So how do Bush supporters feel about the information contained in the released memos?
 

Statements to the effect that the President may suspend basically any constitutional right he wants during the "war on terror?" I would hope those of you who claim such fidelity to the 2nd Amendment would be equally horrified by what is a clear assault on the entire Bill of Rights.

I am betting Obama has drafted something saying the same thing.

Just like he and Panetta have said that they reserve the right to use torture, despite the fact that they never will. Yeah........right.

Obama has ordered the military and the CIA to cease any "enhanced interrogations." He ordered that they comply with the Army Field Manual. He nominated an AG who made it clear that waterboarding is beyond the limits of what the US will permit. So while the executive order does provide that the AG may provide additional guidance that would permit some deviation from the Field Manual, this is hardly a ratification of torture, and the ethics investigations being conducted by Holder at Obama's order on those who wrote memos at the DOJ permitting torture sends a very strong signal that torture isn't going to be tolerated.

Mike, you may be interested to know that a certain member of the Utah State Senate has a flag with your avatar hanging in his office as of about two weeks ago. Care to guess who?

And good for Obama for at least saying it.

It's the politically correct thing to say, color me unimpressed.

What a politician says and what a politician does are often two different things. And what's going on with executive orders these days? Oh, and what do you think of his undoing of Clinton era welfare reforms or the democrats desire to curtail free speech guised as fairness doctrine?

You somehow manage to avoid all those discussions and then start of flurry of threads talking about Limbaugh and Bush? Classic.

That is precisely the point. Bush assured us all that he wouldn't violate constitutional liberties. Then he actually had his legal advisors outline manners in which he could do exactly what he told all of us he wouldn't do. It is shameful.

What do you mean "what's going on with executive orders these days?" That is a pretty broad question.

Obama hasn't "undone Clinton era welfare reforms". Rather, temporary spending has been authorized, some of which will go to those on welfare or who need welfare.

FYI: Obama opposes the Fairness Doctrine. Heck- who needs the Fairness Doctrine when the top conservative commentator spends his time proving he is the de facto leader of the SWCP rather than Steele?

So you're upset about what he theoretically MIGHT have done, but never actually did? Yawn.

Riiiiiiiiight... I am sure he never actually did what the memos permitted him to do. I am sure it was just an intellectual exercise. Just like waterboarding- which they also told us they didn't do, until it was clear they did.

I wish Bush had waterboarded you.

That's the difference between you and me. I actually believe everyone is my brother or sister and wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Well, if he actually did it, then provide the link(s) to that effect and get indignant over actual events rather than theoretical ones.

Cali is afraid of govt. power. Except for the power of the govt. to disarm its citizens. That's benign.

The indignation doesn't come merely from the occurrence of the rights abuse. It comes also from the assertion that such abuses are within the president's prerogative.

If you believe such abuses did not occur, however, I would happily bet any amount of money to the contrary. It fits precisely within the pattern of behavior of this president.

Establish goal
Instruct lawyers what end result must be
Get legal reasoning from lawyers justifying end result
Take action under cloak of legal authority to accomplish goal
Keep everything secret

Admit it, you're Senator Mayer, aren't you?

True. I've always thought that of all the posters here, you are the most Christ-like.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...U5MTk2YTIxNTQ=


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew...romise-funding

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/


There's all of this to talk about and YOU bring up Limbaugh and Bush?

Lebowski's Law: As a CG discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Chris Buttars approaches one.

Citizens are still armed. The question is "armed with what?" You draw the line at grenade launchers. I draw the line at fully automatic weapons. Way to be so much more principled, Waters.

Well thank you. I cannot say the same of you, but there is always hope.

So start your own thread.

Memo to Cali: Bush is no longer President. Limbaugh doesn't hold public office of any kind.

Are you frightened by what we might discover if we discuss current issues? Many threads have been started and you ignored them and then post a flurry of threads about a president who is no longer in office and a radio talk show host -- you're worse than repubs who still complain about Clinton!

Seriously, move on.

Nonsense. What Bush did deserves scrutiny, and plenty of it. Are you really suggesting that no issue is worth discussing if it involves a prior president?

Let's discuss Andrew Jackson then.

Start up a thread if there is something about him you want to discuss of interest.

He's certainly a lot more interesting than Bush and he certainly abused his presidential powers more than possibly any other president.

Intriguing. So Bush supporters, in response to evidence that Bush used the Constitution as toilet paper, offer the following in rebuttal:

1. How dare you talk about him! He isn't even the president! You can only talk about the current president!

or

2. But look at Andrew Jackson. He was WAY worse!

You guys may need to brainstorm a bit more.

No, it's more like I said earlier: I don't find all of this hypothetical "what Bush might've done" an interesting discussion. Apparently you believe if you keep screaming loud enough and long enough it makes it important or interesting.

I'm interested in reality, not theory. That's why I'm a statistician, not a mathematician.

For someone not at all interested in the discussion, you certainly spend a lot of time in this thread discussing it.

It seems clear that the most common tactic of liberally minded individuals will be to talk about Bush instead of the sitting president and current issues. Bush is irrelevant -- a foot note -- history. He ALONE did not run the country. A Congress and House of Representatives principally controlled by Democrats for the last two years of his presidency ran the country.

Bush scrutiny as you call it is cowardly and a dodge ... and only underscores just how tenuous your faith in Obama is.

Has nothing to do with either the thread or the length thereof. Just an aside.

Hm. By that logic, you talking about me only underscores how tenuous your faith is in yourself. Step away from the ledge, Tooblue. Just because you think Bush is irrelevant doesn't mean you are.

This would be a good retort if it wasn't in the politics forum and if we weren't talking about politics and presidents et al ;)

LOL is this the best you can do -- obfuscate in place of discussing what the current president is doing right now!

Let me get this straight:

I start a thread about constitutional violations under GWB. You respond saying that anything he ever did is totally irrelevant and the only appropriate discussion we can have in this forum is about Obama. Then you accuse me of "obfuscating" Obama's record because I am not discussing his record in a thread expressly about Bush's constitutional violations?

You are an odd man, Tooblue. Perhaps we aren't talking about Obama in this thread because it isn't at all relevant to the subject? Should I accuse you of obfusaction as well, given that under my own arbitrary standards, we should only be talking about how delightful Pepsi Jazz tastes, and you refuse to address that topic at all?

Despite the first post in this thread, most of it has been discussion about whether Bush is interesting to discuss. Based on that, I think the logical conclusion is: no one much cares. Cali spends the rest of his time mocking folks for not caring and/or not staying on his initial point.

Amusing.

Sounds like something Chris Buttars would say.

I think the reasonable conclusion is that Tex, Indy and Tooblue have no interest in the discussion, which isn't exactly surprising. Obfuscation from those three is almost expected.

If it's not that surprising, then maybe you shouldn't start the topic in the first place.

I start the topic, just in the hopes you won't participate, as your commentary is utterly predictable and inane.

So why is discussing what Bush MIGHT have done, even though he never actually DID such an interesting topic for you?