It's Okay because The Other Party Does It Too!

[IndependntLogic]

One thing I've noticed in both LibDems and ConservaRepubs is the penchant to excuse even the most heinous acts performed by politicians - as long as it is THEIR politicians performing them. This was true (and remains true) about Bush. He was caught red-handed violating our most sacred laws. They very things that make us a great country. But to this day, Republicans will cry "Well yeah, he may have violated the 4th, 6th and 8th amendments but it's okay if our country is no different than Iraq under Saddam or N. Korea because you know, he was Republican! It's OBAMA who is the bad guy because um, HE CONTINUED DOING IT!" Which would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
The LibDems are no different. The same people who screamed about Bush violating the 6th amendment are giving Obama a free pass for signing legislation (NDAA) that completely eradicates it!
Wake up people. The politicians have become so masterful at manipulating us against each other, we don't hold them to the same standards as we would a normal citizen. As leaders, they should be held to a HIGHER standard, not excused for exemplifying the worst among us. The people who get my attention, whether in a discussion or on the national scene, are those willing to hold their OWN party to the same or higher standards than their opponents. There are a couple of Republican and at least one Democrat congressmen who are VERY good about that. Kay Bailey Hutchison used to be that way but has been silenced into conformity over the last few years. But it is We the People who SHOULD be the loudest voices when saying "Hey! You can't do that! If you do, we're no better than the other guys!"
Sadly, most of the voices I hear nowadays are saying "Well SURE what we're doing is horrible but it's okay because um, well look what THEY did!" And we wonder why things don't get better in this country...

 

[Dr.Drock]

After reading your error-filled anti free market post I can't believe I'm reading something of yours that I agree with 100%.


Perfectly stated, rep'd

 

[eflatminor]

One thing I've noticed in both LibDems and ConservaRepubs is the penchant to excuse even the most heinous acts performed by politicians - as long as it is THEIR politicians performing them.

Agreed.

Of course, you don't see that from Libertarians. Just sayin'...

 

[asaratis]

There's not a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats.....George Wallace

 

[eflatminor]

There's not a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats.....George Wallace

"I think it might be important to point out that this country is a one-party country. Half of that party is called Republican and half is called Democrat. It doesn’t make any difference. All the really good ideas belong to the Libertarians." Hugh Downs

 

[California Girl]

If the Libertarians would grow up and recognize their absolutely breathtakingly dangerous foreign policies, they might stand a chance of competing with tweedle dee and tweedle dum.

 

[Leweman]

It's true there are more similarities than differences between the two parties. That's why we shouldn't have parties, just individuals.

 

[The T]

It's true there are more similarities than differences between the two parties. That's why we shouldn't have parties, just individuals.

I'll buy that. Parties are for suckers. Individualism and principle are IT.

 

[M14 Shooter]

One thing I've noticed in both LibDems and ConservaRepubs is the penchant to excuse even the most heinous acts performed by politicians - as long as it is THEIR politicians performing them. This was true (and remains true) about Bush. He was caught red-handed violating our most sacred laws.

This is news - do tell.

 

[The T]

If the Libertarians would grow up and recognize their absolutely breathtakingly dangerous foreign policies, they might stand a chance of competing with tweedle dee and tweedle dum.

Indeed. I know alot of them don't enjoy foreign entanglements...but sometimes? They are necessary for Liberty and commerce.

 

[eflatminor]

If the Libertarians would grow up and recognize their absolutely breathtakingly dangerous foreign policies, they might stand a chance of competing with tweedle dee and tweedle dum.

We are not isolationists. We believe in a strong military and protecting our borders.

We simply do not believe that our current level of military intervention around the world is best for America. We believe in policing our country's borders as well as international waters, but playing cop for the planet is fiscally unsustainable and counterproductive. I do not see such positions as "breathtakingly dangerous" but I'm open to discussion as to why you think they are.

 

[Dr.Drock]

If the Libertarians would grow up and recognize their absolutely breathtakingly dangerous foreign policies, they might stand a chance of competing with tweedle dee and tweedle dum.

Believing that we should only go to war when it's declared?

That's "breathtakingly dangerous"? I would more describe it as constitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If the Libertarians would grow up and recognize their absolutely breathtakingly dangerous foreign policies, they might stand a chance of competing with tweedle dee and tweedle dum.

Believing that we should only go to war when it's declared?

That's "breathtakingly dangerous"? I would more describe it as constitutional.

The obvous rub here is what constitutionally qualifies as a declaration of war.

 

[IndependntLogic]

One thing I've noticed in both LibDems and ConservaRepubs is the penchant to excuse even the most heinous acts performed by politicians - as long as it is THEIR politicians performing them. This was true (and remains true) about Bush. He was caught red-handed violating our most sacred laws.

This is news - do tell.

4th Amendment: Bush was caught listening in on phone calls (PRIOR to passing the Patriot Act) and claimed it was only foreigners making calls to foreign countries. Then well, oops. Busted again. caught listening in on Americans making domestic calls. THEN he passed the Patriot Act that made it legal.
6th Amendment: Bush was caught detaining people without charges or a right to trial. Then he had those detained, re-defined as "enemy combatants" (the previous definition involved specifics such as wearing an enemy uniform, being caught on a field of battle etc...).
8th Amendment: Bush(or rather Cheney) was caught engaging in wholesale torture. Then he had "torture" redefined after the fact, to exclude water-boarding.
All of these were violations of our most sacred laws while being conducted. All were rectified AFTER he had been caught violating them.

Are you okay with The Patriot Act? If you are, fine. But I'm not okay with the order of events. Change the law first, then abide by it. Don't break it and then change it to suit your needs. That is the process of dictators, not the United States.

However, if you think I hold only Repubs accountable, you're wrong. Even if passing a law first, sometimes it is inexcusable. There is no way I can give Obama a pass for NDAA. This completely eradicates the guarantee of due process by giving the government the ability to legally imprison anyone they want, for as long as they like, without even pressing a charge. It is an abomination.

 

[The T]

If the Libertarians would grow up and recognize their absolutely breathtakingly dangerous foreign policies, they might stand a chance of competing with tweedle dee and tweedle dum.

We are not isolationists. We believe in a strong military and protecting our borders.

We simply do not believe that our current level of military intervention around the world is best for America. We believe in policing our country's borders as well as international waters, but playing cop for the planet is fiscally unsustainable and counterproductive. I do not see such positions as "breathtakingly dangerous" but I'm open to discussion as to why you think they are.

Even in Enforcing TREATIES we have with allies?

DO tell?

 

[M14 Shooter]

4th Amendment: Bush was caught listening in on phone calls...

This does not necessarily support your claim.
The 4th does not require a warrant for every search, seizure, or wiretap.

6th Amendment: Bush was caught detaining people without charges or a right to trial.

This does not necessarily support your claim.
Not everyone has a right to trial, especially those caught by troops on the battlefield.

8th Amendment: Bush(or rather Cheney) was caught engaging in wholesale torture.

This is just silly, on the wholesale level.

Try harder.

 

[IndependntLogic]

4th Amendment: Bush was caught listening in on phone calls...

This does not necessarily support your claim.
The 4th does not require a warrant for every search, seizure, or wiretap.

Exactly what Bush was doing, was deemed illegal according to the laws in place at the time.

6th Amendment: Bush was caught detaining people without charges or a right to trial.

This does not necessarily support your claim.
Not everyone has a right to trial, especially those caught by troops on the battlefield.

HUNDREDS of people detained were not in uniform, nor were they caught on any battlefiedl. Exactly what Bush was doing, was deemed illegal according to the laws in place at the time.

8th Amendment: Bush(or rather Cheney) was caught engaging in wholesale torture.

This is just silly, on the wholesale level.

Exactly what Bush was doing, was deemed illegal according to the laws in place at the time.

Try harder.

Thank you for proving the point of this post. When bush did each of those things, they were illegal according to the laws of the land. But as stated in the OP, you will justify pretty much anything, if it's your guy doing it.
I couldn't have asked for a better example!
Unfortunately, there are SO many people who will do exactly the same thing, whether it be for Obama & the Dems, or for the Republicans, that such a post is not even surprising.

 

[eflatminor]

If the Libertarians would grow up and recognize their absolutely breathtakingly dangerous foreign policies, they might stand a chance of competing with tweedle dee and tweedle dum.

We are not isolationists. We believe in a strong military and protecting our borders.

We simply do not believe that our current level of military intervention around the world is best for America. We believe in policing our country's borders as well as international waters, but playing cop for the planet is fiscally unsustainable and counterproductive. I do not see such positions as "breathtakingly dangerous" but I'm open to discussion as to why you think they are.

Even in Enforcing TREATIES we have with allies?

DO tell?

No, treaties are among the Constitutionally required powers. I'm not against treaties. I'm not against the idea that military intervention outside our borders may be just, which may very well be spelled out in a treaty. Sometimes, war is the answer. I am not anti military.

Nearly 1000 military bases around the world, unending wars, undeclared wars, providing a military for other nations for the last 75 years...that I'm against.

 

[M14 Shooter]

4th Amendment: Bush was caught listening in on phone calls...

This does not necessarily support your claim.
The 4th does not require a warrant for every search, seizure, or wiretap.

Exactly what Bush was doing, was deemed illegal according to the laws in place at the time.


This does not necessarily support your claim.
Not everyone has a right to trial, especially those caught by troops on the battlefield.

HUNDREDS of people detained were not in uniform, nor were they caught on any battlefiedl. Exactly what Bush was doing, was deemed illegal according to the laws in place at the time.

8th Amendment: Bush(or rather Cheney) was caught engaging in wholesale torture.

This is just silly, on the wholesale level.

Exactly what Bush was doing, was deemed illegal according to the laws in place at the time.

Try harder.

Thank you for proving the point of this post. When bush did each of those things, they were illegal according to the laws of the land. But as stated in the OP, you will justify pretty much anything, if it's your guy doing it.

I see your reading comprehension needs significant help.
Try this:Sylvan Learning | Tutors and Tutoring Services
Come back when you're ready.

 

[IndependntLogic]

This does not necessarily support your claim.
The 4th does not require a warrant for every search, seizure, or wiretap.

Exactly what Bush was doing, was deemed illegal according to the laws in place at the time.


This does not necessarily support your claim.
Not everyone has a right to trial, especially those caught by troops on the battlefield.

HUNDREDS of people detained were not in uniform, nor were they caught on any battlefiedl. Exactly what Bush was doing, was deemed illegal according to the laws in place at the time.


This is just silly, on the wholesale level.

Exactly what Bush was doing, was deemed illegal according to the laws in place at the time.

Try harder.

Thank you for proving the point of this post. When bush did each of those things, they were illegal according to the laws of the land. But as stated in the OP, you will justify pretty much anything, if it's your guy doing it.

I see your reading comprehension needs significant help.
Try this:Sylvan Learning | Tutors and Tutoring Services
Come back when you're ready.

I can prove that Bush did everything described above and as described. Most people still remember all this pretty clearly but if you doubt the veracity or better yet, if you would care to try to prove otherwise, I invite you to do so.
Of course, if you don't have points to discuss or facts, sarcasm would be the only way to go.