Who's watching over who's watching over you?

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

:music: It's Chatty Cathie, it's Chatty Cathie :music:

Is that supposed to mean something, or are you just another Bushwhacko sycophant blowing yet more smoke because you can't deny, let alone disprove, that your EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang committed the crimes I've listed? :roll:

Are you having fun, yet? Are you opposed to the Constitution and the rule of law? :Q

And thanks for bumping the thread and keeping this very important topic on the first page of the forum. :thumbsup: 😎

:music: It's Chatty Cathie, it's Chatty Cathie :music:

I can play that game. Post the same jackass remark, and I can post the same reply. :laugh:

Is that supposed to mean something, or are you just another Bushwhacko sycophant blowing yet more smoke because you can't deny, let alone disprove, that your EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang committed the crimes I've listed? :roll:

Are you having fun, yet? Are you opposed to the Constitution and the rule of law? :Q[/quote]

Open question to all reading this thread: Please post if Harvey has changed your perspective on this topic 🙂

Open answer to all reading this thread - If you didn't know the extent to which the Bushwhackos shredded your rights with their illegal domestic spying before reading the information in my OP, and you still think they should skate for their crimes, you don't deserve the rights you have.

That won't stop me from posting about it. I won't let them or their chickenshit ass licking sycophants take my rights from me.

Oh, and PS: the way our constitution and legal system works, you don't disprove crimes 🙂 Guess you missed that part.

No, but I guess you're too reading challenged to understand what I wrote. Your EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers have committed horrific crimes, violations of Federal law, our Constitution and international law, and I listed specific acts and statements comprising these crimes supported by links and statutory references.

This isn't a court of law, and I already said I'm not the prosecutor who can pursue them for their crimes or the judge or jury who can find them guilty. I've simply posted the facts and my own conclusions.

This is a discussion forum. Simply denying the facts and evidence I posted won't won't make your point or negate any of those facts. If you believe the Bushwhackos have not committed any of the crimes I listed, either post what you have to support your views, or STFU and save bandwidth.

And thanks for bumping the thread and keeping this very important topic on the first page of the forum. :thumbsup: 😎

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Lemon law

We do not even know a 1/4 of what GWB&co were up to yet.

Liberal logic is confusing but fun. If you don't know the sum, how could you possibly know what fraction of the sum you think you know? But you just know that evil Bush was up to something bad, you just do!!!!!!

Dense, irrelevant and mathmatically challenged grows the Corn. Ignoring, for the moment, that Lemon law's statement was more a vernacular expression than an arithmetic declaration, all he said was that we know some unspecified amount that is 1/4 or less of some unspecified total number of crimes.

In other words, as usual, your sycophantic Bushwhacko math and your piss poor your sycophantic Bushwhacko logic = EPIC FAIL!... just like your EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang. :thumbsdown:

 

[DealMonkey]

Hey, just for the record, I'm rather enjoying this ongoing discussion we've been having with Dave Schroeder. He and I clearly don't agree on several things, but isn't that the entire point of P&N? If we all agreed, we'd hardly have anything to talk about.

 

[Corn]

And yet another day passes where your Messiah fails to hold Bush accountable for his crimes. This must be pure agony for you Harvey, isn't it? One could almost make the argument that you are being tortured by Obama. I think we should prosecute!

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse
-snip-

Uhmmm.... palehorse, you know that's completely wrong?

The only court ever to rule on the merits of the case (not standing), ruled specifically that the president's violations of FISA were unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the separation of powers doctrine, and... well... that they violated FISA. (see ACLU v. NSA)

This case was later dismissed because a higher court ruled that the plaintiffs did not in fact have standing, but your contention that no court in the land has ever judged them outside of the powers granted to the president is completely wrong. The one and only ruling on the case based on the actual factual merits utterly decimated the executive's claim in about the strongest language possible.

Me thinks you overstate the case.

From Wiki:

On August 17, 2006, District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor granted summary judgement for the plaintiffs, ruling that the TSP specifically involving "international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizations" within the United States of America, was unconstitutional and illegal,..

One lower court judge?

In a summary judgement?

International communication are protected by the 4th etc? (Not US citizens etc, but foreigners?)

And:

According to The New York Times, several legal experts, including some who agreed with its conclusion, said the decision "overlooked important precedents, failed to engage the government?s major arguments, used circular reasoning, substituted passion for analysis and did not even offer the best reasons for its own conclusions."

Still others, such as Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe, took an intermediate position:

? Judge Taylor's [opinion is an] unusually casual and surprisingly breezy way of dispatching the Bush administration's legal defense of its NSA warrantless surveillance program.... It's altogether too easy to make disparaging remarks about the quality of the Taylor opinion, which seems almost to have been written more to poke a finger in the President's eye than to please the legal commentariat or even, alas, to impress an appellate panel, although I certainly agree with the many who predict that, while her reasoning is bound not to be embraced, her bottom line is very likely to survive appellate review.

The case/ruling was incredibly lame, even for a lower court.

Fern

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey
It's nice to know you agree with my underlying premise that the Bushwhackos' actions violated our Constitutional rights. It remains to be seen whether they will be prosecuted. It will depend on exactly what evidence comes out as the Bushwhackos' dirty secrets are unearthed and whether they prove actual acts that constitute crimes.

The lack of support for prosecution is clear enough: there isnt sufficient evidence. Obviously they havent read your copy/paste eh? I'd like to know what qualifies YOU to know more about the law than those who enforce it? Seriously. If the list is as long as your cut/paste, it should be a slam dunk case, no? How do you explain the lack of prosecution if it's as black and white as you seem to think?

Let me answer that for you. Because you really dont know the law, and youre wishful thinking. Why do you think all the impeachment articles brought up against Cheney et al all died in commitee? You think its because even Bush fooled the Democrats? How do you explain their lack of enthusiasm or action?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse
-snip-

Uhmmm.... palehorse, you know that's completely wrong?

The only court ever to rule on the merits of the case (not standing), ruled specifically that the president's violations of FISA were unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the separation of powers doctrine, and... well... that they violated FISA. (see ACLU v. NSA)

This case was later dismissed because a higher court ruled that the plaintiffs did not in fact have standing, but your contention that no court in the land has ever judged them outside of the powers granted to the president is completely wrong. The one and only ruling on the case based on the actual factual merits utterly decimated the executive's claim in about the strongest language possible.

Me thinks you overstate the case.

From Wiki:

On August 17, 2006, District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor granted summary judgement for the plaintiffs, ruling that the TSP specifically involving "international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizations" within the United States of America, was unconstitutional and illegal,..

One lower court judge?

In a summary judgement?

International communication are protected by the 4th etc? (Not US citizens etc, but foreigners?)

And:

According to The New York Times, several legal experts, including some who agreed with its conclusion, said the decision "overlooked important precedents, failed to engage the government?s major arguments, used circular reasoning, substituted passion for analysis and did not even offer the best reasons for its own conclusions."

Still others, such as Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe, took an intermediate position:

? Judge Taylor's [opinion is an] unusually casual and surprisingly breezy way of dispatching the Bush administration's legal defense of its NSA warrantless surveillance program.... It's altogether too easy to make disparaging remarks about the quality of the Taylor opinion, which seems almost to have been written more to poke a finger in the President's eye than to please the legal commentariat or even, alas, to impress an appellate panel, although I certainly agree with the many who predict that, while her reasoning is bound not to be embraced, her bottom line is very likely to survive appellate review.

The case/ruling was incredibly lame, even for a lower court.

Fern

Good comeback Fern, "the decision was lame". 'Failed to engage the government's arguments'? The government chose not to argue anything beyond standing. So, what arguments did the judge 'fail to engage'? It has never been overturned on the merits, only on standing. That is, unless 'lame' judgments don't count now?

Anyways, regardless of how 'lame' you think the court's judgment was, it was and is the only court to have ruled on the merits of the case, and the result was an overwhelming ruling against the executive. Palehorse said no court has ruled on this, and he was wrong.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Good comeback Fern, "the decision was lame". 'Failed to engage the government's arguments'? The government chose not to argue anything beyond standing. So, what arguments did the judge 'fail to engage'? It has never been overturned on the merits, only on standing. That is, unless 'lame' judgments don't count now?

Anyways, regardless of how 'lame' you think the court's judgment was, it was and is the only court to have ruled on the merits of the case, and the result was an overwhelming ruling against the executive. Palehorse said no court has ruled on this, and he was wrong.

1. The government did raise issues other than standing - the State's Secret Doctrine for one. (I don't have access to the respondent's/defendnat's brief or oral arguement, The Doctrine I mention above is in the beginning of the judge's ruling). BTW: "Standing" is a compnent of "merit".

2. Since this was the 1st court (not Appeals) it has some obligation to address all relevant law, this was only done in a cavalier manner as noted by many others. Lawrence Tribe is certainly no Conservative.

3. An Appeals court only need a basis for overturning, delving into issues becomes moot at that point and isn't, therefore, often done.

4. Yes, you are right that there was one case ruling on the legality of the TSP, but it's been vacated and technically is as good as non-existent.

5. OTOH, I think he's right that we'll likely never know. The program was terminated, and other courts (including the 9th) have upheld the State's Secret Doctrine so IMO unlikely to be fully litigated.

So, to say the TSP is either "legal" or "illegal" at this point is just a personal opinion; and will remain so until we have a case that stands.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Good comeback Fern, "the decision was lame". 'Failed to engage the government's arguments'? The government chose not to argue anything beyond standing. So, what arguments did the judge 'fail to engage'? It has never been overturned on the merits, only on standing. That is, unless 'lame' judgments don't count now?

Anyways, regardless of how 'lame' you think the court's judgment was, it was and is the only court to have ruled on the merits of the case, and the result was an overwhelming ruling against the executive. Palehorse said no court has ruled on this, and he was wrong.

1. The government did raise issues other than standing - the State's Secret Doctrine for one. (I don't have access to the respondent's/defendnat's brief or oral arguement, The Doctrine I mention above is in the beginning of the judge's ruling). BTW: "Standing" is a compnent of "merit".

2. Since this was the 1st court (not Appeals) it has some obligation to address all relevant law, this was only done in a cavalier manner as noted by many others. Lawrence Tribe is certainly no Conservative.

3. An Appeals court only need a basis for overturning, delving into issues becomes moot at that point and isn't, therefore, often done.

4. Yes, you are right that there was one case ruling on the legality of the TSP, but it's been vacated and technically is as good as non-existent.

5. OTOH, I think he's right that we'll likely never know. The program was terminated, and other courts (including the 9th) have upheld the State's Secret Doctrine so IMO unlikely to be fully litigated.

So, to say the TSP is either "legal" or "illegal" at this point is just a personal opinion; and will remain so until we have a case that stands.

Fern

1.) The state secrets doctrine was raised in order to prevent the plaintiffs from having standing, the government did not provide arguments beyond standing. Standing is only a component of merit insofar that they can bring the case. It has no application as to whether or not the law has been violated.

2.) So what if they were a conservative or not? Why would that possibly matter as to the merit of a judge's opinion? Wait, let me guess. If a judge is left leaning than their opinion is politically motivated/judicial activism. If they are right leaning then it's ok.

3.) So what? It wasn't done.

4.) Yes it was overturned, but my point never had anything to do with whether or not it was overturned, hell I even mentioned it in my first post on the subject.

5.) So what? The one court that did rule on the facts ruled decisively against the government's position.

"It's just personal opinion" is a frequent dodge I hear. The overwhelming majority of legal analysis of the TSP that I have read. The OVERWHELMING majority have concluded that it was almost certainly illegal. So while we cannot say with certainty it was illegal, we can say it was very likely illegal. Throwing your arms up and saying 'well, I guess we just can't know!' is just a way to try and salvage a tie.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corn

And yet another day passes where your Messiah fails to hold Bush accountable for his crimes. This must be pure agony for you Harvey, isn't it? One could almost make the argument that you are being tortured by Obama. I think we should prosecute!

Sorry, I don't have a messiah, and I'm willing to allow reasonable time for the DOJ to develop a strong case against your Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang, but I'm really glad you're anxious for it to happen.

It's about time you figured it out and joined the growing chorus of Americans who respect the Constitution and the rule of law by demanding justice for their horrific crimes. :thumbsup:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

1.) The state secrets doctrine was raised in order to prevent the plaintiffs from having standing, the government did not provide arguments beyond standing. Standing is only a component of merit insofar that they can bring the case. It has no application as to whether or not the law has been violated.
Oddly, other courts that have ruled on this issue of State's Secrets (even the 9th IIRC) have disagreed with this judge's opinion. I haven't found that anything she did rule on this case similarly uphelp elsewhere. Lane ruling.

2.) So what if they were a conservative or not? Why would that possibly matter as to the merit of a judge's opinion? Wait, let me guess. If a judge is left leaning than their opinion is politically motivated/judicial activism. If they are right leaning then it's ok.
The critism of her ruling was made by liberal legal scholars inclined to agree with her result, but not her 'ruling'. They widely dismissed it. I.e., their critisms are not based on righty bias against her. The ruling is lame.


3.) So what? It wasn't done.
Neither was any of it upheld. It was vacated

4.) Yes it was overturned, but my point never had anything to do with whether or not it was overturned, hell I even mentioned it in my first post on the subject.

5.) So what? The one court that did rule on the facts ruled decisively against the government's position.
So what? I think he's right (we'll likely never know). And the case was vacated, legally it doesn't exist

"It's just personal opinion" is a frequent dodge I hear. The overwhelming majority of legal analysis of the TSP that I have read. The OVERWHELMING majority have concluded that it was almost certainly illegal. So while we cannot say with certainty it was illegal, we can say it was very likely illegal. Throwing your arms up and saying 'well, I guess we just can't know!' is just a way to try and salvage a tie.
There is no "tie", there is only unknown and personal opinion.

We'd only have a "tie" if two Appeals courts ruled differently. Then it'd be up to the SCOTUS to resolve it.

See bolded

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Of course nothing she ruled was similarly upheld elsewhere, it's the only ruling on the subject.

If a court finds lack of standing it doesn't rule on the rest of the case. You are attempting to say that since the appeals court didn't rule one way or the other that it's all somehow equal. Another attempt to salvage a tie.

We're just going in circles now, you're free to believe whatever you want. You are attempting to create a false equivalence however, and I think you know it.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Uhmmm.... palehorse, you know that's completely wrong?

The only court ever to rule on the merits of the case (not standing), ruled specifically that the president's violations of FISA were unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the separation of powers doctrine, and... well... that they violated FISA. (see ACLU v. NSA)

This case was later dismissed because a higher court ruled that the plaintiffs did not in fact have standing, but your contention that no court in the land has ever judged them outside of the powers granted to the president is completely wrong. The one and only ruling on the case based on the actual factual merits utterly decimated the executive's claim in about the strongest language possible.

I've made bold the important part for you.

thanks for playing...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Harvey
I believe daveschroeder is a well educated, literate partisan hack with his own agenda that isn't completely supported by the facts. I say that because a lot of what he has posted are the same kinds of denials, distractions, diversions and strawman arguments others have posted for years before he showed up. He just writes better.

Dude... Dave is the first poster, in many years, to completely own a debate using facts, and only facts. In his posts, we did not witness the partisanship or emotion that is present in nearly every other post in this forum, including yours.

Dave makes you nervous because he's smart and because he knows more about this subject than anyone else on this forum.

So you attacked his character... ad hominem... lame.

Bro... listen to me... you are absolutely out of your league on this topic. Realize that... or not... either way, you're still wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Uhmmm.... palehorse, you know that's completely wrong?

The only court ever to rule on the merits of the case (not standing), ruled specifically that the president's violations of FISA were unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the separation of powers doctrine, and... well... that they violated FISA. (see ACLU v. NSA)

This case was later dismissed because a higher court ruled that the plaintiffs did not in fact have standing, but your contention that no court in the land has ever judged them outside of the powers granted to the president is completely wrong. The one and only ruling on the case based on the actual factual merits utterly decimated the executive's claim in about the strongest language possible.

I've made bold the important part for you.

thanks for playing...

You said no court had ruled on it, you were factually incorrect.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

:music: It's Chatty Cathie, it's Chatty Cathie :music:

Is that supposed to mean something, or are you just another Bushwhacko sycophant blowing yet more smoke because you can't deny, let alone disprove, that your EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang committed the crimes I've listed? :roll:

Are you having fun, yet? Are you opposed to the Constitution and the rule of law? :Q

And thanks for bumping the thread and keeping this very important topic on the first page of the forum. :thumbsup: 😎

:music: It's Chatty Cathie, it's Chatty Cathie :music:

Open question to all reading this thread: Please post if Harvey has changed your perspective on this topic 🙂

Oh, and PS: the way our constitution and legal system works, you don't disprove crimes 🙂 Guess you missed that part.

Since you ignored the bolded part.

Oh, and in the last day or so, the count of people who said you've changed perspective is at a grand total of ZERO 🙂

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Dude... Dave is the first poster, in many years, to completely own a debate using facts, and only facts. In his posts, we did not witness the partisanship or emotion that is present in nearly every other post in this forum, including yours.

Dave makes you nervous because he's smart and because he knows more about this subject than anyone else on this forum.

So you attacked his character... ad hominem... lame.

Bro... listen to me... you are absolutely out of your league on this topic. Realize that... or not... either way, you're still wrong.

Hardly... Bro. Most of what daveschroeder has posted essentially recaps the same lame, failed arguments other Bushwhacko supporters have been posting all along. He has better command of the language and the arguments, but it doesn't make those arugments anymore valid.

There may, in fact, be reasons why the Bushwhackos can't be prosecuted successfully. That doesn't make what they did ethical, moral or even legal. AFIC, anyone who works that hard to skewer logic and ethics to that extent to defend their indefensible betrayal of the law and the American people is as much a traitor as they are. :thumbsdown:

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Harvey
I believe daveschroeder is a well educated, literate partisan hack....

So, the difference between Mr. Schroeder and yourself is that he's well educated. No suprise there.

If you're going to try to insult me, you might want to try doing so on subjects other than those about which you are completely ignorant. :laugh:

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: alchemize

Oh, and PS: the way our constitution and legal system works, you don't disprove crimes 🙂

Guess you missed that part.

Since you ignored the bolded part.

No, I didn't miss it. I replied to it the first time, but since you're still as reading challenged as the last time, what I said was:

No, but I guess you're too reading challenged to understand what I wrote. Your EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers have committed horrific crimes, violations of Federal law, our Constitution and international law, and I listed specific acts and statements comprising these crimes supported by links and statutory references.

This isn't a court of law, and I already said I'm not the prosecutor who can pursue them for their crimes or the judge or jury who can find them guilty. I've simply posted the facts and my own conclusions.

This is a discussion forum. Simply denying the facts and evidence I posted won't won't make your point or negate any of those facts. If you believe the Bushwhackos have not committed any of the crimes I listed, either post what you have to support your views, or STFU and save bandwidth.

In other words, for the purpose of discussion, I can assert their guilt and support my assertions with whatever evidence I care to provide. You are free to accept or reject my premise, but, for the purpose of discussion, if the best you can manage is denial, distraction or diversion, you fail.

And thanks again for bumping the thread and keeping this very important topic on the first page of the forum. :thumbsup: 😎

Oh, and in the last day or so, the count of people who said you've changed perspective is at a grand total of ZERO 🙂

Don't bet on it. I KNOW you don't know everyone in the world or even everyone I know, personally. You're just counting the wrong people. 😎

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Harvey
There may, in fact, be reasons why the Bushwhackos can't be prosecuted successfully.

You mean like the complete lack of evidence any crime was committed?

Originally posted by: Harvey
Don't bet on it. I KNOW you don't know everyone in the world or even everyone I know, personally. You're just counting the wrong people. 😎

Most likely people will tell you what you want to hear just to help facilitate you shutting the hell up. I bet you're a riot at parties.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corn

Most likely people will tell you what you want to hear just to help facilitate you shutting the hell up.

Most likely, you'll deny anything you don't want to hear because the truth. You STILL haven't posted anything that would disprove the fact that your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal have committed monstrous crimes against our nation, our people and the world.

I bet you're a riot at parties.

You'll never know. I wouldn't want to be at any party that would consider someone like you to be acceptable company. 😎

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: palehorse

Dude... Dave is the first poster, in many years, to completely own a debate using facts, and only facts. In his posts, we did not witness the partisanship or emotion that is present in nearly every other post in this forum, including yours.

Dave makes you nervous because he's smart and because he knows more about this subject than anyone else on this forum.

So you attacked his character... ad hominem... lame.

Bro... listen to me... you are absolutely out of your league on this topic. Realize that... or not... either way, you're still wrong.

Hardly... Bro. Most of what daveschroeder has posted essentially recaps the same lame, failed arguments other Bushwhacko supporters have been posting all along. He has better command of the language and the arguments, but it doesn't make those arugments anymore valid.

There may, in fact, be reasons why the Bushwhackos can't be prosecuted successfully. That doesn't make what they did ethical, moral or even legal. AFIC, anyone who works that hard to skewer logic and ethics to that extent to defend their indefensible betrayal of the law and the American people is as much a traitor as they are. :thumbsdown:

I simply disagree. Dave did not once, in any of his posts, make any attempt to justify or excuse Bush's actions. Instead, he merely laid out the logic and reasoning behind the events in question. He articulately described the background and context of the various NSA programs, the reasoning behind their use, and the essential legal aspects that make the situation "gray," in terms of legality.

I think you either misread his posts, or you read into them based on the preconceived notion that anyone who stops short of calling Bush a traitor must be arguing against you, or they must be taking the opposite side in the debate. However, that was not the case here.

The truth is, Dave did not take a side in this debate -- not even once. Everything he wrote was factual, and everything he wrote was right on the money.

 

[Lemon law]

GWB&co have four totally independent worries.

1. They have to worry that domestic US courts will prosecute their sad and sorry asse4s.

2. They have to worry that various countries in the world will seek to prosecute their sad and sorry asses for crimes committed against their citizens.

3. They have to worry that various international entities like the Hague will seek to prosecute their sad and sorry asses.

4. And if case #2 or # 3 come to pass, given what we are likely to learn in the near future, why should anyone in the USA lift a finger to prevent the extradition of their sad and sorry asses, thus sparing the USA from being the ones to punish them as they claim Presidential immunity.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Corn

Most likely people will tell you what you want to hear just to help facilitate you shutting the hell up.

Most likely, you'll deny anything you don't want to hear because the truth. You STILL haven't posted anything that would disprove the fact that your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal have committed monstrous crimes against our nation, our people and the world.

....and yet another day passes with nary a Bush prosecution, much less a conviction. Why should I have to prove Bush's innocense when he's not even facing prosecution for the ridiculous crimes you claim he's committed? Don't hate on me, aim that anger where it should be focused: At the Obamessiah!

 

[Ozoned]

Harvey is watching over who's watching over me, or at least who was watching over me. He has got his eye on the ball, and I am just certain now that any minute, we'll see that slam dunk that we have been hearing about for,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 6 years.


Who's watching over who's watching over me now? Wasn't that the premise, or doesn't that really matter now?

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Harvey is watching over who's watching over me, or at least who was watching over me. He has got his eye on the ball, and I am just certain now that any minute, we'll see that slam dunk that we have been hearing about for,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 6 years.


Who's watching over who's watching over me now? Wasn't that the premise, or doesn't that really matter now?

Odd how it takes only slightly more than a month for the unanimous impeachment Blagojevich for trying to sell a senate seat, but Bush survives more than 6 years after allegedly committing treason and murder and there doesn't even seem to be the slightest indication of a move to prosecute by anyone with any authority to actually prosecute them. Oh sure, a few partisan morons talk up a good game, but as Harveybot clearly proves time and time again, talk is cheap.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corn

Odd how it takes only slightly more than a month for the unanimous impeachment Blagojevich for trying to sell a senate seat, but Bush survives more than 6 years after allegedly committing treason and murder and there doesn't even seem to be the slightest indication of a move to prosecute by anyone with any authority to actually prosecute them. Oh sure, a few partisan morons talk up a good game, but as Harveybot clearly proves time and time again, talk is cheap.

Odd how you can't post even one link that disproves that George W. Bush and his criminal cabal didn't commit any of the heinous crimes I listed. All you can do is try to divert attention away from their crimes by pointing at Blago.

Never mind that the entire set of circumstances surrounding their crimes that precluded their prosecution until after they were out of office.

Never mind that they populated the Department of Justice that would prosecute their crimes with their own cronies.

Never mind that they abused the power of their office to conceal the truth about their crimes from the American people and Congress.

In fact, don't even bother replying in this thread anymore. It won't change anything. What will be will be, and if there's any justice in this nation, I'll have a great time LMFAO at you and your ridiculous attempts to deny their guilt without being able to post a single item that dispoves any of their crimes. 😎

And if they are never prosecuted, I'll know that everything I was taught about our Constitution, our system of laws and every principle for which our people have fought and died to preserve are all fictions, and the world belongs to tyrannical shits like you and your EX-Traitor in Chief. 🙁

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Odd how you can't post even one link that disproves that George W. Bush and his criminal cabal didn't commit any of the heinous crimes I listed.

I do believe I already answered that for you:

Originally posted by: Corn
....and yet another day passes with nary a Bush prosecution, much less a conviction. Why should I have to prove Bush's innocense when he's not even facing prosecution for the ridiculous crimes you claim he's committed? Don't hate on me, aim that anger where it should be focused: At the Obamessiah!

....and yes Harveybot, the world *is* mine. You can either come to accept that, or be food.