Top Priorities

[MaggieMae]

The 'we' is a generic 'we'. We don't utilize all that personally, so no we personally don't pay them all, but people all across the country are paying them. And almost all didn't exist 100 years ago when the country was stable, growing, had little or no national debt, and the sky was the limit for just about everybody who had the skills and ambition to reach for their goals.

So the fact is, we're not getting our money's worth out of all those taxes that are paid. The conservative principles of smaller, leaner, more efficient, more effective, more economical government coupled with securing the rights of the people and then leaving them free to govern themselves as much as possible has not failed us yet. The idea that government can dictate the way people will live their lives and how their resources will be allocated has produced far more poverty, far less productivity, and far less happiness wherever and whenever it has been tried.

A hundred years ago we didn't have such a massive transatlantic highway system, utility system, telecommunications, 100 times more children to educate, drunk drivers or just plain bad drivers, over-fishing of streams and lakes, nor the myriad other life-sustaining requirements because we now have double the number of people all vying for the same thing.

I also wouldn't suggest that people in other countries are less happy because government sees to it that its citizens have roofs over the heads, their children are schooled for free, and don't have to worry about huge medical bills, because you obviously haven't done your homework in that area either. Those governments don't "dictate" that's how it will be to their people; it is simply there because those governments exist to serve the people. The people, in turn, are just as "free" as we are to go about their daily business, work wherever they want, travel around, leave the country whenever they want, attend any house of worship they wish. Pretty simple, eh?

Over the past decade, however, the American eonomy has been sinking so fast that the middle and lower classes are ceasing to exist as contributors because we can't afford to do anything except wait for the high net worth individuals to call the shots.

Liberal entitlement programs are what make America weak. They are our single biggest issue outside of government corruption. America became great during a time when there were no entitlements. When you immigrated to this country you made it on your own through hard work. There were no handouts. No free medical. No welfare. No special language teachers. You came here and you learned the language. When blacks were free'd there was no welfare. They toughed it out and made it on there own. And people prospered and America prospered. It became know as the land of opportunity not because you were given handouts to survive but because you had the opportunity to make it on your own. Entitlements have created a class of sponges. Lazy worthless anchors. And they flock to this country to take advantage of what ever can be given to them. Interesting that the more 3rd world trash that comes into this country soaking up our resources the worse our econmy gets. The higher our crime rates go. They don't rise to the standards America had in the past, they pull us down to their level. And the entitlement sponge keeps on soaking up more and more. No one family fucked this country more than the Kennedy's. I couldn't be happier their political legacy is dead and I couldn't be happier it was Obama who put the final nail in their coffin.

When the first immigrants arrived, many were forced to do menial jobs and live in squallor. BUT, as with the slave generations, there were tremendous family support networks, which made all the difference in the world whether or not the family members would starve and/or die. There was a time when families took care of their indigent and elderly. That's no longer true. Hey, if you want to take a giant leap backward, good luck and you'd better hope that you remain fortunate enough to keep a good paying job, with benefits, and will have saved enough to retire with money left over. But you will be in the minority, if you are middle or lower class.

I stand by my strong belief that entitlement programs would not be necessary if capitalism hadn't been allowed to run amok with the rich getting richer at the expense of the lower classes.

 

[antagon]

by extreme conservatism i mean roll back the legislative clock to the hayes era conservatism. i mean having no clue how states and economies have evolved since that time, or how those which persist in policies from that era and before fail to compete in the geopolitical forum that the US dominates, even in the grips of recession.

 

[Spoonman]

A hundred years ago we didn't have such a massive transatlantic highway system, utility system, telecommunications, 100 times more children to educate, drunk drivers or just plain bad drivers, over-fishing of streams and lakes, nor the myriad other life-sustaining requirements because we now have double the number of people all vying for the same thing.

I also wouldn't suggest that people in other countries are less happy because government sees to it that its citizens have roofs over the heads, their children are schooled for free, and don't have to worry about huge medical bills, because you obviously haven't done your homework in that area either. Those governments don't "dictate" that's how it will be to their people; it is simply there because those governments exist to serve the people. The people, in turn, are just as "free" as we are to go about their daily business, work wherever they want, travel around, leave the country whenever they want, attend any house of worship they wish. Pretty simple, eh?

Over the past decade, however, the American eonomy has been sinking so fast that the middle and lower classes are ceasing to exist as contributors because we can't afford to do anything except wait for the high net worth individuals to call the shots.

Liberal entitlement programs are what make America weak. They are our single biggest issue outside of government corruption. America became great during a time when there were no entitlements. When you immigrated to this country you made it on your own through hard work. There were no handouts. No free medical. No welfare. No special language teachers. You came here and you learned the language. When blacks were free'd there was no welfare. They toughed it out and made it on there own. And people prospered and America prospered. It became know as the land of opportunity not because you were given handouts to survive but because you had the opportunity to make it on your own. Entitlements have created a class of sponges. Lazy worthless anchors. And they flock to this country to take advantage of what ever can be given to them. Interesting that the more 3rd world trash that comes into this country soaking up our resources the worse our econmy gets. The higher our crime rates go. They don't rise to the standards America had in the past, they pull us down to their level. And the entitlement sponge keeps on soaking up more and more. No one family fucked this country more than the Kennedy's. I couldn't be happier their political legacy is dead and I couldn't be happier it was Obama who put the final nail in their coffin.

the relationship between poor american history aptitude and hyper-conservatism is screaming out in this thread.

whether it's the nostalgia harking back to an era when the US and mexico ran neck and neck, the failure to recognize the pivotal policies which secured the generation to follow, or obstinacy in the face of the fact that the US is the most powerful nation on the globe NOW, and that this has only been definitive for the last 30 years, it is overwhelmingly evident that those who carry extreme conservative views, particularly on matters of economics, do so out of sheer ignorance.

Liberal bullshit, Blah, Blah, Blah.

 

[MaggieMae]

whether it's the nostalgia harking back to an era when the US and mexico ran neck and neck, the failure to recognize the pivotal policies which secured the generation to follow, or obstinacy in the face of the fact that the US is the most powerful nation on the globe NOW, and that this has only been definitive for the last 30 years, it is overwhelmingly evident that those who carry extreme conservative views, particularly on matters of economics, do so out of sheer ignorance.

That would depend on what you would define as 'extreme conservative views'. The only conservative views I've seen promoted are the undeniable desire of people for freedom--for the power to govern themselves rather than be governed by others who may or may not have their best interests at heart.

The conservatism I have seen promoted is a federal government of the people that is small, lean and efficient and effective and fiscally responsible in securing the rights of the people but does not have power to dictate the sort of society the people wish to have.

The conservatism I have seen promoted is objection to a federal government who uses the people's money to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune and is a poor steward of that money for the benefit of the people.

If that is what you refer to as 'extreme conservatism', it is the 'conservatism' of our Founders who implemented all of it in a great experiment to create the most free, most innovative, most productive, and most powerful nation on Earth. It is the first great nation on Earth in which the people would govern themselves rather than be governed and, short of infringing on the rights of others, nobody would be limited in what he or she could aspire to achieve.

In the view of the Founders and of American conservatives today, that is what freedom is.

And there you go again. You never give any examples of what you're talking about. What "freedoms" have you lost? Which politicos are guilty of using other people's money to increase their own power which, because of those personal endeavors, has created a central government where your rights are infringed upon? What about the RIGHTS of the middle class to have good health, good educational opportunities, good wages-- all which will give them the opportunity to be as successful as the more affluent--and not emptying their pocketbooks every week just to make that happen?

 

[asterism]

Other, Interesting the the Issue that is in the top 3 in every single poll in America is not even on your list.

Deficits and Debt.

Yup.

Also missing is a reform of the funding model used by the government. The current structure is unsustainable.

 

[asterism]

What new regulation?

Healthcare, financial reform, and lending restrictions in my case.

What "new" taxes?

The impending increase in all federal income taxes, AMT, the pending increases in healthcare obligations (not technically called a "tax" yet).

Have businesses holding their money even bothered to look at the new tax credits that might offset any "new" tax rate (which really will be the old tax rate, by the way)?

I have. None of the new credits offset the costs required to provide a suitable gross profit.

What "risks" are they looking at?

How all these reforms will actually translate into tax code regulations. That hasn't been defined even for 2010 yet.

Do they want guaranteed profit margins? How is that capitalism at work? You win some, you lose some.

Nobody is hoping or waiting around for guaranteed profit margins. It's a risk vs. reward equation, and so far the risk is too great.

Happens to the best of businesses. Where are their management strategists and CFOs?

Advising the owners to sit on the cash they have.

What if the worst-case scenario actually DOES hit them? Does that mean they'll just close up shop for good or will they find some way to reconfigure their own businesses? I think the latter.

Perhaps. Currently the economic and regulatory climate are not providing enough incentive to compensate for the increased costs and risk of even higher costs.

In the meantime, I say doing nothing is going to come back to bite them.

That's the progressive plan.

 

[Foxfyre]

whether it's the nostalgia harking back to an era when the US and mexico ran neck and neck, the failure to recognize the pivotal policies which secured the generation to follow, or obstinacy in the face of the fact that the US is the most powerful nation on the globe NOW, and that this has only been definitive for the last 30 years, it is overwhelmingly evident that those who carry extreme conservative views, particularly on matters of economics, do so out of sheer ignorance.

That would depend on what you would define as 'extreme conservative views'. The only conservative views I've seen promoted are the undeniable desire of people for freedom--for the power to govern themselves rather than be governed by others who may or may not have their best interests at heart.

The conservatism I have seen promoted is a federal government of the people that is small, lean and efficient and effective and fiscally responsible in securing the rights of the people but does not have power to dictate the sort of society the people wish to have.

The conservatism I have seen promoted is objection to a federal government who uses the people's money to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune and is a poor steward of that money for the benefit of the people.

If that is what you refer to as 'extreme conservatism', it is the 'conservatism' of our Founders who implemented all of it in a great experiment to create the most free, most innovative, most productive, and most powerful nation on Earth. It is the first great nation on Earth in which the people would govern themselves rather than be governed and, short of infringing on the rights of others, nobody would be limited in what he or she could aspire to achieve.

In the view of the Founders and of American conservatives today, that is what freedom is.

And there you go again. You never give any examples of what you're talking about. What "freedoms" have you lost? Which politicos are guilty of using other people's money to increase their own power which, because of those personal endeavors, has created a central government where your rights are infringed upon? What about the RIGHTS of the middle class to have good health, good educational opportunities, good wages-- all which will give them the opportunity to be as successful as the more affluent--and not emptying their pocketbooks every week just to make that happen?

We have lost much of the freedom to innovate, make things, and be productive here in favor of a a government that has meddled too much in regulation, taxes, mandates, and social engineering and thus drove millions upon millions of good paying productive jobs overseas.

We have lost much of the freedom to agree on social contracts that allow us to organize ourselves into societies that are most satisfying to us in favor of a government that takes our money and then refuses to return a fraction of it to us unless we agree to be the society it demands that we be. (Schools, housing, social policy, business and commerce, etc.)

We have lost much of the freedom to spend a lot of our money in ways to benefit ourselves in favor of a government who presumes it knows what we need to have better than we know what we need.

Before all that long list of taxes was voted in, and before all the intense rules and regulations imposed upon the people by the federal government, we were the fastest growing economy in the world. We were eliminating poverty at a rate faster than any other nation. Even in midst of overt racism and segregation, black people and other groups were advancing at an astounding rate. The more the federal government has meddled, the more our society has suffered and broken down, and the more that ability is being taken from all of us.

That's just a few examples. I expect that you will blow it off, but I know there are members here who know I am speaking the truth too.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hmmm. Well it looks like Healthcare Legislation is going to be a tricky priority for the November election and will most likely be seriously downplayed by the Democrats. The GOP is already using it as a talking point as to why Republicans should be elected.

Democrats Told To Stop Campaigning On Obamacare

The Politico headline is actually New Dem message: 'Improve' health care, don't talk cost , but that is not wholly what is going on. What is going on is a recognition from the Democrats that after a year of trying to sell Obamacare as a panacea of right thinking and improvement, the voters headed to the polls in November disagree and are angry.

Consequently, the Politico notes that Democrats are abandoning all pretenses of selling Obamacare to the public and have cut and run back to "if you don't replace us with the Republicans, we promise we will improve it."

The confidential presentation, available in full here and provided to POLITICO by a source on the call, suggests that Democrats are acknowledging the failure of their predictions that the health care legislation would grow more popular after its passage, as its benefits became clear and rhetoric cooled. Instead, the presentation is designed to win over a skeptical public, and to defend the legislation — and in particular the individual mandate — from a push for repeal.
​

. . . .And the kicker — the revised talking points counsel that Democrats should avoid making the claim that Obamacare will reduce costs and cut the deficit. In other words, the two main selling points are being tossed out the window. . . .
Democrats Told To Stop Campaigning On Obamacare | RedState

 

[MikeK]

Obama's first official act should have been to appoint Vincent Bugliosi as Attorney General and commit him to investigate George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Karl Rove, John Yoo and David Addington with the objective of criminal prosecution for capital offenses and/or conspiracy thereto. Having failed to do this Obama has tacitly invited repetition of the same type of destructively criminal conduct from future administrations who by precedent will have nothing to fear.

Instead of seeking constructive retribution Obama appointed an Attorney General who seems more suited to clerical functions and who has inertly permitted the most destructive criminal organization in American history to depart the scene of their many crimes against the American People with impunity. For that reason anything good Obama does is wasted motion because it will be undone by the next gang of self-serving, murderous thieves who inhabit the Executive Branch.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well I almost wish he had done that too MikeK. If they had been engaged all this time in trying to find somebody in the Bush administration to hang for something, they wouldn't have been engaged in doing the tremendous damage to our economy and sociopolitical environment that they have been doing. I don't think they would have found a whole lot to prosecute, but at least it would have kept them busy doing something less destructive than what they've been doing.

 

[Foxfyre]

And with reports of Iran now being just hours away from putting its nuclear reactor on line, you would think somebody would have put national defense somewhere up there as a top priority. But the Obama administration isn't even making it a priority at all, and in fact intends to cut spending further.

With an exploding budget crisis, President Obama is proposing spending cuts, but not where you’d think. Has he decided to stop campaigning on behalf of Democratic Congressional members up for reelection at the taxpayers’ expense to the tune of two million dollars? No. Has he decided not to spend $100,000 per teaching job to bail out teachers’ unions? No. Instead, he has decided to cut defense funding and reclassify what constitutes defense spending. The National Security Strategy now declaring a focus on climate change, green energy, and women’s rights.

Iran and North Korea are rapidly developing nuclear weapons capability while the Obama administration relies on more of the same sanctions that not only haven’t worked, but that the administration itself continues to undermine. We are still fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and facing the continued threat of terror attacks, all while President Obama nickel and diming American’s safety. In 2007 America spent near historic lows as a percent of GDP on defense. With this further reduction in defense spending, America is even more vulnerable to attack from rogue states, terrorist groups, and conventional military powers such as China and Russia. . . .
Heritage Foundation: Defense priorities dangerously off-track

A bit of trivia history:

On this day, August 20, in 1998 – U.S. embassy bombings: the United States launches cruise missile attacks against alleged al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical plant in Sudan in retaliation for the August 7 bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

That was 12 years ago. Who here thinks that this kind of thing won't become even more commonplace if the USA blinks or demonstrates weakness or an unwillingness to retaliate?

 

[MikeK]

[...]I don't think they would have found a whole lot to prosecute, but at least it would have kept them busy doing something less destructive than what they've been doing.

How about conspiracy to falsify evidence to facilitate the unlawful invasion and occupation of a non-threatening nation? Or don't you believe those I've named are guilty of doing exactly that?

How about thousands of specifications of deliberate FISA Law violations?

How about conspiring to facilitate torture?


Have you by any chance read Vincent Bugliosi's book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder? If not I think you might find it surprisingly interesting. Bugliosi is a highly efficient and knowledgeable federal prosecutor with an impressive record of convicitions. In fact he never lost a case.

Go here for more substantive information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prosecution_of_George_W._Bush_for_Murder

 

[Foxfyre]

[...]I don't think they would have found a whole lot to prosecute, but at least it would have kept them busy doing something less destructive than what they've been doing.

How about conspiracy to falsify evidence to facilitate the unlawful invasion and occupation of a non-threatening nation? Or don't you believe those I've named are guilty of doing exactly that?

How about thousands of specifications of deliberate FISA Law violations?

How about conspiring to facilitate torture?


Have you by any chance read Vincent Bugliosi's book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder? If not I think you might find it surprisingly interesting. Bugliosi is a highly efficient and knowledgeable federal prosecutor with an impressive record of convicitions. In fact he never lost a case.

Go here for more substantive information: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sure that you are just salivating at the thought of prosecuting George Bush and his entire administration. And I've read, watched, listened to, and had emailed to me every possible perspective of people like you who seem to see only villains and the only thing important to you is vengeance to justify your anger and/or hate.

Bugliosi is only one of many, and after so much of his other works, his expose of JFK's assassination for instance, have proved to contain significant faulty and manipulated research and unsupportable conclusions, I won't accept his opiinion as authoritative on much of anything. He's sort of the male version of Kitty Kelly.

So yeah, you guys on the left keep up your vendetta against President Bush and his administration. That's a pretty harmless target and less damaging than a whole bunch of other stuff you could be targeting. Let folks who actually want to set the country back on a reasonable course set their priorities there.

 

[MaggieMae]

That would depend on what you would define as 'extreme conservative views'. The only conservative views I've seen promoted are the undeniable desire of people for freedom--for the power to govern themselves rather than be governed by others who may or may not have their best interests at heart.

The conservatism I have seen promoted is a federal government of the people that is small, lean and efficient and effective and fiscally responsible in securing the rights of the people but does not have power to dictate the sort of society the people wish to have.

The conservatism I have seen promoted is objection to a federal government who uses the people's money to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune and is a poor steward of that money for the benefit of the people.

If that is what you refer to as 'extreme conservatism', it is the 'conservatism' of our Founders who implemented all of it in a great experiment to create the most free, most innovative, most productive, and most powerful nation on Earth. It is the first great nation on Earth in which the people would govern themselves rather than be governed and, short of infringing on the rights of others, nobody would be limited in what he or she could aspire to achieve.

In the view of the Founders and of American conservatives today, that is what freedom is.

And there you go again. You never give any examples of what you're talking about. What "freedoms" have you lost? Which politicos are guilty of using other people's money to increase their own power which, because of those personal endeavors, has created a central government where your rights are infringed upon? What about the RIGHTS of the middle class to have good health, good educational opportunities, good wages-- all which will give them the opportunity to be as successful as the more affluent--and not emptying their pocketbooks every week just to make that happen?

We have lost much of the freedom to innovate, make things, and be productive here in favor of a a government that has meddled too much in regulation, taxes, mandates, and social engineering and thus drove millions upon millions of good paying productive jobs overseas.

We have lost much of the freedom to agree on social contracts that allow us to organize ourselves into societies that are most satisfying to us in favor of a government that takes our money and then refuses to return a fraction of it to us unless we agree to be the society it demands that we be. (Schools, housing, social policy, business and commerce, etc.)

We have lost much of the freedom to spend a lot of our money in ways to benefit ourselves in favor of a government who presumes it knows what we need to have better than we know what we need.

Before all that long list of taxes was voted in, and before all the intense rules and regulations imposed upon the people by the federal government, we were the fastest growing economy in the world. We were eliminating poverty at a rate faster than any other nation. Even in midst of overt racism and segregation, black people and other groups were advancing at an astounding rate. The more the federal government has meddled, the more our society has suffered and broken down, and the more that ability is being taken from all of us.

That's just a few examples. I expect that you will blow it off, but I know there are members here who know I am speaking the truth too.

I didn't blow you off, I was just speechless. And still am, even today. Sorry, Fox, but you'll still need to post some links to facts that support your contentions--especially the last paragraph. Your rhetorical propaganda falls short. If we were to believe everything you say, all the citizens of this country should be living like Okies in Steinbeck's epic novel. But the upper class is doing just fine (in spite of taxes and those evil regulations), the lower classes continue to be ignored with the ONLY support coming from government subsidies--not compromise programs to help them climb out-- and of course the middle class is caught between and struggling not to become poverty statistics themselves.

 

[MaggieMae]

Hmmm. Well it looks like Healthcare Legislation is going to be a tricky priority for the November election and will most likely be seriously downplayed by the Democrats. The GOP is already using it as a talking point as to why Republicans should be elected.

Democrats Told To Stop Campaigning On Obamacare

The Politico headline is actually New Dem message: 'Improve' health care, don't talk cost , but that is not wholly what is going on. What is going on is a recognition from the Democrats that after a year of trying to sell Obamacare as a panacea of right thinking and improvement, the voters headed to the polls in November disagree and are angry.

Consequently, the Politico notes that Democrats are abandoning all pretenses of selling Obamacare to the public and have cut and run back to "if you don't replace us with the Republicans, we promise we will improve it."

The confidential presentation, available in full here and provided to POLITICO by a source on the call, suggests that Democrats are acknowledging the failure of their predictions that the health care legislation would grow more popular after its passage, as its benefits became clear and rhetoric cooled. Instead, the presentation is designed to win over a skeptical public, and to defend the legislation — and in particular the individual mandate — from a push for repeal.
​

. . . .And the kicker — the revised talking points counsel that Democrats should avoid making the claim that Obamacare will reduce costs and cut the deficit. In other words, the two main selling points are being tossed out the window. . . .
Democrats Told To Stop Campaigning On Obamacare | RedState

I agree they should stop talking about health care. Anybody who can't take the time, by now, to take a look at the major provisions which can be found on literally hundreds of websites in concise, non-legalese language, was against it to begin with and always will be. So why bother? It will take some time for any benefits to be visibly measured anyway.

 

[MaggieMae]

And with reports of Iran now being just hours away from putting its nuclear reactor on line, you would think somebody would have put national defense somewhere up there as a top priority. But the Obama administration isn't even making it a priority at all, and in fact intends to cut spending further.

With an exploding budget crisis, President Obama is proposing spending cuts, but not where you’d think. Has he decided to stop campaigning on behalf of Democratic Congressional members up for reelection at the taxpayers’ expense to the tune of two million dollars? No. Has he decided not to spend $100,000 per teaching job to bail out teachers’ unions? No. Instead, he has decided to cut defense funding and reclassify what constitutes defense spending. The National Security Strategy now declaring a focus on climate change, green energy, and women’s rights.

Iran and North Korea are rapidly developing nuclear weapons capability while the Obama administration relies on more of the same sanctions that not only haven’t worked, but that the administration itself continues to undermine. We are still fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and facing the continued threat of terror attacks, all while President Obama nickel and diming American’s safety. In 2007 America spent near historic lows as a percent of GDP on defense. With this further reduction in defense spending, America is even more vulnerable to attack from rogue states, terrorist groups, and conventional military powers such as China and Russia. . . .
Heritage Foundation: Defense priorities dangerously off-track

A bit of trivia history:

On this day, August 20, in 1998 – U.S. embassy bombings: the United States launches cruise missile attacks against alleged al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical plant in Sudan in retaliation for the August 7 bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

That was 12 years ago. Who here thinks that this kind of thing won't become even more commonplace if the USA blinks or demonstrates weakness or an unwillingness to retaliate?

That Heritage Foundation blurb is bullshit. The defense budget has cut out unnecessary (and useless) aircraft and other very expensive toys that neocons can't seem to live without. To imply that the Pentagon's national security policy is solely toward green energy is a flat-out lie. It's also a flat-out lie to imply that the U.S. doesn't have enough warheads, nuclear or otherwise, to destroy not just Iran, but the entire planet. Heritage, of course, also ignores the fact that terrorism is a METHOD that can't be detroyed by weapons. God you're gullible. When will you start looking at facts and not fiction for your repeated posted partisan junk?

 

[MaggieMae]

[...]I don't think they would have found a whole lot to prosecute, but at least it would have kept them busy doing something less destructive than what they've been doing.

How about conspiracy to falsify evidence to facilitate the unlawful invasion and occupation of a non-threatening nation? Or don't you believe those I've named are guilty of doing exactly that?

How about thousands of specifications of deliberate FISA Law violations?

How about conspiring to facilitate torture?


Have you by any chance read Vincent Bugliosi's book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder? If not I think you might find it surprisingly interesting. Bugliosi is a highly efficient and knowledgeable federal prosecutor with an impressive record of convicitions. In fact he never lost a case.

Go here for more substantive information: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sure that you are just salivating at the thought of prosecuting George Bush and his entire administration. And I've read, watched, listened to, and had emailed to me every possible perspective of people like you who seem to see only villains and the only thing important to you is vengeance to justify your anger and/or hate.

Bugliosi is only one of many, and after so much of his other works, his expose of JFK's assassination for instance, have proved to contain significant faulty and manipulated research and unsupportable conclusions, I won't accept his opiinion as authoritative on much of anything. He's sort of the male version of Kitty Kelly.

So yeah, you guys on the left keep up your vendetta against President Bush and his administration. That's a pretty harmless target and less damaging than a whole bunch of other stuff you could be targeting. Let folks who actually want to set the country back on a reasonable course set their priorities there.

On the contrary, one of the reasons the Obama Administration did NOT attempt to go after members of the Bush Administration for war crimes was BECAUSE they did not want to upset conservatives, who were already angry that Obama had won the election. It was a highly controversial, strictly political, maneuver and one that angered many people (like MikeK).

 

[Greenbeard]

That Heritage Foundation blurb is bullshit.

That's usually a given. On its best days, The Foundry blog is funnier than the Onion.

 

[MaggieMae]

That Heritage Foundation blurb is bullshit.

That's usually a given. On its best days, The Foundry blog is funnier than the Onion.

I used to subscribe and posted several comments, then one day I got the popup that I was no longer allowed. Gee, I wonder why... (and I didn't even use naughty words).

 

[Foxfyre]

How about conspiracy to falsify evidence to facilitate the unlawful invasion and occupation of a non-threatening nation? Or don't you believe those I've named are guilty of doing exactly that?

How about thousands of specifications of deliberate FISA Law violations?

How about conspiring to facilitate torture?


Have you by any chance read Vincent Bugliosi's book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder? If not I think you might find it surprisingly interesting. Bugliosi is a highly efficient and knowledgeable federal prosecutor with an impressive record of convicitions. In fact he never lost a case.

Go here for more substantive information: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sure that you are just salivating at the thought of prosecuting George Bush and his entire administration. And I've read, watched, listened to, and had emailed to me every possible perspective of people like you who seem to see only villains and the only thing important to you is vengeance to justify your anger and/or hate.

Bugliosi is only one of many, and after so much of his other works, his expose of JFK's assassination for instance, have proved to contain significant faulty and manipulated research and unsupportable conclusions, I won't accept his opiinion as authoritative on much of anything. He's sort of the male version of Kitty Kelly.

So yeah, you guys on the left keep up your vendetta against President Bush and his administration. That's a pretty harmless target and less damaging than a whole bunch of other stuff you could be targeting. Let folks who actually want to set the country back on a reasonable course set their priorities there.

On the contrary, one of the reasons the Obama Administration did NOT attempt to go after members of the Bush Administration for war crimes was BECAUSE they did not want to upset conservatives, who were already angry that Obama had won the election. It was a highly controversial, strictly political, maneuver and one that angered many people (like MikeK).

Baloney. The reason the Obama Administration did not go after members of the Bush Administration is because there was so little to indict and prosecute that they would have looked like idiots and, as inept as they have been, they knew it. Further, there were every bit as many 'dirty hands' among the Democrats as Republicans they could accuse. And with very VERY few exceptions, most of the areas that would have been accused have been continued by the Obama Administration.