't for cutting taxes a Socialist?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I advocate higher taxes and reducing government spending, not the expansion of it. I'm not looking to see the gov't get any bigger then it currently is.

I'm not really interested in having a conversation with you about socialism, because you aren't really interested in anything other then insults; and what more, it's boring. Can't you come up with something more productive to talk about then tired Conservative tropes, such as labeling anyone who isn't for cutting taxes a Socialist?

Cycloptichorn

Your statement is a contradiction.

If they reduced spending and/or became more efficient, there would be no need to increase taxes.

Obama wants to play Robin Hood. Tax the so-called rich and give it to the so called poor. That will only lead to a 2 class system reminiscent of the Guilded Age. That is not a good thing.

After last week's Supreme Court decision granting terror detainees the right of habeas corpus, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) blasted the decision as one of the worst ever. Raising the specter of Osama bin Laden being tried in civil court, McCain invoked the Nazi war crimes trials to declare that bin Laden should be denied habeas rights at all costs, Supreme Court be damned:

There was no habeas at Nuremburg and there should be no habeas for Osama bin Laden. … Let me be clear, under my administration Osama bin Laden will either be killed on the battlefield or executed.

McCain has invoked the Nazi trials at Nuremberg before to uphold his position on habeas. Unfortunately for McCain, in that instance it was to push for granting those rights to terror detainees, as he explained to Tim Russert in 2005:

Now, I know that some of these guys are terrible, terrible killers and the worst kind of scum of humanity. But, one, they deserve to have some adjudication of their cases. And there's a fear that if you release them that they'll go back and fight again against us. … f it means releasing some of them, you'll have to release them. Look, even Adolf Eichmann got a trial.

Those accused of Nazi crimes at Nuremberg were not tried under U.S. law, and thus did not have explicit habeas rights. But Nazis unquestionably received fairer trials than terrorist detainees today. The fact that some accused and tried at Nuremberg were found innocent and released shows that Nuremberg offered a practical habeas right. By contrast, the Pentagon has indicated it could continue to imprison a Guantanamo detainee indefinitely, even if he were found innocent by a military tribunal.

What, exactly, does McCain find so frightening about bringing Osama bin Laden to court? He is unquestionably guilty and will be found guilty. A fair trial would only add moral authority to his conviction. Or is moral weight another aspect of the war on terror that McCain doesn't care about?

Another example of McCain's major flip flops in the name of toeing the party line to get their votes. (if i was a republican i would wonder what will happen once he gets in office, wonder if he would change back. As a democrat I don't want to take the chance of having faith he would change back.)

revel wrote:

Another example of McCain's major flip flops in the name of toeing the party line to get their votes. (if i was a republican i would wonder what will happen once he gets in office, wonder if he would change back. As a democrat I don't want to take the chance of having faith he would change back.)

But don't you agree the Supreme Court decision he "blasted" was about the right to go before a federal court instead of a miltiary tribunal, which is what he's advocated all along?

I've not read the opinion, but that is my understanding of its ruling.

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I advocate higher taxes and reducing government spending, not the expansion of it. I'm not looking to see the gov't get any bigger then it currently is.

I'm not really interested in having a conversation with you about socialism, because you aren't really interested in anything other then insults; and what more, it's boring. Can't you come up with something more productive to talk about then tired Conservative tropes, such as labeling anyone who isn't for cutting taxes a Socialist?

Cycloptichorn

Your statement is a contradiction.

If they reduced spending and/or became more efficient, there would be no need to increase taxes.

Obama wants to play Robin Hood. Tax the so-called rich and give it to the so called poor. That will only lead to a 2 class system reminiscent of the Guilded Age. That is not a good thing.

Actually how would you have expected the government to reduce spending which was not already done? True we had some pretty lame no where deals (some of which supported by various party members on both sides) but by and large most domestic government spending has been reduced. It is not the spending which is draining the economy but paying for the Iraq war and homeland security without significant raises in either employment or wages or taxes.

What Happened to Wartime Sacrifice?

hanno wrote:

Sense of morality? Who the **** are you?

Are you indignant simply because you were missed, Hanno?

It's pretty clear that I'm not someone who provides cover for criminals, murderers, thieves, liars, ... .

But note how quickly Tico comes right back at it. Instead of addressing the repugnant things that are being done, he wallows in them.

It seems you missed my point, and instead are content to parrot the bloggers you respect and follow, whose thinking often times resembles the flow of cottage cheese.

You are trying to tell me in 2005 McCain was in favor of granting habeas to these detainees? You will need to show me some proof of that statement.

McCain's position has always been that the government should structure military tribunals to give detainees due process, but that they should still be treated as unlawful combatants, not prisoners of war or American citizens. So with the Boumediene decision, the SCOTUS has granted terrorists access to the civil court system ... not a military tribunal. It is THAT that he has blasted as "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

Let me try to say it another way that you might be able to follow, revel ...

McCain's position is -- and has always been -- the following:

Military tribunals for unlawful combatants = good.
Habeas corpus & civil trials for unlawful combatants = bad.

Now, I know that some of these guys are terrible, terrible killers and the worst kind of scum of humanity. But, one, they deserve to have some adjudication of their cases.

Let me be clear, under my administration Osama bin Laden will either be killed on the battlefield or executed.

JTT wrote:

hanno wrote:

Sense of morality? Who the **** are you?

Are you indignant simply because you were missed, Hanno?

It's pretty clear that I'm not someone who provides cover for criminals, murderers, thieves, liars, ... .

But note how quickly Tico comes right back at it. Instead of addressing the repugnant things that are being done, he wallows in them.

Don't cover for criminals, murderers, thieves or liars - wow, that is really impressive.

It's not at all impressive. It's simply what normal human beings do.

If you were of a mind to lower yourself though... I mean could you cut it as or amongst those horrible things or are you just speaking in platitudes about politicians and/or being self-righteous?