Orrin Hatch and the race card...

[Bullypulpit]

<center><h1><font color=maroon>Republicans play the race card...</font></h1></center>

Listening to Orrin Hatch play the race card with regards to Alberto Gonzales' confirmation as AG rather put me to mind of a prostitute sermonizing on the virtues of chastity in Sunday school. The last time the party of Lincoln had anything truly constructive to do with race relations in this country was during Lincoln's era and shortly thereafter. It might be said that they helped pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957, but that was simply due to the number of boll weevil democrats who voted against the Act and later switched their party affiliations to that of...Republican. But the Democratic party was better off without them anyways.

Mr. Hatch, and the other Republicans who seem to have sold their souls to the devil, and their asses to the highest bidder, just don't care to understand that opposition to Alberto Gonzales does not stem from his race but rather his principles or, more appropriately, his lack thereof. Mr. Gonzales was the principle architect of policies which run counter to those of the rest of the civilized world. He dismissed the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" and "obsolete". He helped narrow the definition of torture as pain equivalent to "...<b>injury such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions </b>...". At his request, the DOJ drafted a memo authorizing the CIA to transfer Iraqi detainees to other nations which would have no compunction against torturing these individuals which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and federal law. He argued that there was essentially no limit to the authority of the POTUS to invade any nation he suspected of harboring terrorists whter or no they were linked to any specific incidence, this contrary to the narrow language of the joint resolution passed on 9/14/01 which limited his authority to attack only those countries specifically linked to the attacks of 9/11.

In short, the Senate Republicans seem intent on confirming as USAG, responsible for upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States, a man seemingly more intent upon subverting and underminig said document. What this says about the intent of the Republican leadership, which has seized control of all three branches of government, is unclear. But their apparent eagerness to confirm Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, despite his history...present and past, speaks volumes about the America they want. And it seems a sure bet that it's nothing the Founding Fathers envisioned.

 

[CSM]

<center><h1><font color=maroon>Republicans play the race card...</font></h1></center>

Listening to Orrin Hatch play the race card with regards to Alberto Gonzales' confirmation as AG rather put me to mind of a prostitute sermonizing on the virtues of chastity in Sunday school. The last time the party of Lincoln had anything truly constructive to do with race relations in this country was during Lincoln's era and shortly thereafter. It might be said that they helped pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957, but that was simply due to the number of boll weevil democrats who voted against the Act and later switched their party affiliations to that of...Republican. But the Democratic party was better off without them anyways.

Mr. Hatch, and the other Republicans who seem to have sold their souls to the devil, and their asses to the highest bidder, just don't care to understand that opposition to Alberto Gonzales does not stem from his race but rather his principles or, more appropriately, his lack thereof. Mr. Gonzales was the principle architect of policies which run counter to those of the rest of the civilized world. He dismissed the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" and "obsolete". He helped narrow the definition of torture as pain equivalent to "...<b>injury such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions </b>...". At his request, the DOJ drafted a memo authorizing the CIA to transfer Iraqi detainees to other nations which would have no compunction against torturing these individuals which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and federal law. He argued that there was essentially no limit to the authority of the POTUS to invade any nation he suspected of harboring terrorists whter or no they were linked to any specific incidence, this contrary to the narrow language of the joint resolution passed on 9/14/01 which limited his authority to attack only those countries specifically linked to the attacks of 9/11.

In short, the Senate Republicans seem intent on confirming as USAG, responsible for upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States, a man seemingly more intent upon subverting and underminig said document. What this says about the intent of the Republican leadership, which has seized control of all three branches of government, is unclear. But their apparent eagerness to confirm Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, despite his history...present and past, speaks volumes about the America they want. And it seems a sure bet that it's nothing the Founding Fathers envisioned.

I doubt the Founding Fathers envisioned the socialist state the democrats want to steer us to.

As for the Geneva convention, sadly, it is quaint and obsolete. The aggregate nations on this planet need to establish new rules of warfare that encompass the types of conflicts prevalent in the world today and specifically terrorists. Unfortunately, all the rules in history won't mean beans because the terrorists would never adhere to them.

It seems very strange indeed to hear ANY Democrat talk about or refer to "principles" with regard to any subject.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I doubt the Founding Fathers envisioned the socialist state the democrats want to steer us to.

As for the Geneva convention, sadly, it is quaint and obsolete. The aggregate nations on this planet need to establish new rules of warfare that encompass the types of conflicts prevalent in the world today and specifically terrorists. Unfortunately, all the rules in history won't mean beans because the terrorists would never adhere to them.

It seems very strange indeed to hear ANY Democrat talk about or refer to "principles" with regard to any subject.

Well, old son, I'm not a democrat. And as for the Geneva Conventions, if we fail to adhere to even a minimal standard of decency in the course of arms, we become the beast we seek to defeat.

 

[CSM]

Well, old son, I'm not a democrat. And as for the Geneva Conventions, if we fail to adhere to even a minimal standard of decency in the course of arms, we become the beast we seek to defeat.

I am old....not your son...and never said you were a democrat.

I do believe we have adhered to a minmal standard of decency in the course of arms...we have not beheaded one terrorist in public (yet) or shown the captured terrorists at Gitmo on TV and demanded the cessation of terrorists acts; we have not intentionally killed, mutilated and then displayed the carcass on a bridge of a single captive. That's pretty minimal I think.

 

[Merlin1047]

Well, old son, I'm not a democrat.

What - did they kick you out of the party for being too effing obnoxious?

 

[no1tovote4]

I am old....not your son...and never said you were a democrat.

I do believe we have adhered to a minimal standard of decency in the course of arms...we have not beheaded one terrorist in public (yet) or shown the captured terrorists at Gitmo on TV and demanded the cessation of terrorists acts; we have not intentionally killed, mutilated and then displayed the carcass on a bridge of a single captive. That's pretty minimal I think.

We have also punished people that crossed the line of decency into areas of torture against the direct order of the POTUS. Bully is just thinking with his feelings rather than his head.

Once again Bully, Judges do not make foreign policy. This judge advised people how they could act, but did not order nor could he order that action, he just gave an opinion on what could possibly be legal. Since the POTUS has repeatedly declared these people to be POWs and are to be treated as such it is clear his advice didn't go far, and the Administration saw that just because we could legally do something doesn't necessarily mean that we should. We have punished those who crossed those lines against the order of the POTUS and are continuing to try and punish others that may have as well.

Constantly attempting to repeat this is a logical fallacy called Ad Nauseam, when somebody keeps repeating the same thing over and over until some people believe him. It isn't flying Bully-boy, we actually take stock in fact and evidence that is before our eyes rather than opinion pieces written by Chicken Little and his ilk.

Leftists seem to have sold their brains to the lowest bidder in an effort to believe every little paranoid story that may arise about anybody that may even slightly be associated to Bush. And while I may agree about some and complain about Bush, this particular one is conterfeit, old son.

(Amazing how well this post by Bully is following the current talking points of the Democrat Party even though it is posted by somebody who claims not to be a Democrat.)

 

[OCA]

He's accusing Republicans of playing the race card what a joke!

Which party has abused Blacks for 40 years purely for votes? Hmmm I wonder.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I am old....not your son...and never said you were a democrat.

I do believe we have adhered to a minmal standard of decency in the course of arms...we have not beheaded one terrorist in public (yet) or shown the captured terrorists at Gitmo on TV and demanded the cessation of terrorists acts; we have not intentionally killed, mutilated and then displayed the carcass on a bridge of a single captive. That's pretty minimal I think.

No, but Alberto Gonzales was the architect of policies permitting Dubbyuh to authorise the use of torture against "high value" prisoners. Abu Ghraib was the direct and public outgrowth of those policies which only inflamed the guerillas in Iraq and roused the ire of the muslim world against the US. The policies spawned by the memos written, requested and vetted by Mr. Gonzales only placed our troops in greater danger.

In attempting to circumvent the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and thus, those of US and international law, the Administration has shown itself all too willing to abandon everything this nation was built upon and generations of Americans have fought and died for.

 

[Bullypulpit]

We have also punished people that crossed the line of decency into areas of torture against the direct order of the POTUS. Bully is just thinking with his feelings rather than his head.

Once again Bully, Judges do not make foreign policy. This judge advised people how they could act, but did not order nor could he order that action, he just gave an opinion on what could possibly be legal. Since the POTUS has repeatedly declared these people to be POWs and are to be treated as such it is clear his advice didn't go far, and the Administration saw that just because we could legally do something doesn't necessarily mean that we should. We have punished those who crossed those lines against the order of the POTUS and are continuing to try and punish others that may have as well.

Constantly attempting to repeat this is a logical fallacy called Ad Nauseam, when somebody keeps repeating the same thing over and over until some people believe him. It isn't flying Bully-boy, we actually take stock in fact and evidence that is before our eyes rather than opinion pieces written by Chicken Little and his ilk.

Leftists seem to have sold their brains to the lowest bidder in an effort to believe every little paranoid story that may arise about anybody that may even slightly be associated to Bush. And while I may agree about some and complain about Bush, this particular one is conterfeit, old son.

(Amazing how well this post by Bully is following the current talking points of the Democrat Party even though it is posted by somebody who claims not to be a Democrat.)

The only ones punished thus far are a few enlisted scapegoats, when the root of the problem lies as high as the Secretary of Defense and likely even into the Oval Office. Abu Ghraib was but the visible sign of a systemic illness, one which could not have spread without knowledge of those in high places.

Rightists seem to have willingly surrendered their capacity for reasoning and moral outrage in an ongoing effort to justify the unjustifiable and accept as manna from heaven every last drib and drab of excreta put forth by the Administration.

As for talking points, don't need 'em. I read from various news sources, both domestic and international, and draw my own conclusions. It's truly amazing though how closely your rhetoric follows that of media whores like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Having them do your thinking for you saves you the effort...Wouldn't want you to strain something. Have a nice day.

 

[Annie]

another interpretation, not sure how their credentials match with Bully's:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...551,print.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

 

[Bullypulpit]

another interpretation, not sure how their credentials match with Bully's:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...551,print.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Delahunty and Yoo wrote the memos holding that Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners captured in Afghanistan were not protected under the Geneva Conventions. Never mind that Article 1 of the Convention states "The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in <b>all</b> circumstances."

 

[Bullypulpit]

What - did they kick you out of the party for being too effing obnoxious?

Nah...They're as bad as the Republicans.

 

[Avatar4321]

Delahunty and Yoo wrote the memos holding that Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners captured in Afghanistan were not protected under the Geneva Conventions. Never mind that Article 1 of the Convention states "The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in <b>all</b> circumstances."

You know every time i think you cant say something dumber you have to go ahead and prove me wrong.

Terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Convention. And despite what you are trying to argue Article 1 of the Convention doesnt give them Convention protection. The convention is very clear on who it protects. And respecting the convention in all circumstances does not change the fact that Terrorists are not protected under the convention. This isnt a difficult concept to understand.

 

[OCA]

No, but Alberto Gonzales was the architect of policies permitting Dubbyuh to authorise the use of torture against "high value" prisoners. Abu Ghraib was the direct and public outgrowth of those policies which only inflamed the guerillas in Iraq and roused the ire of the muslim world against the US. The policies spawned by the memos written, requested and vetted by Mr. Gonzales only placed our troops in greater danger.

In attempting to circumvent the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and thus, those of US and international law, the Administration has shown itself all too willing to abandon everything this nation was built upon and generations of Americans have fought and died for.

Bush never authorized any use of humiliation(its humiliation not torture) so your post is fundamentally flawed like everything else you do.

Even if it is found that he authorized I will salute him on a job well done.

 

[no1tovote4]

As for talking points, don't need 'em. I read from various news sources, both domestic and international, and draw my own conclusions. It's truly amazing though how closely your rhetoric follows that of media whores like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Having them do your thinking for you saves you the effort...Wouldn't want you to strain something. Have a nice day.

LOL, this is how you get the talking points? Directly from the media?

My "rhetoric" can't follow them, I don't get my news from talk radio and editorial shows. I too read and get my news from various sources, the difference is I can actually understand English and what the news actually tells me.

You can keep trying to repeat the same mantra that somehow a judge that wasn't even part of the administration was writing policy, but those based in reality realize that he was not. He simply wrote memos on his opinion of what could be legal, decisions were made by other people, thankfully, people who were outraged by what happened at Abu Ghraib and actually prosecuted those that took part in the activity. Even though we may not see it, those in the CIA that were there would be tried in closed courts, mostly because it is illegal to give up their identities.

Bully, I was as angry and outraged when Abu Ghraib was reported as anybody else and was glad to hear that those who took part are being punished. I felt ashamed that those actions were taken in our name, but understood that those people overstepped their bounds and would be punished.


It is sad indeed that you cannot even read the evidence before your eyes or see that the opinion pieces you posts are not news stories but opinions.

Actual empirical evidence is against you on this one, yet you continue on a bizarre adventure attempting to tilt with windmills and are wondering why others can't see the dragon.

It's because it is an old broken windmill, and we all just look at laugh at your misadventure.

Well Don Quixote, I hope you continue wasting your energy on stuff like this as it is relatively harmless and extremely entertaining. Just don't expect anybody to join the lunacy and be your Pancho Villa.