Comments on: A harbinger of what will happen if the Dems take the White House again http://www.bookwormroom.com/2006/06/29/a-harbinger-of-what-will-happen-if-the-dems-take-the-white-house-again/ She escaped from the belly of the liberal beast Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:48:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: legalinfo http://www.bookwormroom.com/2006/06/29/a-harbinger-of-what-will-happen-if-the-dems-take-the-white-house-again/#comment-2042 legalinfo Tue, 22 Aug 2006 09:03:38 +0000 http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=386#comment-2042 Agreed this comes as no shock. Bush is being Bush and as long as hes president hes going to feel like the ruler of the world. Agreed this comes as no shock. Bush is being Bush and as long as hes president hes going to feel like the ruler of the world.

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://www.bookwormroom.com/2006/06/29/a-harbinger-of-what-will-happen-if-the-dems-take-the-white-house-again/#comment-2035 Ymarsakar Sat, 01 Jul 2006 23:52:16 +0000 http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=386#comment-2035 Can you just imagine if Republicans said what I said, whenever a Democrat came up with their talking points of Bush lied people died? I'm trying to remember, but I don't recall seeing any Republican or conservative on Fox News, for the past 4 years, say in response to the Bush lied argument that Bush was TOO honest. That's too bad. There are so many examples of Democrats lying in war, like FDR, that you have plenty of ammunition to conduct a little asymmetrical warfare of your own in the propaganda war against Democrats. The Democrats expect you to defend Bush's honesty, but they don't expect you to attack Bush's deception abilities. It's almost as surprising as terroists being told that 50% of their buddies at GitMo would be executed in 5 days. It's like, shock and awe, they didn't even expect that. You can't shock or awe someone when they expect it however. Can you just imagine if Republicans said what I said, whenever a Democrat came up with their talking points of Bush lied people died? I’m trying to remember, but I don’t recall seeing any Republican or conservative on Fox News, for the past 4 years, say in response to the Bush lied argument that Bush was TOO honest.

That’s too bad. There are so many examples of Democrats lying in war, like FDR, that you have plenty of ammunition to conduct a little asymmetrical warfare of your own in the propaganda war against Democrats. The Democrats expect you to defend Bush’s honesty, but they don’t expect you to attack Bush’s deception abilities. It’s almost as surprising as terroists being told that 50% of their buddies at GitMo would be executed in 5 days. It’s like, shock and awe, they didn’t even expect that. You can’t shock or awe someone when they expect it however.

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://www.bookwormroom.com/2006/06/29/a-harbinger-of-what-will-happen-if-the-dems-take-the-white-house-again/#comment-2030 Ymarsakar Sat, 01 Jul 2006 23:38:55 +0000 http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=386#comment-2030 He may not be able to do it directly, but what you cannot do by brute force you can do via subtlety and subversion. By shutting down the NYTime's ability to cover White House and Executive branch business, through burning the TIme's sources, Bush can indirectly take away the NYTime's ability to lead the print journalism business in terms of government news or any other type of news for that matter. (what pisses these conglomerates off is when you give exclusives to small town publishers, like the Dick Cheney Hunting incident) When the NYT's peers and competitors see blood in the water, they will do your job for you. If you want an example of subtlety and subversion, take a look at Plamegate. A little no-man like W could cause that much fuss, with his wife. You think the President of the United States has trouble equaling that kind of influence? We see no evidence of it now, not because the President does not have the power, but because he chooses not to use it. Sure, some things can't be done directly, but a lot of things that can't be done directly can be done indirectly. Plame couldn't discredit the Bush Admin based upon the evidence, so she sent her husband to fabricate an incident. "fabricate" meaning, using subversive and subtle methods that is designed to use the opponent's weight against them. This administration lacks a lot of guile and knowledge in the subversive tool kit of skills. There could not be a greater degree of difference between me and the Left. The Left believes the Bush Admin mislead them and isn't being honest with America. I'm of the opinion that Bush has been too honest, and has not used enough deception. He may not be able to do it directly, but what you cannot do by brute force you can do via subtlety and subversion.

By shutting down the NYTime’s ability to cover White House and Executive branch business, through burning the TIme’s sources, Bush can indirectly take away the NYTime’s ability to lead the print journalism business in terms of government news or any other type of news for that matter. (what pisses these conglomerates off is when you give exclusives to small town publishers, like the Dick Cheney Hunting incident) When the NYT’s peers and competitors see blood in the water, they will do your job for you.

If you want an example of subtlety and subversion, take a look at Plamegate. A little no-man like W could cause that much fuss, with his wife. You think the President of the United States has trouble equaling that kind of influence? We see no evidence of it now, not because the President does not have the power, but because he chooses not to use it. Sure, some things can’t be done directly, but a lot of things that can’t be done directly can be done indirectly. Plame couldn’t discredit the Bush Admin based upon the evidence, so she sent her husband to fabricate an incident. “fabricate” meaning, using subversive and subtle methods that is designed to use the opponent’s weight against them. This administration lacks a lot of guile and knowledge in the subversive tool kit of skills.

There could not be a greater degree of difference between me and the Left. The Left believes the Bush Admin mislead them and isn’t being honest with America. I’m of the opinion that Bush has been too honest, and has not used enough deception.

]]> By: mamapajamas http://www.bookwormroom.com/2006/06/29/a-harbinger-of-what-will-happen-if-the-dems-take-the-white-house-again/#comment-2031 mamapajamas Sat, 01 Jul 2006 22:59:36 +0000 http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=386#comment-2031 re: "Bush should ignore this decision, like he should have pulled the NYTime’s press credentials." Bush doesn't have the power to pull the NYTimes' press creds. He can only take away their White House press passes. Press creds aren't under government authority. Although I believe that he SHOULD pull the NYTimes' White House passes ;). re: “Bush should ignore this decision, like he should have pulled the NYTime’s press credentials.”

Bush doesn’t have the power to pull the NYTimes’ press creds. He can only take away their White House press passes. Press creds aren’t under government authority.

Although I believe that he SHOULD pull the NYTimes’ White House passes ;).

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://www.bookwormroom.com/2006/06/29/a-harbinger-of-what-will-happen-if-the-dems-take-the-white-house-again/#comment-2032 Ymarsakar Sat, 01 Jul 2006 16:03:09 +0000 http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=386#comment-2032 I actually wrote a Real Blog post, rather than a collection of my thoughts and feelings that were written on the fly at various blog sites. Here http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/2006/07/so-called-moral-high-ground-life-of.html I wrote it because I got too pissed by the people defending the NYTimes and the SC decision with the argument "America must remain morally superior". Eventually I figured out the problem, after much aggravation. I actually wrote a Real Blog post, rather than a collection of my thoughts and feelings that were written on the fly at various blog sites. Here

http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/2006/07/so-called-moral-high-ground-life-of.html

I wrote it because I got too pissed by the people defending the NYTimes and the SC decision with the argument “America must remain morally superior”. Eventually I figured out the problem, after much aggravation.

]]> By: jg http://www.bookwormroom.com/2006/06/29/a-harbinger-of-what-will-happen-if-the-dems-take-the-white-house-again/#comment-2033 jg Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:27:11 +0000 http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=386#comment-2033 Powerline links to this UPI story. You may be offended. (excerpt) ACLU looks into terrorist brainscans .." suspicions that the U.S. government is using cutting-edge brain-scanning technologies on suspected terrorists." http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060630-113128-8719r Powerline links to this UPI story. You may be offended.
(excerpt)
ACLU looks into terrorist brainscans
..” suspicions that the U.S. government is using cutting-edge brain-scanning technologies on suspected terrorists.”

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060630-113128-8719r

]]> By: anna27 http://www.bookwormroom.com/2006/06/29/a-harbinger-of-what-will-happen-if-the-dems-take-the-white-house-again/#comment-2034 anna27 Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:01:44 +0000 http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=386#comment-2034 Why should they get the privileges accorded a citizen of the U.S.? They are not citizens, they are not military, they are terrorists and should be treated as such! Why should they get the privileges accorded a citizen of the U.S.? They are not citizens, they are not military, they are terrorists and should be treated as such!

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://www.bookwormroom.com/2006/06/29/a-harbinger-of-what-will-happen-if-the-dems-take-the-white-house-again/#comment-2036 Ymarsakar Fri, 30 Jun 2006 03:31:33 +0000 http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=386#comment-2036 Bush should tell the judges that they are free to enforce their decision, like Andrew Jackson did. Then Bush should tell them that if they don't review their decision, everyoen at GitMo will be subjected to the Geneva Convention treatment of pirates and illegal combat. Everyone's happy. We close GitMo, the judges get their authority, and we the people are satisfied. Ever wonder what pirates got when they got captured? Did pirates have to be caught red handed to be hung, or was the evidence all retro-active? Trying a pirate, caught by a law abiding nation, is different than a criminal trial. The people who have obstructed the military tribunal system in the first place, and have succeded in destroying it with the latest ruling by all accounts, are the people who refuse to allow the military tribunals to produce PRECEDENTS. Precedent, that is what judges and lawyers understand. They will not allow justice to be done. These people I hear on O'Reilly's show arguing for the SC decision, they want a Military Court Martial, an Article 13 if I recall right. An article 13? An article 13 for people with no serial number, no rank, false names, in civilian clothes? You might as well say that the mob has the right to the protection from the police if a rival family attacked them. Hello here, criminals operating illegal operations do NOT benefit from police protection. I see no reason to accord the same rights to a fair trial to international pirates and terroists, this totally deconstructs the rule of law and the protections of civilized warfare for uniformed soldiers. If Bush can't get his military tribunals, which is much much more fair than Murtha and the NYTime's criminal court judgements, then I suggest to Bush to discard military courts all together and stick to summary executions. Bush should tell the judges that they are free to enforce their decision, like Andrew Jackson did. Then Bush should tell them that if they don’t review their decision, everyoen at GitMo will be subjected to the Geneva Convention treatment of pirates and illegal combat.

Everyone’s happy. We close GitMo, the judges get their authority, and we the people are satisfied.

Ever wonder what pirates got when they got captured? Did pirates have to be caught red handed to be hung, or was the evidence all retro-active? Trying a pirate, caught by a law abiding nation, is different than a criminal trial.

The people who have obstructed the military tribunal system in the first place, and have succeded in destroying it with the latest ruling by all accounts, are the people who refuse to allow the military tribunals to produce PRECEDENTS. Precedent, that is what judges and lawyers understand. They will not allow justice to be done.

These people I hear on O’Reilly’s show arguing for the SC decision, they want a Military Court Martial, an Article 13 if I recall right. An article 13? An article 13 for people with no serial number, no rank, false names, in civilian clothes?

You might as well say that the mob has the right to the protection from the police if a rival family attacked them. Hello here, criminals operating illegal operations do NOT benefit from police protection. I see no reason to accord the same rights to a fair trial to international pirates and terroists, this totally deconstructs the rule of law and the protections of civilized warfare for uniformed soldiers. If Bush can’t get his military tribunals, which is much much more fair than Murtha and the NYTime’s criminal court judgements, then I suggest to Bush to discard military courts all together and stick to summary executions.

]]> By: ExPreacherMan http://www.bookwormroom.com/2006/06/29/a-harbinger-of-what-will-happen-if-the-dems-take-the-white-house-again/#comment-2037 ExPreacherMan Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:49:31 +0000 http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=386#comment-2037 Book, IF the Libs take the White House... Nooooooo! I just posted, on my Blog, a note about Barak Obama. I warn of this scenario: --- Pres. Barak Obama. Look at the preachings of his church. http://expreacherman.wordpress.com/ ExP Book,

IF the Libs take the White House… Nooooooo!

I just posted, on my Blog, a note about Barak Obama. I warn of this scenario: — Pres. Barak Obama.

Look at the preachings of his church.

http://expreacherman.wordpress.com/
ExP

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://www.bookwormroom.com/2006/06/29/a-harbinger-of-what-will-happen-if-the-dems-take-the-white-house-again/#comment-2038 Ymarsakar Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:44:54 +0000 http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=386#comment-2038 Bush should ignore this decision, like he should have pulled the NYTime's press credentials. Bush has the power, and for some reason Bush is allowing domestic enemies to borrow his power to use against him. That is unConstitutional, but until Bush realizes this and acts, nobody else will do it for him. Why? Because, unlike the domestic enemies of the US Constitution, we follow the Constitution in both written and spiritual forms. Roberts did the right thing, and it lead to the wrong decision. Remember that the next time someone says we have to give terroists the same judicial rights as we would give a soldier in a court martial. It's just another ACLU trick to get you where they can ambush you. It's a pretext, it's a pretext to destroy the Constitution by using the Constitution. You destroy someone by using their own strength against him, his own weight and speed. That is the achime of skill, not expending your own energies and becoming fatigued. Thus the Judiciary does not have its own army and courts and police to enforce their decision, they have the President's military to enforce it for them, and Bush will probably be suckered he as he was suckered by France in the UN in 2003. Bush should ignore this decision, like he should have pulled the NYTime’s press credentials. Bush has the power, and for some reason Bush is allowing domestic enemies to borrow his power to use against him. That is unConstitutional, but until Bush realizes this and acts, nobody else will do it for him. Why? Because, unlike the domestic enemies of the US Constitution, we follow the Constitution in both written and spiritual forms. Roberts did the right thing, and it lead to the wrong decision. Remember that the next time someone says we have to give terroists the same judicial rights as we would give a soldier in a court martial. It’s just another ACLU trick to get you where they can ambush you. It’s a pretext, it’s a pretext to destroy the Constitution by using the Constitution. You destroy someone by using their own strength against him, his own weight and speed. That is the achime of skill, not expending your own energies and becoming fatigued. Thus the Judiciary does not have its own army and courts and police to enforce their decision, they have the President’s military to enforce it for them, and Bush will probably be suckered he as he was suckered by France in the UN in 2003.

]]>