John Yoo ordered to testify on torture.
John Yoo ordered to testify on torture.
The New York Times reports that a federal judge in California has ruled that former Bush administration lawyer John Yoo will have to testify in court about accusations that his work led to the torture of a detainee:
The government had asked Judge Jeffrey S. White of Federal District Court in San Francisco to dismiss the case filed by Jose Padilla, an American citizen who spent more than three years in a military brig as an enemy combatant. Judge White denied most elements of Mr. Yoo’s motion and quoted a passage from the Federalist Papers that in times of war, nations, to be more safe, “at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.”
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley has said that Yoo’s memos “provide the very definition of tyranny.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Just torture that clown and see how he likes it.
June 13th, 2009 at 2:04 pmThey have had their thumb in the dike for too long. The leak is about to become a flood.
June 13th, 2009 at 2:07 pmcheney/bush and all their lawyers are crooks. It is time to punish them.
June 13th, 2009 at 2:10 pmbelieve it when you see it – rove doesn’t honor subpoenas for his testimony. Ditto harriet myers and john bolton.
And when kkkarl did talk to inquiry, it was quickly buried down memory hole – we learned nothing.
Even if he does testify – he will lie through his teeth a’la little albert gonzo, and the mainstream media just “catapults the propaganda” by using short sound bites of what he does say to justify torture.
Don’t expect justice from this announcement.
June 13th, 2009 at 2:10 pmAnother Joe Says:
believe it when you see it – rove doesn’t honor subpoenas for his testimony. Ditto harriet myers and john bolton.
Congressional subs, not federal ones. Big difference.
June 13th, 2009 at 2:13 pmI wouldn’t jump for joy yet. It remains to be seen if Obama intervenes and claims executive privilege. That is a possibility.
June 13th, 2009 at 2:14 pmIn the words of Flounder from Animal House:
Oh boy, this is going to be GREAT!
June 13th, 2009 at 2:16 pmbarfly – true, but can’t they now tie that up endlessly by challenging the legitimacy of lower court ruling?
June 13th, 2009 at 2:17 pmA person may object to a subpoena and asked that it be quashed by a judge. A “motion to quash” is a request that a judge nullify or cancel the subpoena. Important grounds for opposing a subpoena include:
Privileged or confidential information – If the request is for student records (see FERPA and other rules ), medical records, personnel files , counselor-student communications, attorney-client communications, confidential research, or other protected materials, the subpoena may be quashed or may be subject to a protective order.
The subpoena is too vague – If the subpoena is so vague or global as to what records it requests, the recipient may object or negotiate for narrower terms with the attorney who sent it. (See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 45(b)(1) , Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 17(d) ; N.C.G.S. 1A-1, Rule 45 (e) ),
Where undue burdens or “adequate excuse” exist for non-compliance, the recipient may be able to object to or negotiate change to the subpoena.( N.C. 1A-1, Rule 45(c)(3) ).
June 13th, 2009 at 2:22 pmAnother Joe: sadly, yes.
June 13th, 2009 at 2:24 pmpags2 Says:
I wouldn’t jump for joy yet. It remains to be seen if Obama intervenes and claims executive privilege. That is a possibility.
WHY? Can someone please tell me WHY President Obama would want to protect THESE BARBARIC CRIMINALS??? I can not – for the life of me – understand the Obama administration’s reasoning on this one!!
June 13th, 2009 at 2:26 pmIs there a strategy I’m not seeing?
Another Joe Says:
A person may object to a subpoena and asked that it be quashed by a judge. A “motion to quash” is a request that a judge nullify or cancel the subpoena. Important grounds for opposing a subpoena include:
But this a direct order from the court, not a subpeona. The quashing part has failed, and we’re on to the next step: appellate court.
June 13th, 2009 at 2:27 pmLet’s see what develops — that is, if we actually learn what develops.
June 13th, 2009 at 2:28 pmYoo wrote most of the memos of authorization.
Among the many benefitds, it would be a great cathartic for the nation if the criminals of Bush&Co were to be found guilty of their crimes — no matter how they try to defend their actions as well-intentioned, they were criminal, and they knew it.
The world is watching.
centrist is a fraud and a pussy…
June 13th, 2009 at 2:28 pmWHY? Can someone please tell me WHY President Obama would want to protect THESE BARBARIC CRIMINALS??? I can not – for the life of me – understand the Obama administration’s reasoning on this one!!
Is there a strategy I’m not seeing?
With an already full plate, he’s trying to just get past this.
June 13th, 2009 at 2:29 pmbarfly says:
With an already full plate, he’s trying to just get past this.
What – exactly – is he trying to get past? The DOJ can walk and chew gum at the same time. I still don’t get it!
June 13th, 2009 at 2:34 pmwhy hasn’t john yoo been disbarred yet?
June 13th, 2009 at 2:40 pmHealth care is what I think Obama is trying to get past.
The end of the Iraq occupation is on the drawing board.
Afghanistan is still an open book.
Health care needs to pass this year and he needs some repugs to go along with it.
The criminal trials of Bush&Co do not have a statue of limitations. Let the DoJ work its slow, slow deliberate ways and where they end up. Meanwhile health care can get passed.
Aalthough, Bill Maher made the point last night that it would be welcome if the mild mannered, calm and deliberative, no-drama Obama would try a little cocky arrogance a la George Bush and simply push his agenda through with a sledgehammer if necessary.
June 13th, 2009 at 2:42 pmThanks, Marie. I guess we’ll just have to be patient….but vigilant!
June 13th, 2009 at 2:45 pmI hope these proceedings are made public. this needs to be open to everyone, so as to hopefully create a public dialog on why this kind of behaivor is unnacceptable.
June 13th, 2009 at 2:51 pm…and simply push his agenda through with a sledgehammer if necessary.
I could get on board that agenda, but this one is too much like a Clinton triangulation strategy, a political triage, with most of the progressive agenda being given up for dead.
June 13th, 2009 at 2:51 pmGood to hear nk plans on nuking someone on obamas watch.
June 13th, 2009 at 3:02 pmkrstalview, I hope I am not just spitting in the wind as I try to remain patient waiting for this to play itself out.
June 13th, 2009 at 3:02 pmI do believe what I have said above – I’ve always believed it – Obama is a chess player in the game of politics — he’s two moves ahead of most of us (I hear he plays a shrewd game of poker as well) — I hope I am not proven mistaken.
The New York Times reports…former Bush administration lawyer John Yoo will have to testify in court about accusations that his work led to the torture of a detainee:
– - There’s the shocker in this story. The New York Times FINALLY used the word torture.
June 13th, 2009 at 3:02 pm1 – 10 of about 46,000,000 for new york times torture
June 13th, 2009 at 3:04 pmYou are afraid ofme aren’t you…
June 13th, 2009 at 3:05 pmcentrist the neocon coward is looking forward to people being nuked…huh. That’s what passes for centrism in the gop these days.
June 13th, 2009 at 3:07 pmJohn Yoo ordered to testify on torture.
ordered?
I will get my hopes up when he, Rove and others are forced to testify or face a jail sentence.
June 13th, 2009 at 3:10 pmCentrist humiliates himself on one thread so moves to another thread to continue to make his ignorance public.
Ahhh trolls, you gotta pity them.
June 13th, 2009 at 3:10 pmkrystalview Says:
Can someone please tell me WHY President Obama would want to protect THESE BARBARIC CRIMINALS??? I can not – for the life of me – understand the Obama administration’s reasoning on this one!!
Is there a strategy I’m not seeing?
======
Obama has stated that he didn’t want to focus to much on the last 8 years and I pretty much don’t blame him. I’m glad and had hoped that Obama would stay focus on his agenda and other important issues facing America right now. He’s voiced his opinion on this matter and than theres you, me and TP and their smart bloggers , “Countdown” and The Ed Show et al that have kept this issue alive.
The strategy is to stay focus on your agenda and not get distracted just like the GOP had hoped for.
June 13th, 2009 at 3:11 pmAhhh trolls, you gotta pity them.
Nice rebuttal.
June 13th, 2009 at 3:11 pmI believe that Pres. Obama is trying to show a new era of non-partisanship in Washington. He’s trying to get the Republicans to “play nice” and is hoping they will reciprocate that feeling.
HELLO????
Hey Mr. President, these are the same people who would like to see you swinging by the neck from a tree on the WhiteHouse lawn simply because of your skin color!
June 13th, 2009 at 3:12 pmYou’re just lucky they don’t control Congress right now ’cause they’d have your ass out the door already—OR WORSE!
I can’t make this any more plain: They hate your guts, Sir.
krystalview Says:
pags2 Says:
I wouldn’t jump for joy yet. It remains to be seen if Obama intervenes and claims executive privilege. That is a possibility.
WHY? Can someone please tell me WHY President Obama would want to protect THESE BARBARIC CRIMINALS??? I can not – for the life of me – understand the Obama administration’s reasoning on this one!!
Is there a strategy I’m not seeing?
John Yoo was providing legal advice to President Bush as president and not personal matters. There are two privileges at stake in this case. The first is attorney/client privilege and the second is executive privilege. Obama can easily waive the first privilege but not the second because it will set a legal precedent. The other issue is that if one president does not assert executive privilege then every president that leaves office may lose the confidentiality of their actions so that would inhibit taking actions as president.
June 13th, 2009 at 3:16 pmThere is no point in rebutting anything you post centrist. You are a fascist wingnut troll. You lie easier than you breathe. Your kind is without a soul.
Americans have rejected the fascist Republican Party. We have rejected them because Americans are better than Republicans.
All the troll spin in the world isn’t going to diminish the cry to have Bush and Cheney and everyone else that participated in the torture of prisoners punished to the full letter of the law.
We either enforce the law against Bush and Cheney, or there is no rule of law.
June 13th, 2009 at 3:18 pmNice rebuttal.
–
June 13th, 2009 at 3:20 pmI notice you have none. See when posers pretend to ignore me it makes matters worse. Everyone knows you are scared…
I am not condoning or defending what Bush and Cheney did. But I am pointing out that there are legal issues with Yoo testifying in the trial. Obama does not want to set a precedent for future presidents.
June 13th, 2009 at 3:22 pmranus69 says
…”I’m glad and had hoped that Obama would stay focus on his agenda and other important issues facing America right now.”
I guess “important issues facing America” is a matter of perspective. I understand the economy and health care are waaaay up there.
However, President Obama considers America’s reputation around the world so important that he went to Cairo to talk to the Muslim world. When he spoke about “justice” ( forcefully!) I felt like vomiting. WHAT justice! He had NO MORAL GROUNDS to lecture to the rest of the World about “justice”..
Until the criminals in the bush/cheney administration are brought to trial, President Obama owns their crimes!
June 13th, 2009 at 3:24 pmbarfly Says:
But this a direct order from the court, not a subpoena. The quashing part has failed, and we’re on to the next step: appellate court.
I think you’re right if The Times story, which was thin on details, is correct. At this point, Yoo has to show up or have a bench warrant issued for his arrest. I think he’ll show, but he will exert a claim(s) of privilege when he gets there. From the San Francisco District Court it’ll go up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Most of the controlling law on this was made during Watergate and the gist of the rulings then was executive privilege, while a qualified privilege, it was not absolute and doesn’t apply to criminal conduct which I am assuming is going to be one of the issues being litigated here. Let’s take it one step at a time. See what Yoo says or doesn’t say when he gets to court.
June 13th, 2009 at 3:26 pmI agree that executive privilege does not apply to criminal conduct. But you have to distinguish that with Watergate crimes were not related to Nixon’s powers as president. In this case, the argument will focus on the fact that the actions are related to presidential powers. The Watergate case does not deal with that specific issue.
June 13th, 2009 at 3:36 pmI’d be curious to see how Mr. Yoo would fare in a place like GITMO. Maybe then he’d understand the gravity of what he and his ilk have done.
June 13th, 2009 at 3:38 pmI bet he beats Albertos record for saying he doesnt recall.
June 13th, 2009 at 3:39 pmThe Petty Despot would be The Dick, Cheney.
June 13th, 2009 at 3:44 pm*
Yoo is a traitor, and he should be treated as one. It’s about time that someone stand up to this bully and fascist apologist and make him accountable.
June 13th, 2009 at 3:56 pmI wouldnt call what Yoo was doing as being an adviser..more like enabling.
June 13th, 2009 at 4:02 pmWhile I agree with your sentiments, let me say that there used to be a time when you did things with class. One of the few things I actually like about obama is his stoic temperament.
Most current repubs are like unruly pre-teens. They cry, beg, scream murder, and make you drag them places. But you don’t give in to the behavior and risk overreacting. Now not only do they know how to spark a reaction from you in the future, but you give them ammo as well. Sad we have to talk about the government like children, but human nature doesnt change much.
Now, the point is, all obama has to do here is stay out of our way. (and maybe get rid of that patriot) There’s a nation full of p1$$ed off college professer lawyers that would love to do the dirty work.
June 13th, 2009 at 4:02 pmIf President Obama can get at least a public health care plan through this bought off congress, he will be a hero. Not only will he be a hero, but this WILL be the end of the party of NO as we know them today.
In the battle will see major money poured in from corporate insurers and the Party of No in order to keep afloat and keep US from obtaining what all other industrialized countries have = a not for profit health care system all can access.
Can one imagine how this, and all the filth from the Bush Crime Family will later play out in the history books?
June 13th, 2009 at 4:10 pmPresident Obama can not pass public health care alone.
We, in masses need to be contacting the bought off Congress and compete with their contributors…. after all, our vote/voice should count more than money needed for future campaigns.
June 13th, 2009 at 4:19 pmLet em try ahahhahahaha bring these lib cowards on.
June 13th, 2009 at 4:23 pmConstitutional law professor Jonathan Turley has said that Yoo’s memos “provide the very definition of tyranny.”
Nail. On. Head.
“Unitary Executive Theory” is the very definition of Fascism.
.
AmericasBack Says:
I was raised in a country that taught me NO ONE is above the law.
Apparently what we “were taught” is just propaganda. If we’re going to prove that’s the case, then something must be done about this. If not, then the basic faith that people have in democratic principles is just going to erode over time.
.
barfly says:
With an already full plate, he’s trying to just get past this.
Just appoint a special prosecutor to deal with it. Then it’s not his problem.
.
had enough Says:
Not only will he be a hero, but this WILL be the end of the party of NO as we know them today.
I get it. It’s the same trick Pelosi’s been pulling off for a few years now – instead of challenging R’s directly on their most horrific crimes, just deliver results to the people and let the voters cut the R’s off at the knees. But it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Merely winning isn’t necessarily the same thing as achieving justice.
June 13th, 2009 at 4:24 pmLet em try ahahhahahaha bring these lib cowards on.
Said one of the biggest cowards of them all.
June 13th, 2009 at 4:25 pmHi Jimmy Big Bucks…
June 13th, 2009 at 4:25 pmWas I too soon, dbadass? :)
June 13th, 2009 at 4:27 pmLet em try ahahhahahaha bring these lib cowards on.
I hear Reza’s looking for you. Something about you washing his car…
June 13th, 2009 at 4:31 pmCan someone please tell me WHY President Obama would want to protect THESE BARBARIC CRIMINALS???
Mainly because he’s now of their number. He’ll say it is the institution he’s protecting. But it’s power. Once you have it, you don’t give it up.
The facts emerging about Yoo only serve to illuminate what we knew all along: we were living under tyranny, made tolerable by manufactured excesses in fats and credit. the Busheviks TOOK OVER Sept 11, and for all intents and purposes, this was a police state until last Nov.
A police state? you say. Surely he exaggerates.
But no. Consider the so-called PATRIOT ACT. Not even the most draconian, authortarian provisions of that abomination have been repealed. It’s up for renewal this year, and the Obama regime hasn’t yet expressed any misgivings about any parts it would like to see removed or repealed. Two provisions in particular caused concern
So far, Attorney General Eric H. Holder has expressed some support for renewing the provisions.
Nobody with that kind of power will ever voluntarily relinquish it. Happened once in Roman times–a general, Cincinnatus–and once in 1789, when Washington did it. THat’s it…
June 13th, 2009 at 4:31 pmWeird how the Kerkos defend the abrogation of the constitution by saying they support the constitution.
June 13th, 2009 at 4:31 pm“From the San Francisco District Court it’ll go up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.”
Really? The 9th Circuit, home of Jay Bybee? I wonder how’s that going to play out–Bybee would have to recuse himself, wouldn’t he?
June 13th, 2009 at 4:33 pmI would agree that Bybee would have to recuse himself.
June 13th, 2009 at 4:35 pmNow after this man testifies, he should be disbarred and jailed. Next Addington and Gonzales and the other LAWYERS.
June 13th, 2009 at 4:40 pmBut I won’t hold my breath. These congressional hearings should be held by Constitutional lawyers. These people in congress don’t even know the right questions to ask.
krystalview:
WHY? Can someone please tell me WHY President Obama would want to protect THESE BARBARIC CRIMINALS??? I can not – for the life of me – understand the Obama administration’s reasoning on this one!!
Is there a strategy I’m not seeing?
The real answer is a “thin edge of the wedge” issue. If a sitting President brings criminal charges against a previous President, what is to stop the next President from bringing charges against him?
Every President does things that are illegal or unconstitutional, some things that could be considered war crimes. In some cases those actions are done with the best interest of the nation, others are done for more nefarious reasons.
Once the first President is prosecuted, every President from that point on will be put on trial after they are out of office.
While the Bush criminals should be tried and convicted, I worry about the precedent since most politicians have a Napoleon complex – small men with power. Would you want the next G.W. Bush to prosecute Obama for what they consider his “crimes” such as support of abortion?
June 13th, 2009 at 5:00 pmYoo is already under investigation for disbarment. Bybee may follow him. Congress held the Watergate hearings despite some Republicans trying to block them. The Senate will have and may already have constitutional lawyers advising them. The purpose of the hearings will be to layout everything that happened after 9/11 including torture, illegal detentions, wiretaps, etc. During the Watergate hearings, the Republicans eventually deserted Nixon and I would expect the same for these hearings. Will Bush and Cheney be prosecuted for torture? That is the big question on everyone’s minds. At this point, there does not seem to be the political will to charge them with crimes.
June 13th, 2009 at 5:01 pmJane E. Schneider Says:
“From the San Francisco District Court it’ll go up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.”
Really? The 9th Circuit, home of Jay Bybee? I wonder how’s that going to play out–Bybee would have to recuse himself, wouldn’t he?
I was wondering when someone was going to pick that one off. Sure he would. If this case is setting up the way I’m hoping it is, it is going to be fascinating. It was a big step just getting one of these guy into court, even if it means the total irony of affording them the same Due Process rights they would have our country deny others. I’m tempering my enthusiasm, though. It’s still early.
June 13th, 2009 at 5:04 pmI don’t think so. If he continued torturing maybe but for him to press it right now would be viewed by many as just politics. I wouldn’t but many would.
June 13th, 2009 at 5:06 pmAmericasBack Says:
…I was raised in a country that taught me NO ONE is above the law.
Really? What country? I was raised in America, where that kind of thinking gets quashed with buckets of money.
June 13th, 2009 at 5:13 pm“I’m tempering my enthusiasm, though. It’s still early.”
Yeah, I’m with you on that, covered.
June 13th, 2009 at 5:15 pmProsecuting Bush and Cheney for crimes would provoke a constitutional crisis of epic proportions. This would be the first time an ex-president is charged with crimes related to official duties. This is uncharted territory and that is why Obama is trying to stay away from the issue. It does not benefit Obama if Bush and Cheney are charged and, in fact, will further polarize the country. My bets are on a truth commission.
June 13th, 2009 at 5:18 pm“While the Bush criminals should be tried and convicted, I worry about the precedent since most politicians have a Napoleon complex – small men with power. Would you want the next G.W. Bush to prosecute Obama for what they consider his “crimes” such as support of abortion?”
I worry more about the precedent of NOT prosecuting criminals, allowing “the next G.W. Bush” to happen.
June 13th, 2009 at 5:21 pmLefty Liberal Says:
I think it’s long past time to risk that precedent. One could make a strong case that, had Nixon been prosecuted, Chimpy never would have happened. Partly because some of those who created Chimpy would have been convicted along with Nixon.
Two of the four times I saw my Dad cry were; when Nixon resigned and when Ford pardoned him. The first instance he said, “Nixon just confirmed that our President can be a common criminal”. The second time he said, “Ford confirmed that a criminal President will never be brought to justice”. Those are the dangerous precedents we are currently operating under.
As I see it, prosecuting Bushco wouldn’t open us up to frivolous prosecution. It would return honor and integrity to our highest office. We, as a society, need this in order to restore faith in the rule of law and ourselves. And, if we don’t bring our own criminals to justice? The rest of the World may take the decision out of our hands. That would be the death of our nation as we know it.
June 13th, 2009 at 5:22 pmReally? What country? I was raised in America, where that kind of thinking gets quashed with buckets of money.
June 13th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Back in the stone ages when i was growing up, you didn;t have to be rich, even, just white…
June 13th, 2009 at 5:22 pmI am not a legal scholar, nor have I ever written any legal opinions. But in reading one of John C. Yoo’s memos, I noticed something interesting. (And I apologize for the length of this one.) Here is something from the text of one particular memo:
Then I happened to look at Footnote number 6:
See that? He’s quoting himself as a “scholar” who agrees with the view he is putting forward in this memo. Is this how it’s supposed to be done? Are people in the White House Legal Counsel Office supposed to be citing their own work as justification for their opinions? Please tell me, because I don’t know, and this strikes me as strange. He’s basically saying, “It’s true because I said it was.”
June 13th, 2009 at 5:25 pmpags2 Says:
Prosecuting Bush and Cheney for crimes would provoke a constitutional crisis of epic proportions.
I must disagree. The admitted crimes of Bushco, left unpunished, has already created a “Constitutional crisis”. Not to mention a moral crisis. A handful of international relations crises. A moral crisis. And an identity crisis.
The criminal acts of leaders creates crisis. Prosecuting the guilty is the cure.
June 13th, 2009 at 5:26 pmI think it’s long past time to risk that precedent. One could make a strong case that, had Nixon been prosecuted, Chimpy never would have happened. Partly because some of those who created Chimpy would have been convicted along with Nixon.
Trouble with that line of thinking izzat Obama can’t prosecute Nixon. That horse is outta the barn. The precedent is ’sweep it under the rug, ignore it, because well, shit, everybody makes mistakes…”
Besides, it’s easier to call for Obama to risk his own (inevitable) prosecution when it’s not you saggy ass that’s gonna be having to pay for the lawyers,,,
June 13th, 2009 at 5:26 pmThe criminal acts of leaders creates crisis. Prosecuting the guilty is the cure.
June 13th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
What are you, 18? No jury in the country would convict Bush, Cheney, Rummy, or any of ‘em if the judge let ‘em enter a ‘national defense’ defense. Not even talking about the inevitable jury nullifier, a dyed-in-the-wool Bushevik, 60 million people voted against Obama, and some of ‘em would be on any jury that considered such a case.
There is just no percentage in it.
June 13th, 2009 at 5:31 pmYoo is not the former president. Its Yoo thats being investigated and I havent see where the sitting president is pushing this order.
June 13th, 2009 at 5:34 pmI think Bush will not be charged but Cheney and Rumsfeld will be tossed under the bus. Even if Bush and Cheney are not charged, the hearings would permanently blot their names in history. Obama and the Dems do not gain anything from this and will doom any bipartisan efforts during his presidency.
June 13th, 2009 at 5:36 pmFrom one of rove’s fired US Attorneys:
Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, has noted in another case that “[e]xecutive privilege is an extraordinary assertion of power ‘not to be lightly invoked.’ ” Kennedy has further stated that “once executive privilege is asserted, coequal branches of the Government are set on a collision course.”
David C. Iglesias was the U.S. attorney for the District of New Mexico between 2001 and 2007. He is the author of the book In Justice: Inside the Scandal That Rocked the Bush Administration.
http://www.slate.com/id/2193365/
The US v Nixon opinion:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=418&invol=683
June 13th, 2009 at 5:36 pmPete:
I would agree with you IF the prosecutions went deep enough to include not only the senior members of the administration, but also the more junior members who’s job it is to carry out the orders of the senior officials, members of Congress and their staffs who were complicit in the acts, members of the judiciary and their staffs who were complicit in the acts, heads of corporations that carried out the acts, etc.
If there were enough prosecutions that would put a lot of people (probably in the thousands) in prison, then there might not be the backlash because the troublemakers would be out of power. Unfortunately that won’t happen while the corporations control politics.
June 13th, 2009 at 5:46 pmThe whole executive theory lies in the premise of war…but there was no war and one had to be started, with intentionally bad intelligence which would, I think, make whatever presidential war powers given…null and void.
June 13th, 2009 at 5:47 pmpags2 Says:
Prosecuting Bush and Cheney for crimes would provoke a constitutional crisis of epic proportions.
By not following the Constitution ex: failing to restore law and order is unconstitutional…. end of story.
What is this….your phrase: would provoke a constitutional crisis of epic proportions
June 13th, 2009 at 5:47 pmA catch phase from a list provided by the rnc paying your salary to post here?
Jane E. Schneider Says:
“From the San Francisco District Court it’ll go up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.”
Really? The 9th Circuit, home of Jay Bybee? I wonder how’s that going to play out–Bybee would have to recuse himself, wouldn’t he?
And what if he doesn’t? What are we going to do about it?
Yoo isn’t even going to show up. The old “I’ve been ordered by Bush not to respond to subpeonas” is a delay tactic that’s been successfully used in the past, in that no forward legal motion has been made on any of the instances in which they flip off the Constitution and outright dare the American people and government to force them to obey the law.
Across the board, the GOP is playing the politics of “so who’s going to stop me?” We need to actually step up and use whatever force is necessary to make them comply with the law.
June 13th, 2009 at 5:48 pm…in time of Bush-war, we (the Bush crime family) have decided that civil liberties of Americans may have to be curtailed a little…
These Republican clowns stole the 2000 Presidential Election so that they could let nine-eleven happen, start two 21-day wars and many-year imperial occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, allow the Bush-flooding of New Orleans, and institute an eight-year regime of torture, treason and tyranny? Heck of a job, clowns…
June 13th, 2009 at 5:49 pmNo, I am not a Republican but I did go to law school and have practiced law for 30 years. Anything else?
June 13th, 2009 at 5:49 pmThe GOP [elected] seems to have no intention of being bipartisan….
June 13th, 2009 at 5:58 pmXisithrus Says:
The whole executive theory lies in the premise of war…
It seems they thought nobody has ever read 1984, or maybe they hadn’t read it. A state of “perpetual war” is a key component of tyranny.
Even if you bought this unitary executive crap, if the executive branch has the ability to promote itself to a dictatorship by starting a war, then it already was a dictatorship.
.
tokin librul Says:
What are you, 18? No jury in the country would convict Bush, Cheney, Rummy, or any of ‘em if the judge let ‘em enter a ‘national defense’ defense. Not even talking about the inevitable jury nullifier, a dyed-in-the-wool Bushevik, 60 million people voted against Obama, and some of ‘em would be on any jury that considered such a case.
There’s a percentage in laying out the entire case, from beginning to end. And in making it clear exactly which side was guilty of politicizing the justice system. Because it isn’t the left.
June 13th, 2009 at 6:00 pmliberals are ugly
June 13th, 2009 at 6:03 pmThe Bush administration retracted Yoo’s memo’s so those claims of executive power are abandoned. Yoo will be disbarred and so will Bybee. That still leaves the issue of executive privilege.
June 13th, 2009 at 6:04 pmReichwhiners are stupid and evil. Personally, I’d rather be ugly and loved than handsome and hated as a vile POS.
June 13th, 2009 at 6:08 pmHi Jimmy Big Bucks
June 13th, 2009 at 6:09 pmpags2 Says:
Prosecuting Bush and Cheney for crimes would provoke a constitutional crisis of epic proportions. This would be the first time an ex-president is charged with crimes related to official duties. This is uncharted territory and that is why Obama is trying to stay away from the issue. It does not benefit Obama if Bush and Cheney are charged and, in fact, will further polarize the country. My bets are on a truth commission.
I don’t believe for a moment that prosecuting Bush and Cheney and all their myriad co-conspirators would result in a “constitutional crisis.” And that’s precisely why an independent prosecutor needs to be appointed and backed up at the appropriate time by the Justice Department. All Obama has to do is get the heck out of the way. In addition, it wouldn’t be uncharted territory if Nixon had been charged with HIS crimes following his resignation (to avoid impeachment) instead of being pardoned by Ford. The lesson from that was, indeed, the law doesn’t apply to people in very high positions.
pags2 Says:
I am not condoning or defending what Bush and Cheney did. But I am pointing out that there are legal issues with Yoo testifying in the trial. Obama does not want to set a precedent for future presidents.
Bush/Cheney breaking the law, violating the Constitution and the treaties we’ve signed…for just a FEW examples…have already set a precedent that needs to be reversed.!
pags2 Says:
I think Bush will not be charged but Cheney and Rumsfeld will be tossed under the bus. Even if Bush and Cheney are not charged, the hearings would permanently blot their names in history. Obama and the Dems do not gain anything from this and will doom any bipartisan efforts during his presidency.
The country would gain from the guilty being prosecuted and the honor of our country restored. That’s rather more important than some so-called “political gains.” And frankly, the whole bipartisan thing was dead in the water from the very beginning. The Republican’s idea of bipartisanship is “do everything we would do.”
June 13th, 2009 at 6:14 pmEven if you bought this unitary executive crap, if the executive branch has the ability to promote itself to a dictatorship by starting a war, then it already was a dictatorship.
Dictators with four year terms..novel!
June 13th, 2009 at 6:16 pmThe Republicans and their toadies are whining and screeching every day about how and who, pointing fingers wherever they can.
If the President wants to push agendas forward, get Holder to arrest and try the worst of the whiners and apologists. Credibility drops drastically when it it comes from a jail cell.
June 13th, 2009 at 6:18 pmGood thing you dropped in Jimmeh…Reza was just on another thread calling you a three toed troglodyte.
You arent gonna take that, are you?
June 13th, 2009 at 6:19 pmJimmy Big Bucks Says:
liberals are ugly
You out did yourself with that fine intelligent sentence.
You also reinforced my position that goppers tend to judge the book by the cover rather than the contents.
And, as if it mattered, progressives, liberals and democrats would win hands down when it comes to physical appearance.
June 13th, 2009 at 6:20 pmAnd Dog forbid the US Government should set a precedent that it might be able to enforce its own laws. Tell the world that if you can get away with it before your term is up, that’s cool.
June 13th, 2009 at 6:27 pmwinddancer Says:
I don’t believe for a moment that prosecuting Bush and Cheney and all their myriad co-conspirators would result in a “constitutional crisis.” And that’s precisely why an independent prosecutor needs to be appointed and backed up at the appropriate time by the Justice Department. All Obama has to do is get the heck out of the way. In addition, it wouldn’t be uncharted territory if Nixon had been charged with HIS crimes following his resignation (to avoid impeachment) instead of being pardoned by Ford. The lesson from that was, indeed, the law doesn’t apply to people in very high positions.
Bush/Cheney breaking the law, violating the Constitution and the treaties we’ve signed…for just a FEW examples…have already set a precedent that needs to be reversed.!
The country would gain from the guilty being prosecuted and the honor of our country restored. That’s rather more important than some so-called “political gains.” And frankly, the whole bipartisan thing was dead in the water from the very beginning. The Republican’s idea of bipartisanship is “do everything we would do.”
It would be very difficult to find someone who is not partisan to do the job of prosecutor. An independent prosecutor can charge Bush and Cheney with crimes. But it will take a judge and jury to convict. That is not as easy as everyone thinks. There are legal and political considerations in all of this even if there is a special prosecutor. That prosecutor will run up against all sorts of claims of executive privilege.
I do not dispute the idea that Bush and Cheney would be made an example. That would certainly obviate some of the bad deeds done in the name of the US government. I am not trying to minimize their violations of law. I just see the whole prosecution ending up like the military in Abu Ghraib. The little fish get eaten and the big ones get away.
June 13th, 2009 at 6:31 pmBillo is claiming it can’t be illegal, nobody has been arrested. And the freak show is listening.
June 13th, 2009 at 6:32 pmJimmy Blue Balls Says:
“liberals are ugly”
sounds like something someone who can’t get laid would say.
June 13th, 2009 at 6:34 pmwinddancer Says:
I don’t believe for a moment that prosecuting Bush and Cheney and all their myriad co-conspirators would result in a “constitutional crisis.”
That happened with the passage of the Patriot Act. And the entire Bush administration. The Constitution can survive very well, TYVM. The toadies? Road kill. They are terrified that Americans might actually wake up and demand the Constitution be followed.
June 13th, 2009 at 6:36 pmLiberals hate god because they were born ugly,fat or homosexual ( sometimes all 3, rosie ). That is why they developed the left wing theology and are bitter. They are jealous of people who succeed in life and are normal.
June 13th, 2009 at 6:37 pmXisithrus Says:
——————————————————————————–
I bet he beats Albertos record for saying he doesnt recall.
———-
Billary tops.
June 13th, 2009 at 6:39 pmYoo, Bybee, Bush and Cheney cannot be compelled to testify to matters that may be criminal. Their 5th Amendment rights apply unless they are given immunity from prosecution. That issue would cloud hearing, prosecutions and so on. This would be in addition to the executive privilege claims.
June 13th, 2009 at 6:42 pmPo, po, little trolls. Imagine living a life from a sheet of talking points. Especially since they have no clue what they mean.
June 13th, 2009 at 6:43 pmJimmy Big Bucks Says:
“They are jealous of people who succeed in life and are normal.”
you mean like the “liberal” who shot up the national holocaust museum? or perhaps the “liberal” who shot up the children’s production of “annie” in church? or perhaps the other “liberal” who shot the ob/gyn in church?
if that’s your idea of “normal” assclown, you can keep it.
June 13th, 2009 at 6:43 pmSo centrist are you still afraid? It’s okay I will own you oh so subtlely…
June 13th, 2009 at 6:46 pmIsn’t John Yoo of Korean descent? Rather than Gitmo, maybe he should be extra-renditioned to North Korea. Or how about exchanging him for either or both of those two Asian-American women journalists recently sentenced to 12 years of hard labor in the Hermit Kingdom?
AmericasBack Says:
June 13th, 2009 at 6:48 pmI read the book Angler(the dick cheney presidency). In it, it shows just how dirty this criminal, John Yoo, really is. He is the one – if memory serves me, that wrote a majority of the torture memos. This enemy of America deserves a long vacation on the tropical island of Cuba. I know just the place; Gitmo.
Every memeber of the Bush Regime has ignored the law and the courts for the past eight years. Why should they start to obey the legal system now?
Justice no longer exists in America. America builds prisons to punish poor people, not the rich and powerful.
June 13th, 2009 at 6:53 pmRepublicans get away with war crimes. Democrats cannot get away with blowjobs outside the marriage. See the difference? Thank you and good night!
June 13th, 2009 at 6:53 pmsucesses like gw bush? Normal like coulter? Bitter like limpballs and palin? Hypocrite like jbw?
June 13th, 2009 at 6:55 pmOkay, Jimmy Little Brain,
Yes, you can point to Rosie; but do you also call Scarlett Johannson, Natalie Portman, and Will Smith, among others “ugly, fat or homosexual?” Hasn’t Hollywood, along with its major good-looking stars, usually been bashed as liberal?
I would suggest you find a better argument if you want to keep on trolling here, without getting your ass (or brain, not much difference) continually served up to you.
Jimmy Big Bucks Says:
June 13th, 2009 at 6:56 pmLiberals hate god because they were born ugly,fat or homosexual ( sometimes all 3, rosie ).
kayinmaine,
June 13th, 2009 at 6:57 pmthe reason repukes commit war crimes is because none in 43’s cabal ever served in the military. if they had, they would have been against torture like john mccain. instead, we had a bunch of clowns who stuffed their codpieces and stood in front of banners.
lora,
June 13th, 2009 at 6:58 pmironically enough, cancervatives like johnny blue balls kissed charlie heston’s ass for years. you remember charlie heston, star of all those homoerotic gladiator movies…
Lora, those celebs aren’t really into politics. They just spout useless opinions. They arent liberal or conservative. I’m talking about career politicians.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:01 pmI forgot to add that under Jimmy Little Brain’s definition, Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove must be liberal. (And Karl is all three, JBB.) Ha, ha, ha.
Jimmy Big Bucks Says:
June 13th, 2009 at 7:03 pmLiberals hate god because they were born ugly,fat or homosexual ( sometimes all 3, rosie ).
johhny blue balls,
June 13th, 2009 at 7:04 pmactually, you’re talking a bunch of nonsense.
Just got a call from the ACLU. Now that I’m getting wages again, I’ll start paying membership dues, and will donate extra for the work they’re currently doing on the torture issue. They won’t let up. There is a lot more work being done to prosecute for torture than we see in the news.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:06 pmAll the beautiful women on FOX, miss california, lisa hasslebeck, sarah palin. All conservatives. All good looking.
Libs are fugly
June 13th, 2009 at 7:07 pmJimmy Big Bucks
June 13th, 2009 at 7:08 pmPretending you don’t hear me is a really bad strategy. It just makes me f uck with you more. Don’t be such a pussy. Come nuke me, Nukalator…
To Jimmy,
Now you say you were talking only about career politicians, but the only concrete example you gave of a “fat, ugly, homosexual” liberal was Rosie. What elected office does Rosie hold?
Jimmy Big Bucks Says:
June 13th, 2009 at 7:08 pmLora, those celebs aren’t really into politics. They just spout useless opinions. They arent liberal or conservative. I’m talking about career politicians.
pags2 Says:
Yoo, Bybee, Bush and Cheney cannot be compelled to testify to matters that may be criminal. Their 5th Amendment rights apply unless they are given immunity from prosecution. That issue would cloud hearing, prosecutions and so on. This would be in addition to the executive privilege claims.
So, this puts the four in the crosshairs of Garzon, and his inquiry, in Spain. Good. This alsways was a matter for the Hague, because few countries have the political will to do what is necessary. Their claims of executive priviledge and national security will be of little use there.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:08 pmjimmy blueballs,
June 13th, 2009 at 7:09 pmthey fired miss california’s ass for not showing up for work.
jimmy tough guy, your right, all the faux women are good looking, but no brians.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:09 pmLibs are fugly
Um, Reza’s looking for you. He says you must wash his car, or get another pounding.
Better get hopping, he looks mad.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:10 pmjohnny blue balls,
June 13th, 2009 at 7:10 pmand don’t forget babs bush whic is a two-fer since she’s also on the dollar bill!
and those ditzes are moreman than Jimmy it seems…
June 13th, 2009 at 7:11 pmJimmyCrackWhore says
Jimmy. Why havent you killed yourself yet? The world is weary of your stench and your stupidity is a burden on humanity itself. Why not do the first selfless act of your entire life and go kill yourself. It is the right thing to do and you are far to stupid and pathetic to ever have a decent life anyway. You will never be loved or even liked much less respected. It is day after day of stupid and pathetic for you. Arent you tired of strangers pitying you? Just go kill yourself. Go do the right thing for once in your miserable life
June 13th, 2009 at 7:12 pmThat must be why the politician mccain came crawling back to the letterman show and admitted he had screwed up, right?
June 13th, 2009 at 7:13 pmOh yeah and I forgot, coulter and malkin.
Not to mention sean hannity, bush JR, reagan, billo when he was young. All good looking.
I think im on to something here.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:13 pmStage 3 is sort of disturbing to me…
June 13th, 2009 at 7:14 pmJimmy go kill yourself and give your trailertrash whore of a sister, who is also your wife, something to be greatful for finally.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:14 pmAll the beautiful women on FOX, miss california, lisa hasslebeck, sarah palin. All conservatives. All good looking.
And that skinny guy in the dress. Ann, something or other…
June 13th, 2009 at 7:15 pmjimmy blue balls@129 is apparently looking for man-on-man action
June 13th, 2009 at 7:15 pmEugeneDeds Says: No, no, jimmy tough guy who warps himself in the flag needs to go down and sign up to fight those terrorists. He’s so tough, that they will send him out alone and he will take care of all those terrorists for us.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:15 pmI can say whatever I want and this weak pos will protest not. Fake, Fraud, Pussy, Poser.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:15 pmjimmy thinks coulter is good looking!?!? Now it’s starting to all make sense…
June 13th, 2009 at 7:15 pmTo Bozo,
How could I forget Charlton, who had the good taste to say “over my dead body” at an NRA convention in Colorado shortly after the Columbine massacre?
Bozo The Neoclown Says:
June 13th, 2009 at 7:16 pmlora,
ironically enough, cancervatives like johnny blue balls kissed charlie heston’s ass for years. you remember charlie heston, star of all those homoerotic gladiator movies…
ten to one fred says jimmy is looking for some “crying game” action.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:17 pmHas anybody told jimmy tough guy that Coulter is a guy?
June 13th, 2009 at 7:18 pmI think im on to something here.
Reza says he has something he wants you “onto,” pronto.
It must be so hard pleasing him. The brute.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:18 pmI think jimmy is looking for some “crying game” action
June 13th, 2009 at 7:18 pmFred Says:
jimmy thinks…See there is your mistake Fred. No he doesnt. Thinking is far beyond his capabilities. He just doesnt have the requisite equipment. Rush said it, he regurgitates it, thats all there is to it
June 13th, 2009 at 7:19 pmJimmy Big Bucks says, “All the beautiful women on FOX, miss california, lisa hasslebeck, sarah palin. All conservatives. All good looking.”
Have you considered seeking treatment for your pornography addiction?
June 13th, 2009 at 7:19 pmFunny thing. As soon as the plastic FAUX bimbos open their mouths, the get ugly. Of “fugly” if you prefer.
Personally, I’ve never found b!tches to be attractive.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:20 pmangels81 Says:
Has anybody told jimmy tough guy that Coulter is a guy?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He knows, thats part of the turn on for him
June 13th, 2009 at 7:20 pmThat’s a mistake we often make as liberals, thinking someone like jimmy might have an original thought….my bad.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:22 pmNeat trick, Bozo. Do me, next. Figuratively, of course.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:22 pmEugeneDebs, god damn women, you one up me everytime. Thanks for the laughs.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:22 pmAre some of you libs homosexual because you realized you could never get somebody of the opposite sex because of your fuglyness?
June 13th, 2009 at 7:23 pmjimmy tough guy, you were the one who said the man women Coulter was good looking.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:24 pmJimmyCrackWhore
Are you conservative because you KNOW you are too stupid to think for yourself and the first voice you heard on the radio was Rush? My GOD you are stupid. I mean even by rightwing Limborg standards you are GAWDAFUL stupid
June 13th, 2009 at 7:25 pmJimmy Blue Ball,
June 13th, 2009 at 7:26 pmyour old gal’s “fugliness” didn’t seem to get in the way of her getting knocked up with you…or did she sit on a dirty toilet seat at a NASCAR event?
Didn’t Jimmy run like a scared little boy, when Reza popped him in the mouth?
Man, I never saw a fat conservative move like that before.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:26 pmJimmy Big Bucks is a pussy piece of shit that fears engaging me. I can walk all over this loser attention seeker and Jimmy will do nothing. Jimmy is as weak as Archie and all the rest.Lick my ass you simpleton. Speak up or be label Pussy for Life. I own you dipshit…
June 13th, 2009 at 7:27 pmjimmy bluee balls wants to massage angry trannie annie coulter’s adam’s apple while whispering sweet nothings into “her” ears
June 13th, 2009 at 7:27 pmPalin rejects lettermans “apology.”
As well she should have.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:27 pmNo, some of us are homsexual for the same reason you are. Nothing wrong with it so you don’t have to talk about it all the time and protest too much that you’re not.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:28 pmJimmy Little Brains,
Why don’t you ask that question to Mark Foley, Ted Swaggert, Karl Rove, and the Idaho senator arrested for soliciting a police officer in an airport bathroom? Also, you apparently have never heard of the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization of gays who support the GOP.
But, anyway, this thread is supposed to be about John Yoo? Do you have anything to say about him or about torture, other than spout your torturous BS? If not, please desist.
Jimmy Big Bucks Says:
June 13th, 2009 at 7:29 pmAre some of you libs homosexual because you realized you could never get somebody of the opposite sex because of your fuglyness?
centrist is even more of a pussy then Jimmy and that is tough since they are the same person. You losers are embarassing. I will screw with you till the next name but you already know that since we have done this dance so many times before….
June 13th, 2009 at 7:29 pmcentrist, thats right, someone says I’m sorry and you rightwing nut balls say, screw you. Thats why Letterman should have just told the snow queen to F**k off.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:29 pmcentrist, cut off a small piece of your huge mountain of stupid, fold it till its all corners and shove it up your tarhole. Then do the only decent thing you are capable of, go sit in the corner and STFU
June 13th, 2009 at 7:29 pmWhat’s that, Jimmy?
You say Centrist screws his dog?
Is that true?
June 13th, 2009 at 7:29 pmcentrist, why don’t you answer the questions that were asked of you from the last thread? You made a lot of charges, but didn’t have the balls to back them up.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:31 pmPlease, everyone, let us not get distracted any further from the real topic of this thread, John Yoo and torture, by Jimmy-troll’s attempts to turn the discussion to looks and homosexuality.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:32 pmwell, centrist,
June 13th, 2009 at 7:33 pmperhaps if sarah palin
a)didn’t parade her kids in front of the camera like they were props
b)better educated her daughter so she wouldn’t be knocked up at 17 out of wedlock perhaps none of this would be happening to her.
angels81
June 13th, 2009 at 7:34 pmNot likely. These losers are incapable and incompetent. They are only after negative attention. They have no value system nor ideology. Their only goal is attention. They are children
Yeah, that’s the Christain thing to do. She has the moral high ground after all…..oh yeah, she doesn’t…
June 13th, 2009 at 7:35 pm*pointing & laughing at Jimmy Big Dummies’ little pencil between his legs*
June 13th, 2009 at 7:35 pmif anything,
June 13th, 2009 at 7:35 pmletterman should be apologizing to america for giving the artic shrew something to beat her chest about in false indignation when really, she’s just a publicity whore and will milk it for all it’s worth.
pags2 Says:
Yoo, Bybee, Bush and Cheney cannot be compelled to testify to matters that may be criminal. Their 5th Amendment rights apply unless they are given immunity from prosecution. That issue would cloud hearing, prosecutions and so on. This would be in addition to the executive privilege claims.
Who needs their testimony? They get convicted by the evidence. Lots of guys on death row who were not compelled to to testify, either.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:35 pmLora:
June 13th, 2009 at 7:36 pmWith all respects pleasecontinue to hold the discussion arundme.I will continue to beat these as sholes into the ground. It is just a little community service thing I do. So Jimmy/centrist are you going to stand up for yourselfs or should I go totally off on your lame poser fake asses?
centrist, were are you? Did mommy call you in and tell you it was time to take your bath? Be a man centrist, stand up for the starements you have made today. Tell mommy you got to do the right thing, and be a man.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:41 pmWhere did my post go? I hate repeating myself, but this needs to be said.
These teenaged trolls are pathetic. All they think about is sex, sex, sex. But they aren’t getting any. Instead of hanging out with other teens where they have a chance of scoring, they’re fixated on whether or not they want to f**k news anchors and politicians, and they’re posting their pathetic fantasies on TP. The best venue for these guys is Jerry Springer.
Get your butts out there and take a chance teen-trolls. You are wasting your youth. If you can’t even layed, you are either prepubescent or smelly.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:41 pmcentrist = wipey?
June 13th, 2009 at 7:45 pmcentrist = wipey?
—
June 13th, 2009 at 7:47 pmProbably as both atleast knew enough to not even try to engage me…
True. The guilty parties can’t be compelled to incriminate themselves.
However, if any one of them ends up on the stand and is faced with compelling evidence against their own precious ass? Their base nature would compel them to rat out everyone else.
People with no honor can make excellent witnesses for the prosecution. I have a strong feeling that any indictment against the major players would collapse the whole house of cards. And I feel even more strongly that we, as a nation, owe it to ourselves to put them to the test.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:51 pmdbadass, everyone ignores you because you are a useless troll that brings 0 discussion. Even your fellow bisexual buttfarking libs find you ANNOYING.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:52 pmJimmy Big Dummy = Useless troll who never adds anything to the discussion
Word.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:53 pmJimmyCrackwhore
Everyone enjoys slapping the stupid out of you because you are a retarded inbred piece of dogshit
June 13th, 2009 at 7:54 pmSo lets pursue that premise shall we Jimmy?
June 13th, 2009 at 7:54 pmWhat say ye folks? Who loses this one?
Who wants to bet John Yoo tortured his dog this weekend?
June 13th, 2009 at 7:55 pmbe honest dbadass, how many times have you been drilled? Deviant little sick freak.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:56 pmIt looks like Jimmy Pig Phucks has lost whatever composure he may have had. You’ve been played like a fiddle, stupid troll.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:00 pmLefty Liberal #63
While the Bush criminals should be tried and convicted, I worry about the precedent since most politicians have a Napoleon complex – small men with power. Would you want the next G.W. Bush to prosecute Obama for what they consider his “crimes” such as support of abortion?
YES! If President Obama commits a crime..Hell Yeah, I’d want him prosecuted! Abortion is LEGAL. Torture is NOT.
NO ONE….I MEAN NO ONE…IS ABOVE THE LAW!!! PERIOD!
June 13th, 2009 at 8:01 pmNo, Jimmy, you are the useless troll who brings nothing to the discussion. Since you are unable to answer valid questions about what office “career politician” Rosie supposedly holds or say anything at all in John Yoo’s defense, you turn to grade school-like taunts of “ugly” and “homosexual.” And, for the record, Jimmy-troll, I am not fat, ugly or homosexual, though if you find skinny women with Adam’s apples and shapeless legs like Ann-thrax Coulter, I would probably not be to your taste, which is fine with me, as I already have a (male) husband and don’t go for neo-con jerks.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:01 pmjimmy tough guy, do you ever have anything to say to add to the subject at hand? I didn’t think so. Just another tough guy on a key board.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:02 pmJimmyCrackwhore
You are an ignorant disgusting punk. You feel insecure because you are so stupid and because your sister/wife has to blow lepers for pocketchange. Well you should feel insecure as stupid and pathetic as you are. Just go kill yourself. Your life is a misery. You are pathetic. Do the world a favor stop stinking it up. Stop being a burden on humanity. Stop being a pustlant festering herpes sore and just go kill yourself
June 13th, 2009 at 8:03 pmJimmy Big Butt=frog. dbadass=semi. You can’t even say there will be road pizza left. Just a teeny little stain.
Please wait until the popcorn is ready.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:05 pmJimmy:
You can’t keep it together can you? Seriously what is your major malfunction? I don’t rejoice in what I do. I just fail to understand why folks like you come here to post lame ass shit with no intent to do anything but disrupt.There are a lot of very thoughtful folks here that would be happy to have mature discussions with you. The thing is that you just post insincere dumbass shit which indicates no honor. If you have a sincere interest in a dialogue which examines multiple views on any issues, I welcome you.If you just wish to continue to f uck around you can be assured that i WILL continue to make you look like an as shole each and everytime.
So how do you want it to be. I will put down my hammer and give you a chance to come back as a welcomed member of this community if you wish to be one.You need no particular ideology or anything just a mind and some sincerity
June 13th, 2009 at 8:07 pmAmericasBack Says:
Man, if you have kids, they must hate you.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
If he has any kids I hate him for being selfish enough to corrupt our gene pool with his monumental stupid
June 13th, 2009 at 8:07 pmTorture is not illegal? Got a link proving this?
June 13th, 2009 at 8:08 pmdbadass
God put me on this earth to annoy the living shit out of people like you. I’m sorry, but that is my job. It is my destiny.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:09 pmAnd this is why you and your party members will continue to lose elections. Way to go! Keep up the good work!
June 13th, 2009 at 8:10 pmJimmyCrackWhore
dbadass is offering you a Billy Martin. Better take it or the carnage will be unspeakable
June 13th, 2009 at 8:10 pmI agree dbadass, I’ve been trying on and off all day to get centrist to stand up and give his facts and line of logic for what he has posted all day. Like jimmy tough guy, neither of them have the guts or balls to stand up to what they post. Instead they just come here to say the dumbest thing that comes to their small pea brains.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:12 pmJimmyCrackWhore. You are too stupid to annoy ANYONE. That is with the exception of the toothless truckers your wife/sister blows for pocketchange when you whine about how you need her to cook for you. We LAUGH at you. Personally I LOVE to laugh at people as stupid as you. You are a free clown show. Just put on the red rubber nose and size 18 shoes and get it over with.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:12 pmjimmy tough guy, which god would that be?
June 13th, 2009 at 8:13 pmpeople like you
June 13th, 2009 at 8:13 pm—
Please expound upon this cooncept. Oh and which god there are tons of them…
jimmy likes big bucks:
The reason you like all those faux gals is because you like to dress up like them isn’t it?
Here’s an encore of you theme song, butt boy.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:14 pmdbadass angels81
C’mon guys. When a wingnut says God he ALWAYS means Mammon
June 13th, 2009 at 8:14 pmEugeneDebs, now you have really messed with their small minds. It will take them weeks to figure out who Mammon is.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:16 pmJimmy Big Bucks Says:
God put me on this earth to annoy the living shit out of people like you. I’m sorry, but that is my job. It is my destiny.
Is this sort of a plea for help? “I am genetically encoded to stupid! Please, stop me before I hurt myself!”
June 13th, 2009 at 8:16 pmpags2 Says:
Yoo, Bybee, Bush and Cheney cannot be compelled to testify to matters that may be criminal. Their 5th Amendment rights apply unless they are given immunity from prosecution. That issue would cloud hearing, prosecutions and so on. This would be in addition to the executive privilege claims.
June 13th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
They certainly have 5th Amendment rights not to incriminate themselves, but that does the interesting effect of making people want to investigate further to find out what you’ve done. But yeah, they could go that route.
Regarding executive privilege, I think Bush’s power to use that went away at noon on January 20, 2009.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:16 pmJimmy Big Bucks Says:
God put me on this earth to annoy the living shit out of people like you. I’m sorry, but that is my job. It is my destiny.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
That is so very pitiful, because even at this you have failed.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:17 pmI’m with dbadass. Silly trolls. In order for divide and conquer to work, you have to have some leverage. You have none. Most of us think of you as pathetic, lonely, greasy, smelly young teens with acne, stringy hair, and bad breath.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:17 pmThey CAN be compelled to testify. Forget executive priviledge as Zooey says that is history. As for the fifth they can be given immunity and if they refuse after that it is contempt of congress and THAT is a crime
June 13th, 2009 at 8:19 pmThe troll seems to be succeeding.
.
pags2 Says:
It would be very difficult to find someone who is not partisan to do the job of prosecutor. An independent prosecutor can charge Bush and Cheney with crimes. But it will take a judge and jury to convict. That is not as easy as everyone thinks.
So what? That’s no reason not to try. Even if they aren’t convicted, the legal case needs to be presented to an appropriate court.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:19 pmjimmy tough guy, you don’t annoy us, you amuse us. God you really are stupid.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:20 pmtranslation: I was an accident. My parenting unit slaps me. I have no friends. I can hide behind the computer, and pretend that I call the shots.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:21 pmSniff, sniff. What is that I smell? Oh yes the familiar odor of sauteed troll
June 13th, 2009 at 8:22 pmKayInMaine Says @193
YES! If President Obama commits a crime..Hell Yeah, I’d want him prosecuted! Abortion is LEGAL. Torture is NOT.
NO ONE….I MEAN NO ONE…IS ABOVE THE LAW!!! PERIOD!
June 13th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Torture is not illegal? Got a link proving this?
Kay, you might want to read the post before commenting….
ABORTION IS LEGAL. TORTURE IS NOT…..
June 13th, 2009 at 8:22 pmWell, the little Redhead is home and wants to get on the bike and go ride. I will leave this site in good hands. Keep whacking the trolls. Everybody have a good night.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:25 pm194. Jimmy Big Bucks Says: dbadass, God put me on this earth to annoy the living shit out of people like you. I’m sorry, but that is my job. It is my destiny.
Wow, that’s really saying something when an all powerful, omniscient being can find absolutely nothing more useful for you in particular than anointed resident d0uchebag.
..congratulations.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:27 pmI am not clear on just what Jimmy is seeking. If it is absolution, he should go to church. If it is therapy, he should reconsider his position on public health care since he probably can’t afford health insurance.
If he is lost, he should either invest in a GPS or try Hare Krishna.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:32 pmOopsie. I did misread what you wrote. I thought you said torture was not illegal just like abortion. Sorry! My bad. Too many apple martinis tonight! LOL
June 13th, 2009 at 8:39 pmBest smell on earth, EugeneDebs! ;-)
June 13th, 2009 at 8:41 pmKayInMaine Apple martinis!!! Ooooooh I’m so jealous!
June 13th, 2009 at 8:49 pmEnjoy!
Too many apple martinis tonight!
That ought to keep you warm on a cool Maine night! Are the moose-sized mosquitoes out yet? ;)
June 13th, 2009 at 8:56 pmApple martinis sound dangerous. Yum!
June 13th, 2009 at 8:58 pmWhy hasn’t Think Progress reported on the Riots on Iran? Do they support the regime ethere? Is that why Think progress is silent.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8099115.stm
I thought the Left supports people power? Why isn’t Think Progress supports the rioters?
June 13th, 2009 at 8:58 pmIm late to the party, I just read a few comments. I see alot of god in the comments. GOD is just an imaginary friend for grownups. Sort of like wingnuts think their god is billdo,hannity,limpdick,beck,and the rest of these fcked up talking heads.You wingnuts dont even need help destroying your party,you people just open your mouths and it just burry`s you deeper and deeper. Its like watching your favorite team in the superbowl with a 77-0 lead. We cant lose. Keep it up you fcking losers.
June 13th, 2009 at 9:02 pmsscncturn64,
June 13th, 2009 at 9:03 pmDo you support the rioters in Iran aginst the Regime?
Sam if you dont LIKE what this site offers feel free to take your tired ignorant ass somewhere else. Why dont you open up a site and we can drop by and tell YOU how to run it. If you dont have anything to say on the topic or at least something to say rather than stupid whining then do us a favor and STFU
June 13th, 2009 at 9:03 pmThe wingnut trolls who spend their time here on behalf of the fascist Republican Party are doing everything they can to change the subject from torture.
Torture is the one subject they want to avoid at all costs. If we are able to enforce the rule of law against those that ordered the use of torture, we essentially destroy what little is left of the Republican Party.
I brand the Republican Party a pro-torture, fascist, criminal organization. Nothing in America could be worse then being pro-torture, yet so ingrained is their fascist hero worship, that they cannot admit that what they have done, in the name of conservatism, is wrong.
June 13th, 2009 at 9:03 pmSam Says:
June 13th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Dude, if you want to dictate content, go start your own blog. We know enough to check news sites for info on Iran.
June 13th, 2009 at 9:03 pmLevi the Dungbeetle,
June 13th, 2009 at 9:03 pmDo you support the rioters in Iranm or the Regime?
Sam
Hey MORON. More to the topic do YOU support torture or NOT?
June 13th, 2009 at 9:04 pmZooey,
June 13th, 2009 at 9:07 pmWhy the silence about potentially historic events? What is your opinion? You support the Regime or the People?
Sam, I mostly support my ex-wife. Is that regime or people?
June 13th, 2009 at 9:08 pmSam
Hey MORON, why are you so desperate to change the topic? Why the silence on TORTURE?
June 13th, 2009 at 9:08 pmSammy, what does that have to do with my comment?
June 13th, 2009 at 9:10 pmEugeneDebs,
June 13th, 2009 at 9:10 pmMost peoiple don’t care about Torturing Islamic Terrorists. Everyone is discussing what potentially coule be historic events in Iran. I support the Iranian people and hope they get rid of the Ayatollahs.
Think mProgress is a bubble and echo chambers. Historic events might be unfolding and all you talk about is Bush. he’s gone get over it?
June 13th, 2009 at 9:11 pmSam Says:
Zooey,
Why the silence about potentially historic events? What is your opinion? You support the Regime or the People?
June 13th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Well, guess what? You don’t dictate what I talk about either.
Run along now…
June 13th, 2009 at 9:13 pmSam Most people who dont care about torture are soulless pieces of garbage. Who says only terrorists were tortured. Was that established in a court of law? How about Maher Arar who we didnt even SUSPTECT of terrorism or of doing ANYTHING wrong? What about Masri who got tortured because he simply had a similiar NAME to someone we suspected of terrorism? I dont much care about moronic pieces of garbage who are such cowards they would destroy American values because of their cowardice. That would be people like YOU.
June 13th, 2009 at 9:13 pmSam Says:
LOOK OVER THERE!
So another Limbot who can’t think for himself comes to distract from the issue at hand IN THIS TOPIC!
Face it rightous progressive ones. This tool supports torture.
June 13th, 2009 at 9:13 pmI am out of here. I’ll leave you all in the bubble you live. Now go back and keep talking about Bush.
June 13th, 2009 at 9:15 pmSam
Brainwashed rightwing morons like YOU are defined by the echo chamber. You KNOW you are too stupid to think for yourself so all you DO is regurgitate whatever Rush TOLD YOU TO THINK. What a pathetic fool you are. You are just desperate to change the subject. When the subject is about this I will be glad to discuss it. Till then I dont DO requests nor do I allow moron trolls like YOU to dictate what the subject is
June 13th, 2009 at 9:15 pmLOL Apple martinis make me so happy! What tha? But I thought I was a liberal? Nevermind! Forget I said that! Anyway, to make an apple martini you need equal parts of…
apple schnapps
rum
sweet & sour mix
grenadine
Oh man! If you’re not happy (which all liberals are…don’t get me wrong!), please drink one for the sake of the universe. Take note, Jimmy Big Dummy!
June 13th, 2009 at 9:17 pmSam Says:
I am out of here
<<<<<<<<<<
GOOD. You were nothing but an ignorant punkass troll anyway. Too stupid to think for yourself or contribute to the discussion that WE are having. You do KNOW you are stupid and pathetic dont you?
June 13th, 2009 at 9:17 pmSam Says:
I am out of here. I’ll leave you all in the bubble you live. Now go back and keep talking about Bush.
Heading back to redstate ol’ pathetic one?
June 13th, 2009 at 9:17 pmSam Says:
I am out of here.
June 13th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Awww, do ya have to…?
Does this idiot even realize no one was talking about Chimpy but him? Bargain basement trolls are so very sad.
June 13th, 2009 at 9:18 pmHoodathunktick Says:
Sam, I mostly support my ex-wife. Is that regime or people?
What a perfect response!! hee hee hee hee!!! It made me laugh out loud! Great!
June 13th, 2009 at 9:20 pmSam, people on TP are educated and we care a great deal about our country and other country`s around the world. We watched bush/cheney fck up our country and our relations with other countrys for eight years. Deep down inside you know thats true,you also know that our country is moving in a positive direction right now. You cons are doing nothing but hurting our country. Its over, please go away,we are moving on with or without you.
June 13th, 2009 at 9:25 pmUh oh. I just ran over Jimmy Big Dummy’s head with my car. Anyone care? Yes, I know, OUI & hate crime rolled into one…
June 13th, 2009 at 9:26 pmSo late arriving — will go back and read to catch up, but just wanted to say how great it’ll be to hear Mr. Yoo try to not misremember just how very difficult a position he was in at such a very difficult time: 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11.
Justice, please be swift and thorough.
June 13th, 2009 at 9:38 pmSam Says:
Think mProgress is a bubble and echo chambers. Historic events might be unfolding and all you talk about is Bush. he’s gone get over it?
hee. hee. hee.
so sorry i missed you, Sam.
Did you not read/hear the drumbeat retort during the past eight years of President Bush’s administration?
It boiled down to four words, easy enough for even the most challenged wingnut to master:
“But Clinton did it!”
The Republicans have nothing — absolutely nothing — to point to as feathers in the cap from Bush’s reign. Nothing to claim positive responsibility for. Thus, they figure, they shouldn’t have to claim any responsibility for the countless negatives.
Their mantra now, which has replaced “But Clinton did it,” is:
“Stop playing the blame game.”
Now, keep in mind, that’s five words as opposed to four. Still, those clever folks are rising to the occasion and mastering all five!!!
June 13th, 2009 at 9:45 pmRight Wing extremists kill again. I am really beginning to fear for our country.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/shawna-forde-minutemen-le_n_215246.html
June 13th, 2009 at 9:50 pmSam Says:
Think mProgress is a bubble and echo chambers. Historic events might be unfolding and all you talk about is Bush. he’s gone get over it?
Hey Sam, would that be anything like your right wingnut echo chambers (redstate.com comes to mind) where progressives are banned the minute they post something that challenges the right’s point of view.
The difference between TP and your right wingnut sites is that you are allowed to post here, no matter how little you have to say.
June 13th, 2009 at 9:54 pmSam Says:
Historic events might be unfolding and all you talk about is Bush. he’s gone get over it?
He’s not “gone” until he’s behind bars. The Ford/Nixon pardon led to Iran/Contra. The Iran/Contra soft-shoe act led to Bush/Cheney. If we keep giving them amnesty, they’ll keep coming back for their next attempt to destroy America. By excusing them, you are actively participating in a plot to destroy America. You are an enemy of freedom.
June 13th, 2009 at 9:58 pmA tad OT but I don’t get how UC Berkeley hired Yoo. That’s like the most liberal school in this state aside from Santa Cruz. Good school too. No idea why they would want that scumbag teaching anybody anything.
June 13th, 2009 at 9:58 pmSam Says:
It would have been better to ask me a question that was on topic, but since you are curious about my opinion…
Iran is a nation in transition. The young educated (progressive) Iranians chafe under Islamic dogma. While it is possible that the rioters may accomplish something worthwhile, they may also bring more instability in a nation that does not need it.
I would like to see their incumbent leader lose this election, but only if it does not cause a civil war.
So to answer your question, I choose not to choose a side in Iran’s struggle. It’s their struggle, and while it may affect me, it’s not really any of my business. It is not a black and white choice because Iran is a very complicated place, and I am not well enough educated on Iranian internal politics to comment intelligently.
June 13th, 2009 at 10:02 pmSam, Bush may be gone but the stench – and the problems he left – linger on. When the economy is straightened out, when sensible pollution regulations are in place, when the world no longer looks at us as torturers and imperialists, when sick people have access to health care, when right-wing terrorism whipped up by the right-wing media is no longer an issue, then maybe we can forget Bush. And Bush. And Reagan…
June 13th, 2009 at 10:04 pmwhoa, i know this is big news & all but, really, TP, you need to have a thread about yesterday;s DOMA brief!!!!
June 13th, 2009 at 10:07 pmI don’t believe that wingnuts are truly concerned about democracy in Iran. They didn’t care when Bush got installed, why would they care about Iran’s president?
And what’s with this wingnut penchant for pretending to be police officers and soldiers? Those aren’t terribly difficult clubs to get into. Are they too lazy to go through the training, or are they too dumb to qualify?
June 13th, 2009 at 10:09 pmWow. Looks like Bush’s blank check didn’t fly at the bank.
June 13th, 2009 at 10:09 pmEh—post election anger. I doubt that will erupt into civil war.
June 13th, 2009 at 10:26 pmSeriously? Kerkos are asking if others care about Iran rioters when they wanted to bomb those rioters [and many others]?
June 13th, 2009 at 10:30 pmSam Says:
Do you support the rioters in Iranm or the Regime?
For my part, I’ll go with the “rioters.” Did you support the “rioters” in Tiannamen Square?
.
kdgamergirl Says:
A tad OT but I don’t get how UC Berkeley hired Yoo. That’s like the most liberal school in this state aside from Santa Cruz. Good school too. No idea why they would want that scumbag teaching anybody anything.
Oh, it’s just spineless liberals caving in to insane accusations of being too liberal, so they hire a token fascist and figure it averages out.. The same thing the rabid right wing has done to journalism, they’re trying to do to academia. And Berkeley is cravenly giving in to it.
The fact is, anybody who can’t pass Schoolhouse Rock 101 shouldn’t be considered in any way qualified to teach law, much less practice it.
.
wiley Says:
I don’t believe that wingnuts are truly concerned about democracy in Iran. They didn’t care when Bush got installed, why would they care about Iran’s president?
Oh, the wingnuts in this country were rooting for Ahmadinejad the whole time. Much the same way that Al-Qaeda was rooting for McCain.
June 13th, 2009 at 10:48 pmGood point Bruce. I don’t get how that school can employ someone so vile. It’s a great school, one of the best in the state. He doesn’t deserve to teach there or anywhere else for that matter.
June 13th, 2009 at 10:50 pmAmenJihad is only a figurehead and nothing really changes. Daniel Pipes is prolly thrilled he has a boogie man to act scared of..imagine that, voting, if he could, for a guy he loves to fear.
June 13th, 2009 at 11:01 pmJimmeh little penny is thrilled AmenJihad won…thats what Reza said.
June 13th, 2009 at 11:03 pmThere was rioting in Tehran over higher gas prices in 2007. Last year there was rioting in Greece for weeks. Riots are pretty scary, but they’re not civil war.
June 13th, 2009 at 11:18 pmGN AB
June 13th, 2009 at 11:29 pmAll in good time, I hope. I prefer slow change. Most revolutions eat their children and civil war is grievous. I do have to suspect that clandestine and foreign forces may be at work to make any bad situation worse in Iran. I also resent the suggestion that the wingnuts “care” about Iran and liberals don’t. Not caring to interfere does not mean not caring.
June 13th, 2009 at 11:36 pmThe New York Times reports that a federal judge in California has ruled that former Bush administration lawyer John Yoo will have to testify…
If he refuses, let’s waterboard him. I hear tell it’s legal.
Cheers,
June 13th, 2009 at 11:37 pm#11 AmericasBack Says:
Next on the line-up; David Addington. Maybe one of these two will start to sing. Maybe if the A.G. cuts a deal; give him just 250 years in prison instead of what is really called for (2500 years).
The maximum penalty for torture where death occurs (see 18 USC 2340A) is death.
That might set some minds straight.
Cheers,
June 13th, 2009 at 11:44 pmOnce I wanted to be a contortionist, so I went to DC.
June 13th, 2009 at 11:48 pmThats why Dubya got a black eye you know.
June 13th, 2009 at 11:50 pmIts true, the pretzel is the toughest of all contortionist moves.
June 13th, 2009 at 11:52 pm“I used to sell insurance. The basic rule is the larger the pool the less expensive the health care. Today we have 1,300 separate pools – separate health care plans – and that is why health care is so expensive; 700 pools would be more efficient and less expensive and one pool would be the least expensive. That’s why single payer is the answer.” -Tom Harkin
June 14th, 2009 at 12:00 amAmericasBack Says:
in site? In sight? …shit, I don’t know – going to bed. Night
June 13th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
It’s ‘incite’, AmericasBack – goodnight!
June 14th, 2009 at 12:11 amJune 14th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Why has no one posted a clip of Joan Walsh leaving Oreilly speechless on his own program?! It’s a must see!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CucifF-X5HM
Also, at one point in the segment Joan says “you crusaded against him like a vigilante” and Bill responds “balonga! i didn’t crusade against anything”. Then later on when he starts to lose his temper and starts yelling, she says it again that he crusaded and he shouts YOU BET! ITS FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
June 14th, 2009 at 12:29 am*sniff sniff* smells like lib shit in here.
June 14th, 2009 at 12:33 amJimmy Big Bucks Says: *sniff sniff* smells like lib shit in here.
Jimmeh, glad your here, Reza said you smell like elephant dung!
June 14th, 2009 at 12:35 amJimmy Big Bucks Says:
*sniff sniff* smells like lib shit in here.
Your supposed to take it in the shorts, Jimmeh, not put your nose into them.
June 14th, 2009 at 12:39 amCan we chip in to buy some halfway decent trolls? These trolls are stupid.
June 14th, 2009 at 12:39 amAt one time we had some really good right wing debaters. Today, not nearly so much…maybe in a way thats a good thing…showing others how to think logically cause when they do..they see things in a different way.
Jimmeh just hasnt quite got it yet, but in time Jimmeh will see the light.
June 14th, 2009 at 12:48 amWe’ll see if Jimmeh makes it through the seventh grade.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:03 amThe troll needs to change his diaper.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:05 ammariah10carey88 Says:
Bill responds “balonga!”
Balonga…?
.
wiley Says:
Can we chip in to buy some halfway decent trolls? These trolls are stupid.
At least JohnM, Tim Vaculik and the like actually present neocon arguments and reasoning, rather than just merely insult “libs” with no context. Even if you disagree with them on everything, at least you have to admit that they’re actually presenting positions to disagree with. Jimmy Big Bucks doesn’t even attempt to present a reason for conservatism. Maybe he’s too ashamed of it to try.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:07 amIf it looks like lib shit, smells like lib shit and tastes like lib shit, I guess Jimmy the scat expert will let us know.
I prefer the chicken breast with provolone and spinach I had for dinner, but if Jimmy’s a shit eater, to each his own.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:11 amTo Jimmy Little Brain,
June 14th, 2009 at 1:13 amSince you are so into people’s looks, I should point out that Mr. Torture John Yoo himself appears to be overweight and not good-looking. Does that make him a “liberal” by your standards?
at least im not a shit pusher like you libs are..
June 14th, 2009 at 1:13 amWassamatter JimmyCrackWhore. Did your uncle get tired of teabagging you during your alone time? Did that make you feel unwanted so you had to come here and show us once again how astonishingly stupid and pathetic you are? When are you going to give your wife/sister something to celebrate other than the occasional quarter she gets for blowing toothless truckers and kill yourself?
June 14th, 2009 at 1:15 amJimmy:
Why are you so bitter, does it have something to do with your feelings of inadequacy?
June 14th, 2009 at 1:17 amNo JimmyCrackwhore you are a shit EATER like most conservative morons
June 14th, 2009 at 1:19 amJimmy Little Brain,
I’m not quite sure what a “shit pusher” is. Yes, I do clean my cats’ litter box and after the Daschund I walk once a week voluntarily for his wheelchair-bound owner. Does that make me a shit pusher? By the way, you might get a little further here if you posted real arguments instead of grade-school bully-like taunts.
Jimmy Big Bucks Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 1:20 amat least im not a shit pusher like you libs are..
Jimmy Big Bucks Says: at least im not a shit pusher like you libs are..
Constipation is nothing to be Proud of.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:22 amLora
JimmyCrackwhore KNOWS he is far too stupid to make arguments. If he isnt just being really stupid and tossing out jr high potshots he is regurgitating Rush Limbaugh he is too stupid to do anything else.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:22 amJimmeh, has it occurred to you that business associations cause higher prices for one product reducing your ability to spend your money on another?
I have no problem with capitalism in its pure sense, but when greed takes over and groups are formed to protect profits…then, its not capitalism but protectionism. Thats what lobbyists are doing, protecting profits, not engaging in free market capitalism.
Why associations make Helots of you Jimmeh!
June 14th, 2009 at 1:29 amJust think Jimmeh, cheaper insurance could get you a vacation in Hawaii!!
June 14th, 2009 at 1:32 amI consider pushing a turd as giving birth to more Jimmehs.
Bow to your creator Jimmeh.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:33 amA point that was well put Xisithrus!
Thankew! Thankew!
{bows]
June 14th, 2009 at 1:34 amJimmyCrackWhore is a coward. He likes to get rude then run like the little punk he is
June 14th, 2009 at 1:37 amAmericasBack Says: Conservatives wouldn’t be supporting the people they support if they opened their eyes a bit
I think that is a fair assessment. Lets take Rush, for example, he has said he is the protector of big business, IIRC, but really he is not, I think, protecting capitalism, but profits.
True capitalism would see Rush making a cheap, but quality product.
Aint happening.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:45 amAmericasBack Says:
…maybe he’s reloading?
Nah. He caught sight of his reflection and ran, screaming, from the room. He’ll be back when he gets over his fright.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:56 amThe hunters I know are quite responsible with their guns/rifles and follow the laws.
Its the gangbangers and criminals that dont follow the laws that give responsible gun owners a bad name.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:56 amAmericasBack Says:
I hope you’re still there. I’m also a gun owner and believe in the right for responsible gun ownership. But, we have to find a way to limit the lethality of lunatics. There’s a whole lot of ground between unregulated ownership and bans. And we, as a nation, need better control of who owns some types of weapon.
When people are committing mass-murder with legally obtained weapons? The law needs careful examination. That nut who made threatening statements to tellers while withdrawing all his cash makes an interesting example. Reportedly, his family said he’s “been sick for about ten years”, and yet? He’s the registered owner of 8 handguns. In a better world, there would be a structure to prevent that.
June 14th, 2009 at 2:03 am…this one -AB
That one.
June 14th, 2009 at 2:04 amEugeneDebs,
I am not so sure that Jimmeh knows that he is far too stupid to make arguments. I gave him a few chances to redeem himself, but he didn’t take them and has continued with his childish taunts. I have come to believe he really thinks calling liberals “fat, ugly and homo” or “shit pushers” makes for a valid argument.
EugeneDebs Says:
Lora
JimmyCrackwhore KNOWS he is far too stupid to make arguments.
June 14th, 2009 at 2:10 amAmericasBack Says:
I have no problem with capitalism in its pure sense, but when greed takes over and groups are formed to protect profits…then, its not capitalism but protectionism. Thats what lobbyists are doing, protecting profits, not engaging in free market capitalism.
Unregulated captalism move inexorably to monopolistic practices. The entire point of free markets – that is, competition – gets frozen out as soon as any corporation gets enough power to shut down its competition. This cycle has occurred everywhere it can. Only intervention in the form of regulation can prevent it. Appropriate regulation is pro-competition; anti-regulation is anti-competition. When they oppose such appropriate intervention, so-called “conservatives” prove that they don’t support what they claim to support.
.
AmericasBack Says:
I think just the fact that the government KNOWS that the people are armed will prevent them from doing something stupid. And don’t say they wouldn’t shoot their own people – it’s happened before.
Given the capacity of modern militaries, having personal small arms would just make things worse on the protestors. Seriously, there’s just no way to overthrow a government using assault rifles when they’ve got cruise missiles.
The whole “keeping goverment honest” argument for personal weaponry went out the window as soon as modern military armament came into existence.
June 14th, 2009 at 2:12 ammariah10carey88 Says:
Why has no one posted a clip of Joan Walsh leaving Oreilly speechless on his own program?! It’s a must see!
June 14th, 2009 at 12:29 am
We’ve had it on TheZoo all day. :-)
So proud of Joan!
June 14th, 2009 at 2:14 amJimmeh, it seems, is interested in trying to tick people off, to get a rise out of them thru what he perceives to be insults and not, in any way, interested in debate.
June 14th, 2009 at 2:15 amXisithrus Says:
Jimmeh, it seems, is interested in trying to tick people off, to get a rise out of them thru what he perceives to be insults and not, in any way, interested in debate.
That’s the true definition of a “troll.” Often here at TP we use a looser definition to refer to any conservative who bravely puts forth conservative memes in a blatantly progressive environment, but the fact is, some of them actually believe in what they’re saying, rather than saying whatever they have to to get a resaction. It’s an important distinction.
June 14th, 2009 at 2:39 amJohn Yoo should be hung from the neck—-until dead.
June 14th, 2009 at 5:23 amJimmy Big Bucks is poorly hung
June 14th, 2009 at 8:13 amMy guess, nothing will come of yoo’s questening…Likely he will take the 5th or declare special secrets with the bush administration…If he show’s up at all….
I also don’t hold out for much pressing of this administration doing anything to further our case against the bush administration, so far all the President has done is pull a Palosi block and tackle manuver…Not impressive of late…What we have are 2 side’s of the same coin….
War continues and is escilating, war funding is balooning with no talk of Peace….Our own government and Israel’s are bent on getting their will and never mind what the people or Peace maker’s want…Sad time’s indeed…What we need is a nearly total removal of all the present polatician’s on both side’s…Re structuring and accountability of all our air way’s along with regulation’s on the fed. military and all service’s…Getting back to basic’s may not be possible anymore since we have so many in our administration that are sucking the life out of our country. the working class and all our resourses for the love of power and money…Peace, Blessings & Justice.
June 14th, 2009 at 9:32 amGiven the capacity of modern militaries, having personal small arms would just make things worse on the protestors. Seriously, there’s just no way to overthrow a government using assault rifles when they’ve got cruise missiles.
The whole “keeping goverment honest” argument for personal weaponry went out the window as soon as modern military armament came into existence. — ElBruce
******************************************************
Have to agree with you there. As much as I hate to realize it myself — since I know the historical reasons why our Founding Fathers thought it vital to include the Second Amendment in the Constitution — modern-day military armament to at least some extent transforms the Second Amendment into not much more than whistling in the dark. I think even the NRA might have to acknowledge that something as high-powered as an assault rifle — provided that citizens are allowed to have them, and I don’t think they are — probably wouldn’t stand much of a fighting chance against a tank, a Howitzer, a rocket-propelled grenade, or even tear gas. One would like to think (or at least hope) that the United States government would never collectively lose its head, its humanity, or both so completely that it would throw away all the principles that this country was based on and bring nearly the full weight of its military might to bear against its own people — but nevertheless, human nature being what it is, the possibility cannot be entirely ruled out. If that were ever to happen, it’s far from certain that the American people would be able to hold their own successfully — except perhaps through sheer force of numbers, and even then massive loss of life would be inevitable.
Yes, guerrilla forces have succeeded in fighting off opposing forces even when significantly outgunned…but this has often been 1) on turf with which the opposing forces have comparatively little familiarity, and 2) with the support of a third party which more closely matches the opposing force in terms of military might (such as the United States’s support of the mujahadeen during the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan).
June 14th, 2009 at 9:50 amThe argument for private ownership of firearms as a deterent against the big badgovernment has been a bunch of bullshit ever since about the end of the 1800’s…
June 14th, 2009 at 10:05 amThe firearms debate over protecting yourself against a government gone bad, is just a bunch of BS. If the military backs the government, were toast. An F15 can take your ass out from 25 miles away, a lot of good that AK47 will do ya.
June 14th, 2009 at 10:13 amStill this false premise gives the pretend hard-on guys a false boner. They really liked that idiotic last Rambo Laos film…
June 14th, 2009 at 10:19 amActually that was Burma wasn’t it? What a dumbass film…
June 14th, 2009 at 10:29 amThe right wing trolls need to read the following letter written to you by Sarah Robinson over on FireDogLake last night:
http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/13/memo-to-the-right-wing-put-up-or-shut-up/
We need an answer from you stat!
June 14th, 2009 at 10:31 amEveryone needs to read Sarah’s letter at FireDogLake, and then hit every rightwing troll that comes here to answer the question. Are you trying to start a civil war? Yes or NO.
June 14th, 2009 at 10:43 amGreat letter, hun Angels81? I’ve posted part of it on my blog, put a link to it on my Facebook, and am spreading it around the Internet for everyone to read! It’s that important. Thanks for reading it Angel!
June 14th, 2009 at 10:56 amThanks for the link, KayinMaine…Good read…Blessings
June 14th, 2009 at 10:59 amYou’re welcome, Witch1! Spread it around. ;-)
June 14th, 2009 at 10:59 amKayInMaine, I just passed the word over to the Taylor Marsh site. This needs to go to every progressive site out there.
June 14th, 2009 at 11:00 amKayInMaine, by the way, THANKS for bringing this to us.
June 14th, 2009 at 11:02 amYou are so welcome, Angels81! It sure does. Thanks for spreading it around. ;-)
Witch1, I saw a Maine license plate recently that read: “WTCY POO”. Loved it!
June 14th, 2009 at 11:09 amEveryone needs to read Sarah’s letter at FireDogLake, and then hit every rightwing troll that comes here to answer the question. Are you trying to start a civil war? Yes or NO. — Angels81
*********************************************************
As a result of reading the letter and recollecting the kind of rhetoric that people on the right — politicians, op-ed commentators, and your average poster-on-the-thread — have been using to make their point over the past two decades (which seems to have gradually growing more inflammatory as time goes on), I have come to the inevitable conclusion that at least half if not most of them would give one unqualified answer to Sarah’s question…
***YES***
I know there are some people, on the leeft as well as the right, who make a feeble attempt to fob off some of the rhetoric as a “joke” or as an exaggeration — but I for one do not and cannot. Perhaps it’s the fact that when I was studying for my degree in psychology, most of my professors happened to be Freudians…but I for one believe that people never say what they don’t to at least some extent mean, even if only subconsciously, because the words cannot come out of the mouth unless they have already been in the head and in the heart. The emotions simmering beneath the surface of most people on the right — judging by the overall tone of the rhetoric which has been issuing forth from the right (or at least the far right) for the past two decades of more — go well beyond what a reasonable person would call frustration, hostility, anger, or even fury. There’s really only one word which seems apropos to me — that word is rage, which is one of the most volatile and least rational of all human emotions. What other emotion could possibly provoke a supposedly normal and civilized being to describe another as sub-human — or to suggest that this other person deserves to be disenfranchised, arrested, imprisoned for life, forcibly sent into permanent exile, executed without trial, or damned to Hell for all eternity simply for cherishing certain political beliefs? I’ve had each and every single one of these sentiments (or worse) wished upon me personally and others like me simply on the basis of my political beliefs even though I never have and never would do the same — and as people like David Niewert have pointed out, I’m by no means alone in being the target of such eliminationist speech.
Yes, people often do take the anonymity of a screen name as permission to say things which they wouldn’t have the courage to say to someone’s face — but if anything, all this proves is that the feelings are there underneath the surface, even if this is not something that these people would ever admit to publicly and even if fear of earthly or divine reprisal is one of the things (or the only thing) keeping them in line. I said this several times over the last eight years, and I’ll say it again now — human nature being what it is, all that would probably be needed at this point to manifest those emotions into action would be a sufficiently charismatic leader or public figure who would sanction and perhaps even encourage such actions “for the good of the country”. That was one of the reasons why George W. Bush frightened me so much…some people seemed so willing to accept anything and everything he said without question that they probably wouldn’t have hesitated to drag people into the streets and shoot them if Bush had told them to.
June 14th, 2009 at 12:03 pmAmericasBack Says:
since we are so OT already, I’ve been watching the people on the streets in Iran. I know that most here don’t favor (responsible) gun ownership…
That has not been my assessment. As far as I can see, people here have no problem with “responsible” gun ownership. They do have a problem with owning assault weapons because there’s nothing “responsible” about them.
I think just the fact that the government KNOWS that the people are armed will prevent them from doing something stupid. And don’t say they wouldn’t shoot their own people – it’s happened before.
The idea of Americans owning guns and then taking on our government terrifies me. Those who are toting guns are much more likely to kill each other than anyone who is threatening them. Unless you go to a run range on a regular basis, owning a gun is probably not going to help you because you will not be able to hit what you think you are aiming at.
June 14th, 2009 at 12:10 pmKayinMain,…Cute plate!….BTW have decided if I live just a little longer will be in your neck of the wood’s…New Hampshire may well be my destination. think by next spring at the latest….Wasen’t going to, but think I will…Happy posting today…Blessings
June 14th, 2009 at 12:11 pmZooey Says:
We’ve had it on TheZoo all day. :-)
So proud of Joan!
My favorite part of the whole smackdown was her last statement and leaving Billo with “you’ve got blood on your hands”, which he does.
The only thing I regret is that Walsh didn’t challenge Billo’s ridiculous statement that Tiller performed 60,000 abortions. That is pretty much impossible.
June 14th, 2009 at 12:15 pmI’m surprised that no one commented on the Minutemen killing a Hispanic father and daughter in Arizona post I put up. It’s another example of right wing extremism and deserves to be covered extensively.
June 14th, 2009 at 12:16 pmWitch1, on your way to NH, stop in NY and come visit Wayne and I! :D
June 14th, 2009 at 12:20 pmAmericasBack Says:
since we are so OT already, I’ve been watching the people on the streets in Iran. I know that most here don’t favor (responsible) gun ownership…
I don’t have a problem, but there’s a vast array of disagreement inherent in the word “responsible.” The NRA went absolutist some time ago, opposing any regulation of any firearms whatsoever in all cases, no matter what. Since there isn’t a (responsible) voice advocating what (responsible) gun ownership would consist of out there, the correct debate just isn’t happening.
I would think that gun ownership should be the equivalent of getting a driver’s license. Prove you know the safety rules involved, prove you can use the gun correctly, get a license – both for the gun and the owner. Have the same rules everywhere. The NRA could even be included in the plan, since they run many gun safety and education classes.
But as long as they’d rather oppose even reasonable regulation, the issue will remain skewed – in certain legal jurisdictions guns will be regulated too heavily; in others not enough, with the laws swaying wildly back and forth depending on how the political winds are blowing this week.
.
Bluestocking Says:
- since I know the historical reasons why our Founding Fathers thought it vital to include the Second Amendment in the Constitution -
All talk of further revolutions aside, when it comes to the purpose of the Second Amendment, I would tend to go with the clause in the Second Amendment that literally states its purpose, per the “minuteman” concept. The federal government couldn’t originally afford to supply their soldiers with weapons, so potential militia volunteers would need to BYOG. Any laws restricting personal firearm ownership would thus restrict the potential to muster up an effective militia ifneeded.
The situation is somewhat the other way around now – the military-industrial complex goes through vast amounts of money to keep the military supplied with mind-boggling levels of firepower. Personal weaponry is incomparable to what the standing army routinely keeps on hand; not only is it not needed to help, it couldn’t possibly be used to oppose it.
.
angels81 Says:
Everyone needs to read Sarah’s letter at FireDogLake, and then hit every rightwing troll that comes here to answer the question. Are you trying to start a civil war? Yes or NO.
This is what I say about the whole “Texas succession” thing – TRY IT. The next civil war will last less than a month.
June 14th, 2009 at 12:41 pmThe idea of Americans owning guns and then taking on our government terrifies me. Those who are toting guns are much more likely to kill each other than anyone who is threatening them. Unless you go to a run range on a regular basis, owning a gun is probably not going to help you because you will not be able to hit what you think you are aiming at. — Bilbo Hussein Baggins
************************************************************
I’ve always thought what members of the police force supposedly have to say about gun ownership to be a sound proposal — namely, that you shouldn’t own a gun unless you’re thoroughly prepared to draw it, fire it once drawn, hit what (or whom) you fire at, and kill (or at least incapacitate) anyone upon whom you choose to open fire. A failure at any step in that process makes the gun just as much of a danger to oneself (if not more so) as it does to anyone who might be attacking or thinking of doing so, because the gun then becomes something which can potentially be taken away from and used against its owner.
A member of my family, a self-professed conservative(!), keeps (or used to keep) a gun in his house ostensibly for protection…but truth to tell, I very much doubt that he ever took it out on a practice range or even bothered to clean it. Fortunately, he was never presented with a situation in which using the gun might have been called for — but had he chosen to do so, I think it quite possible that he would have done himself more harm than good since I’m not even certain that it would have worked — let alone that he could have succeeded in incapacitating or killing someone with it.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:24 pmWill do Jane, will keep you posted…..Blessings
June 14th, 2009 at 3:16 pm______
angels81 Says:
Everyone needs to read Sarah’s letter at FireDogLake, and then hit every rightwing troll that comes here to answer the question. Are you trying to start a civil war? Yes or NO.
_____
Sarah is rather given to hyperbole, but we certainly do need leaders on both sides to speak out and to encourage civility in dealing with those with whom one disagrees.
June 15th, 2009 at 12:36 amen son videolar
June 15th, 2009 at 7:21 amen son videolar