Malarkey & I'manutjob

[Len Budney]

That's certainly an edge. But you can't accuse someone of crimes that you know super-secret proof of, that the rest of us can't know. You can either prove your case, or you're sorta stuck. Otherwise I can bring up my super-secret satellite evidence that you torture kittens. I can't produce the proof, because it's classified--but you should be ashamed of yourself, and folks who pass you on the street should take my advice and spit on your shoe. 

And do tell what should I be ashamed of? 

Read it again: you should be ashamed of yourself for torturing all those kittens. I realize I haven't proven that you do that, but that's only because the proof is classified. When it's allowed to come out, boy will you be publicly embarrassed! 

And who says things have not been proven?  You or the talking heads.  Just because the public doesn't know everything that is going on doesn't mean there isn't proof.

If you're allowed to claim proof that I'm not allowed to see, then I'm allowed to call you a kitten torturer. If you can't show the proof, then you're in the same fix as if you don't have it at all. That's the whole point of my kitten parable above.

However, several specific cases have actually been exposed when administration has claimed that this or that came from Iran, and the claim was proven false.

You yourself would have to admit that 80% of the American public believes what they are told to believe or really don't care.

Absolutely. That's exactly how we got into this mess in the first place--and it's why over two-thirds of the populace still believes Saddam had WMDs AND was in league with Al Qaeda. For the record, I believed both. The first wakeup call was Bush claiming it was never about WMDs; I spent personal credibility defending his false claims, and it was a kick in the teeth for him to go and disavow them completely.

And as for spitting on my shoe.  What are you going to call for next, calling us baby killers when we come home like happened to the Vietnam Vets?

I'm not talking about your military service. I'm talking about all the kittens you've tortured. The proof is in your classified dossier in an underground vault at an undisclosed location. 

--Len.

[Paddy]

Quote
You're pissed because you're disappointed and think Bush cost you money.

Yeah, "suspended habeas corpus" equals "cost me money."   rolleyes

No, you said

not only was I a staunch Bush supporter in 2, but I have the records of my purchases of tobacco and firearm stocks to prove it (all of which I still hold, BTW). I expected nuisance lawsuits against guns and tobacco to end; I expected tax cuts;

which cost you money.  Again, a glib, disingenuous answer does not make for credibility.  Stick with the substance of the discussion.

Anyway, I find it deliciously funny when "conservatives" defend Bush's tax-n-spend liberalism because he's "their guy." Nothing says "no principles" like defending your side for doing what you condemn when the other side does it.

That's really hilarious.  If you're referring to me, I'm hardly 'conservative' (by the current Rush/Hannity definition, anyway).   And Bush and neos aren't 'tax-n-spend', they're 'borrow-n-spend' . And he's definitely not "my guy".  If I were calling the shots, we'd begin withdrawing from Iraq tomorrow morning.  "Embolden" the "evildoers" be  damned.  This country has plenty of firepower to defend ourselves, or retaliate wherever and whenever necessary.

Then you refer to Bush as a "criminal".  That may be your opinion, but the last time I checked he had not been prosecuted and convicted.  That's the kind of rhetoric coming from the whacko left.  It's unrealistic and unproductive and makes you sound fringy.

[Paddy]

If you're allowed to claim proof that I'm not allowed to see, then I'm allowed to call you a kitten torturer. If you can't show the proof, then you're in the same fix as if you don't have it at all. That's the whole point of my kitten parable above.

And the inverse of that circular logic is that an unproven allegation is fact until proven otherwise (ie., "Bush is a criminal")

See how it works?  You just say it and it's true. 

[Len Budney]

Anyway, I find it deliciously funny when "conservatives" defend Bush's tax-n-spend liberalism because he's "their guy." Nothing says "no principles" like defending your side for doing what you condemn when the other side does it.

That's really hilarious.  If you're referring to me, I'm hardly 'conservative' (by the current Rush/Hannity definition, anyway).   And Bush and neos aren't 'tax-n-spend', they're 'borrow-n-spend' . And he's definitely not "my guy".  If I were calling the shots, we'd begin withdrawing from Iraq tomorrow morning.  "Embolden" the "evildoers" be  damned.  This country has plenty of firepower to defend ourselves, or retaliate wherever and whenever necessary.

Then what are we arguing about?

Then you refer to Bush as a "criminal".  That may be your opinion, but the last time I checked he had not been prosecuted and convicted.  That's the kind of rhetoric coming from the whacko left.  It's unrealistic and unproductive and makes you sound fringy.

That's as may be, but suspending habeas corpus--and not temporarily, but in a law with no sunset date--is worse than anything that provoked the shooting at Lexington and Concord. Permanent suspension of our most fundamental right, not to be detained without a clear accounting of the charges and an opportunity to defend ourselves? You can argue that Bush has committed war crimes, etc, but the MCA was probably his most heinous act. It alone is grounds for impeachment, arrest, and being fed to giant Iranian goat-eating cockroaches.

--Len.

[Len Budney]

See how it works?  You just say it and it's true. 

You and I are on exactly the same page. Simply asserting something doesn't make it true; so if one can't produce the evidence, one basically must shut up. In the case of Bush, however, the MCA is a crime for which Bush has publicly taken credit. The only question that needs debate is whether the permanent suspension of habeas corpus is a crime.

There, I admit, I'm somewhat hampered: anyone who thinks it's OK for the government to arrest people without charges, and hold them incommunicado indefinitely, just isn't on the same planet. A mind convinced of that position is completely inscrutable to me. I'm as much at a loss where to begin as I would be if I met someone who insisted that rape was OK.

--Len.

[Paddy]

You may have made some assumptions that aren't true.  There are very few hardcore 'bushbots' around here; unlike THR (or the last time I was there; it's been many months).  OTOH, there are almost no liberals (I can think of one or two, and even they are quite reasonable, although they piss me off from time to time  )

There are some sharp differences with regard to the War in Iraq, and I'm in the minority.

Bush did not grant himself power to suspend habeas corpus; that was done by and with the consent of Congress.  The problem here is complete lack of congressional oversight and restraint.  Everybody's too busy playing politics going into the next election.  The proverbial pox on both their houses IMO.

[Len Budney]

You may have made some assumptions that aren't true.  There are very few hardcore 'bushbots' around here; unlike THR (or the last time I was there; it's been many months).  OTOH, there are almost no liberals (I can think of one or two, and even they are quite reasonable, although they piss me off from time to time  )

I apologize if I'm quick to jump to conclusions. I must say that THR was much more tolerant of my ilk than FR, though. (At least up until I was banned.) 

There are some sharp differences with regard to the War in Iraq, and I'm in the minority.

That might have something to do with my confusion: at first I was arguing with Fistful, I think. And then a few others piled on. I sorta assumed they were all coming from the same direction.

Bush did not grant himself power to suspend habeas corpus; that was done by and with the consent of Congress.  The problem here is complete lack of congressional oversight and restraint.  Everybody's too busy playing politics going into the next election.  The proverbial pox on both their houses IMO.

Oh, I agree completely. Bush is not alone in my bad list. It's long since time to surround DC and make everyone come out with their hands up.

--Len.

[Paddy]

Also notice in my opening post, my criticism was leveled against the President

We've been had.  Again. Somebody wake up Mr. Bush

rather than against these two clowns.  The point was, it's inevitable that these two would cuddle up and spoon with each other.  The Shi'ite is thicker than blood, especially American blood.  Like most Americans, I'm baffled and frustrated with this conflict that goes nowhere, accomplishes nothing, does not serve our national security and costs us hundreds of billions $$. (not to mention American deaths and crippling injuries).

[Len Budney]

Also notice in my opening post, my criticism was leveled against the President

We've been had.  Again. Somebody wake up Mr. Bush

rather than against these two clowns.  The point was, it's inevitable that these two would cuddle up and spoon with each other.  The Shi'ite is thicker than blood, especially American blood.  Like most Americans, I'm baffled and frustrated with this conflict that goes nowhere, accomplishes nothing, does not serve our national security and costs us hundreds of billions $$. (not to mention American deaths and crippling injuries).

I agree with almost all of that, but I think Maliki wanting good relations with Iran is only natural. It's a reasonably powerful neighbor you'd rather get along with than not, all things equal.

Nor do I think it would be productive to start another "regime change" bandwagon, this time targeting Iran. Maliki is no great shakes, but as I said, he's about the best you could expect from Iran as things stand today. After our history with the Shah, and backing Iraq in its war against Iran, etc., it's a wonder we're dealing with someone that much better than another Ayatollah. Sticking our mitts into their government again will not move them in the direction of a modern secular democracy, but leaving them alone militarily and trading freely is likely to do so.

--Len.

[Paddy]

I'll go ya one better. If it were up to me, there would be no U.S. military adventures anywhere in the world unless failure to do so increased the security risk to us.  Even then, that risk would have to be weighed against the costs of war.  And then, Congress would have to declare war and/or authorize the use of military force.  No more 'commander-in-chief' does what he wants with the U.S. military like they're his private army.  We gave King George the boot over 200 years ago.

Of course, I'd beef up defenses under times of threat; things like keeping track of everybody coming into this country and tossing them out when their visas (or equivalent) expire.  I'd have a strong Border Patrol on the southern borders and deport anyone entering illegally.  City cops would also be allowed to ask for proof of immigration/alien status and detain anybody here illegally for deportation.

I'd eliminate bilingual education and ballots.  Governments would only do business in English (with some limited exceptions).  I'd eliminate free medical care for illegals.  'Anchor babies' would no longer automatically be citizens if their parents are here illegally.

And on and on.  But I'm not in charge so we get what we got.

[wmenorr67]

Len, I was tired and didn't get some of what you first wrote about the kittens and for that I appoligize.

But as for me torturing kittens it wasn't torture it was waterboarding.  Plus when I tortured waterboarded those kittens I received information that saved American lives.  Plus GWB, DC, DR, NSA, CIA, FBI, UN, BC and others said it was ok if I tortured waterboarded those kittens, as long as it saved American live.   

But to be serious I guess for the most part we both see where each other is coming from and will have to agree to disagree.

[Len Budney]

But to be serious I guess for the most part we both see where each other is coming from and will have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough. But there's a fundamental inequality about the fact that, though we disagree, I'm still forced to fund the next invasion even if I'm dead against it and believe the case for it is bogus.

--Len.