Bush has heart surgery, libs tweet get well messages

[IlarMeilyr]

The Republicans had no hand in the crafting of the Patriot Act? NDAA 2012? DOMA (making marriage a Federal issue)?

What about prohibiting adults from smoking harmless plants (ie non-toxic, cannot overdose on) such as marijuana in the privacy of their own homes?

If not Authoritarian, then what are they exactly?

Come on Meilyr, lets get real here.

.

The Republicans AND the Dims had their hands in the creation of the USA PATRIOT Act. So? That's not a hallmark of "authoritarian," despite the fact that YOU don't like it.

The NDAA was, in effect, also just a budget bill (or a piss poor substitute for the passing of a real budget. But that's another discussion). Even piss poor substitutes for a budget don't qualify as "authoritarian."

The GOP CERTAINLY had a hand in DOMA. That might qualify as poor legislation and poor thinking, although it has some things that were legitimate, arguably. Whatever else it was, it was not "authoritarian." Also, since you appear to be actually concerned with certain non-budget provisions in that "act," a determination NOT to scuttle the military detention provisions of prior law is also not an "authoritarian" action by Congress. It is again just something YOU happen not to like.

Words have meaning. As you use the term "authoritarian," the meaning evaporates.


{By the way: notice that "period" at the end of the final sentence? . It's subtle, but it's there. If the final sentence really IS a final sentence, there is no need for adding a few extra blank lines and inserting yet another random "period."}


.




;




,



.

Maybe it would be helpful if you defined Authoritarianism, in your own words.

With regards to NDAA, I was referring to the provision that allows indefinite detention of US citizens without trial if they suspected of aiding al-qaeda (should have been more specific). That's not Authoritarian?

The Patriot Act, and all of its freedom reducing measures (ie creation of the TSA, DHS) isn't Authoritarian in the least either?

Gov't telling its citizens that it can't smoke a plant you can't overdose on (and is given to cancer patients) because "it's not good for you" isn't Authoritarian?

I suppose it would help if YOU would use the term accurately. And since YOU employed it, why don't you also accept the burden of offering a proper definition for it?

,

 

[KevinWestern]

The Republicans AND the Dims had their hands in the creation of the USA PATRIOT Act. So? That's not a hallmark of "authoritarian," despite the fact that YOU don't like it.

The NDAA was, in effect, also just a budget bill (or a piss poor substitute for the passing of a real budget. But that's another discussion). Even piss poor substitutes for a budget don't qualify as "authoritarian."

The GOP CERTAINLY had a hand in DOMA. That might qualify as poor legislation and poor thinking, although it has some things that were legitimate, arguably. Whatever else it was, it was not "authoritarian." Also, since you appear to be actually concerned with certain non-budget provisions in that "act," a determination NOT to scuttle the military detention provisions of prior law is also not an "authoritarian" action by Congress. It is again just something YOU happen not to like.

Words have meaning. As you use the term "authoritarian," the meaning evaporates.


{By the way: notice that "period" at the end of the final sentence? . It's subtle, but it's there. If the final sentence really IS a final sentence, there is no need for adding a few extra blank lines and inserting yet another random "period."}


.




;




,



.

Maybe it would be helpful if you defined Authoritarianism, in your own words.

With regards to NDAA, I was referring to the provision that allows indefinite detention of US citizens without trial if they suspected of aiding al-qaeda (should have been more specific). That's not Authoritarian?

The Patriot Act, and all of its freedom reducing measures (ie creation of the TSA, DHS) isn't Authoritarian in the least either?

Gov't telling its citizens that it can't smoke a plant you can't overdose on (and is given to cancer patients) because "it's not good for you" isn't Authoritarian?

I suppose it would help if YOU would use the term accurately. And since YOU employed it, why don't you also accept the burden of offering a proper definition for it?

,

On phone (so can't get too involved) but here's one definition:

'Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority and thus usually opposed to individualism, liberalism, democracy, libertarianism and anarchism'

Generally when I'm saying the word "Authoritarianism", I'm speaking of a gov't that uses excessive, centralized controls and rules to restrict the freedoms of the population at hand. It's public submission to an all powerful central gov't - the "authority".

You believe that a Washington Bureaucrat telling a farmer 2,000 miles away that he can't smoke or grow marijuana - a non-toxic plant that does zero harm to the environment, etc - isn't a form of Authoritarianism?

Was is that exactly then?

You don't believe a Washington Bureaucrat telling an airport manager in Arizona that he must subject all of his patrons to invasive screenings if he wants to operate a form of Authoritarianism?

What about the Federal Gov't being able to arrest you and detain you indefinitely - without trial - if a small centralized group of individuals within the executive branch deem you a terrorist threat? Your State and Local Authorities will have no say in the manner. How would you define that sort of policy?




.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

* * * *

. . . here's one definition:

'Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority and thus usually opposed to individualism, liberalism, democracy, libertarianism and anarchism'

Generally when I'm saying the word "Authoritarianism", I'm speaking of a gov't that uses excessive, centralized controls and rules to restrict the freedoms of the population at hand. It's public submission to an all powerful central gov't - the "authority".

You believe that a Washington Bureaucrat telling a farmer 2,000 miles away that he can't smoke or grow marijuana - a non-toxic plant that does zero harm to the environment, etc - isn't a form of Authoritarianism?

Was is that exactly then?

You don't believe a Washington Bureaucrat telling an airport manager in Arizona that he must subject all of his patrons to invasive screenings if he wants to operate a form of Authoritarianism?

What about the Federal Gov't being able to arrest you and detain you indefinitely - without trial - if a small centralized group of individuals within the executive branch deem you a terrorist threat? Your State and Local Authorities will have no say in the manner. How would you define that sort of policy?




.

YOUR cited definition takes OUT of the equation all laws that are NOT excessive, and/or NOT centralized controls and it ALSO EXCLUDES all rules that do NOT SERVE TO restrict the freedoms of a given population.

One of the problems, then, with your casual and breezy use of the term is that it requires that many of your assumptions and presuppositions be unpacked.

You are not required to believe that a Federal law prohibiting the growing of pot is fair or wise. But that doesn't make it "authoritarian." I mean, it is not "excessive" just because YOU happen to disagree with it. The growing of pot is not a "freedom" that a member of the given population (part of our civil society) necessarily enjoys or has any valid claim to enjoying. It is an act (farming) of a particular crop (pot) that YOU say should be unregulated at all (at least by the Federal/central government). But it remains an act and it is an act that is the subject of a "law" passed by the representatives of the people and approved by a President.

Even if you maintain that it is an invalid law (going beyond the authority of the limitations on the scope of legislative power, imposed by the Constitution) that does not make it "authoritarian" by YOUR cited definition. It just makes it a ripe target for adjudication.

And as for your FAUX question:

What about the Federal Gov't being able to arrest you and detain you indefinitely - without trial - if a small centralized group of individuals within the executive branch deem you a terrorist threat?

I have to chortle. FIRST you'd be OBLIGATED to show that there is any such law.

Your problem is that there is NO such law.

The non-existent "law" is not authoritarian since it is merely fictional. If it were real, then sure. If it existed, then it would be "authoritarian," by your cited definition. As things stand, though, that "example" is sophistry and quite irrelevant.


;



;


.


,

 

[Dot Com]

Click this link: Andrew Breitbart Unleashes A Torrent Of Invective Against Sen. Ted Kennedy's Legacy On Twitter | ThinkProgress

Scroll to the end of the article.

It says Update: Megan Carpentier has rounded up other conservative Twitter attacks on Kennedy.

Unfortunately, the page has been moved or purged.

I could look and find more tweets. Wingnuts are a mean bunch. But you'll just find something to criticize about those, so I won't waste my time.

I've proven my point.

No. You have no point. You remain pointless.

You lolberals are mean-spirited dishonest pussies.

That much IS clear.

 

[birddog]

Why does anyone in their right mind care about the health of POS like George Bush? This is not a partisan question.

What did the man ever do to you?

The bigger questions is the number of crimes he and his family have perpetrated over the years for big business and the military industrial complex but if you want to rally around dog shit then that is your choice.

Of course, with that definition, all recent presidents qualify as dog shit. As you know, I did not support putting ground troops in Iraq, but Dubya was acting on poor advice which was wrong. Dubya at least seemed presidential and patriotic. The military would much prefer Bush as CIC over Obama.

Look out, Jeb may be on the way.

 

[KevinWestern]

* * * *

. . . here's one definition:

'Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority and thus usually opposed to individualism, liberalism, democracy, libertarianism and anarchism'

Generally when I'm saying the word "Authoritarianism", I'm speaking of a gov't that uses excessive, centralized controls and rules to restrict the freedoms of the population at hand. It's public submission to an all powerful central gov't - the "authority".

You believe that a Washington Bureaucrat telling a farmer 2,000 miles away that he can't smoke or grow marijuana - a non-toxic plant that does zero harm to the environment, etc - isn't a form of Authoritarianism?

Was is that exactly then?

You don't believe a Washington Bureaucrat telling an airport manager in Arizona that he must subject all of his patrons to invasive screenings if he wants to operate a form of Authoritarianism?

What about the Federal Gov't being able to arrest you and detain you indefinitely - without trial - if a small centralized group of individuals within the executive branch deem you a terrorist threat? Your State and Local Authorities will have no say in the manner. How would you define that sort of policy?




.

YOUR cited definition takes OUT of the equation all laws that are NOT excessive, and/or NOT centralized controls and it ALSO EXCLUDES all rules that do NOT SERVE TO restrict the freedoms of a given population.

One of the problems, then, with your casual and breezy use of the term is that it requires that many of your assumptions and presuppositions be unpacked.

You are not required to believe that a Federal law prohibiting the growing of pot is fair or wise. But that doesn't make it "authoritarian." I mean, it is not "excessive" just because YOU happen to disagree with it. The growing of pot is not a "freedom" that a member of the given population (part of our civil society) necessarily enjoys or has any valid claim to enjoying. It is an act (farming) of a particular crop (pot) that YOU say should be unregulated at all (at least by the Federal/central government). But it remains an act and it is an act that is the subject of a "law" passed by the representatives of the people and approved by a President.

Even if you maintain that it is an invalid law (going beyond the authority of the limitations on the scope of legislative power, imposed by the Constitution) that does not make it "authoritarian" by YOUR cited definition. It just makes it a ripe target for adjudication.

And as for your FAUX question:

What about the Federal Gov't being able to arrest you and detain you indefinitely - without trial - if a small centralized group of individuals within the executive branch deem you a terrorist threat?

I have to chortle. FIRST you'd be OBLIGATED to show that there is any such law.

Your problem is that there is NO such law.

The non-existent "law" is not authoritarian since it is merely fictional. If it were real, then sure. If it existed, then it would be "authoritarian," by your cited definition. As things stand, though, that "example" is sophistry and quite irrelevant.


;



;


.


,

On phone, will resume later.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

No. You have no point. You remain pointless.

You lolberals are mean-spirited dishonest pussies.

That much IS clear.

Synthia makes a pointless, and it gets Dottie cackling.

This Board's lolberals are very entertaining.

To watch.

 

[Katzndogz]

Vladimir Putin showed more class than American liberals.

 

[numan]

But do tell, if waterboarding were indeed a crime then why was no one was convicted for it?

That's sure easy to answer.

Because so many people in government are criminals, and complicit in crime.

.

 

[numan]

'
With any luck, they'll keep G.W. Bush alive, and he will suffer as slow and agonizing a death as his fellow mass-murderer, Franco, in Spain.

It won't begin to make up for all the murders, torture, maimings and ruined lives which that sub-human monster was involved in, but you can't have everything.

,

 

[SuMar]

?Die b*tch!?: George W. Bush?s heart surgery brings out death wishes, nastygrams | Twitchy

Stay classy libs!

Wow...Just despicable.

 

[numan]

'
What is despicable is Bush --

and the people who respect such an incarnation of satanic evil.

They are just as bad as those who went along with the Nazis.

.