Daily Liberal FAIL Thread

[Bluesman]

lol, you guys have another 7 years of whining to go. we've had 10 years of Labour but we are still a country and we still can vote and conduct business. Really guys it wont be the end of the world that you think it is. Suprisingly the government doesnt have that much of effect on every day life evenin a country like the UK.

Labour isn't as goal-oriented as this bunch of madmen are. They're determined to wreck the country irretreivably, and I think they have a decent shot at it, too.

[zraver]

Bluesman,

Federal statutes prohibit the identification of covert CIA officers. Moreover, the rules governing military commissions prohibit the disclosure of classified information, including to the defendant.

This is possibly a "Good For The ACLU" moment. Federal Law be dammed, the Constitution says anyone has the right to face their accuser. If those covert agents were accusers, then the detainee has the right to know who they are and grill them to the .nth degree.

The ACLU is not all bad, not even mostly bad. They do a lot of very good work for all Americans. Do you want a government that can pass a law and deny you your rights? That is what Obama wants. Yes such a stand makes the CIA's job harder, but if we protect the rights of the most despised among us, then the rest of us also enjoy those rights. If we start making exceptions, then we are all only a law away from being an exception. Limited government means limited government, not just limited where some one has a personal stake but not limited elsewhere. That is the way liberals operate, divide and rule.

The military tribunals should be shutdown, and the detainees let go if there is even the smallest violation of their rights-period. It is better that 5000 more Americans die, possibly including myself and my family, than 300 million become subjects to and property of a government of itself, by itself and for itself.

[zraver]

Bluesman,

Federal statutes prohibit the identification of covert CIA officers. Moreover, the rules governing military commissions prohibit the disclosure of classified information, including to the defendant.

This is possibly a "Good For The ACLU" moment. Federal Law be dammed, the Constitution says anyone has the right to face their accuser. If those covert agents were accusers, then the detainee has the right to know who they are and grill them to the .nth degree.

The ACLU is not all bad, not even mostly bad. They do a lot of very good work for all Americans. Do you want a government that can pass a law and deny you your rights? That is what Obama wants. Yes such a stand makes the CIA's job harder, but if we protect the rights of the most despised among us, then the rest of us also enjoy those rights. If we start making exceptions, then we are all only a law away from being an exception. Limited government means limited government, not just limited where some one has a personal stake but not limited elsewhere. That is the way liberals operate, divide and rule.

The military tribunals should be shutdown, and the detainees let go if there is even the smallest violation of their rights-period. It is better that 5000 more Americans die, possibly including myself and my family, than 300 million become subjects to and property of a government of itself, by itself and for itself.

[Bluesman]

also im sure we could make similar posts about the bush government every day.

No, you couldn't. On their worst weeks, you couldn't have found multiple examples of what I'm talking about. But THIS crew? Anywhere from three to ten items every goddam' DAY, mate.

seriously though, why are you guys so so so angry.

Seriouswly, because they tried to kill us all, multiple times, and they haven't stopped trying. All you have to do is to look at their conduct in one area: THE WAR, and you begin to see why I'm so angry and bitter. I will NEVER forgive 'em for what they've done, and what they continue to do to their own country, their own military, in wartime. THAT is why.

Create a clear arguement and present it in a logical manner.

I've already done that. Now, I want to set 'em on fire and watch 'em burn. I loathe them to an extent that a logical argument just isn't satisfying to me. I want to - metaphorically, of course - hit them in the temple with a baseball bat. If I ever get an apology for what they've done (and I know I never will, given that none of 'em even see their own moral bankruptcy), THEN we'll talk reasonably about what they'd have to do to even be considered an American again, in any sense larger than the mere unhappy accident of where they were born.

The rest of us who are conservatives aroudn the world role our eyes when we see you conservatives shouting and balling.

Then be gone, along with the libs. Roll your eyes all you'd like, but if you can't see why I consider then vipers and worse for what they have done, what they're doing, and what they intend to do, then you're no use to me, and no conservative as I conceive the term.

[Bluesman]

Bluesman,



This is possibly a "Good For The ACLU" moment. Federal Law be dammed, the Constitution says anyone has the right to face their accuser. If those covert agents were accusers, then the detainee has the right to know who they are and grill them to the .nth degree.

The ACLU is not all bad, not even mostly bad. They do a lot of very good work for all Americans. Do you want a government that can pass a law and deny you your rights? That is what Obama wants. Yes such a stand makes the CIA's job harder, but if we protect the rights of the most despised among us, then the rest of us also enjoy those rights. If we start making exceptions, then we are all only a law away from being an exception. Limited government means limited government, not just limited where some one has a personal stake but not limited elsewhere. That is the way liberals operate, divide and rule.

The military tribunals should be shutdown, and the detainees let go if there is even the smallest violation of their rights-period. It is better that 5000 more Americans die, possibly including myself and my family, than 300 million become subjects to and property of a government of itself, by itself and for itself.

That's insane. You're completely mad.

[Bluesman]

NOW, then: ON TO THE DAILY FAIL!

There's a whole bunch o' stuff to choose from intoday's news, but this one really encapsulates nicely the hypocrisy, criminality, stupidity and insanity to be found in the bloody fingerprints of the Domestic Enemy, aka the LIBERAL. As you read this, harken back to the Plame Affair, and Google-search Lynn Stewart, and don't forget to mentally catalog every instance of Democratic/liberal treason committed since 9/11 to try to make the country lose the war.

Here we go:

Did terrorist defense lawyers "out" covert CIA personnel to their terrorist clients?

August 21, 2009
The Justice Department has questioned attorneys who represent Gitmo detainees about the practice of showing photographs of CIA personnel, including covert officers, to detainees charged with organizing the 9/11 attacks. The investigation reportedly pertains to three lawyers who are said to have shown their clients the photos in an effort to identify CIA officers and contractors who interrogated these terrorists.

The photos were taken by researchers hired by a joint project of the ACLU and the National Assocation of Criminal Defense Lawyers. In some cases, the photographers are said to have taken the pictures sureptitiously outside the homes of CIA officers.

Federal statutes prohibit the identification of covert CIA officers. Moreover, the rules governing military commissions prohibit the disclosure of classified information, including to the defendant. Some of the CIA personnel whose photographs were shown to the organizers of 9/11 are said to be covert officers -- real ones, unlike socialite Valerie Plame.

According to the Washington Post, it is not clear whether the lawyers in question identified the CIA personnel by name or just asked whether the terrorists has seen the individual in the photograph. Whether this is a relevant distinction for legal purposes, I don't know. It shouldn't be.

The organizers of 9/11 and their fellow terrorists are committed to inflicting as much damage on the U.S. as possible. Those who remain at Gitmo are, for now, incapable of killing Americans. But they are still in position to inflict damage on America by raising false allegations of abuse against those in the CIA and other agencies who are charged with protecting our country from attack. I understand this practice was part of the training terrorists received.

The terrorists have been successful. Morale among those at agencies like the CIA who combat terrorism is said to be quite poor, as well it might be.

It was inevitable that the terrorists would have the help of lefty lawyers in their enterprise. These lawyers don't share the goal of killing Americans, of course, but they share with the terrorists the desire to inflict damage on those arms of the government that are serious about preventing this result. Once judges empowered these lefty lawyers to do their thing, the kind of abuse now being investigated also became inevitable.

I'll conclude with a prediction: whatever the results of the investigation into the conduct of the lawyers defending the terrorists, no meaningful action will be taken against these lawyers. Unfortunately, the lawyers now in charge at the Justice Department are ideologically indistinguishable from the lefty lawyers being investigated for violating the law and putting those who defend us from terrorism in harm's way.

[Parihaka]

It's a very nice area, but it's run like an insane asylum. You've never seen such a one-party state basket-case without at least having a massive defense establishment to go with it. This bunch o' loons manages to be a massive commie-nest, but they're not even good at nationalism, patriotism or support for their military. In some ways, they're even WORSE than the Soviets!

Congratulations. You have encountered first-hand what we call the Charddonay Socialists.

[zraver]

Seriously, because they tried to kill us all, multiple times, and they haven't stopped trying. All you have to do is to look at their conduct in one area: THE WAR, and you begin to see why I'm so angry and bitter. I will NEVER forgive 'em for what they've done, and what they continue to do to their own country, their own military, in wartime. THAT is why.

But did their efforts kill more or less than Rumsfeld's bungling? Did their actions put more or less Americans in danger than using Gitmo to try and circumvent constitutional protections? Did their actions kill more than trying to start a fresh war before catching/Killing Osama? Let us be honest, the Bush administration was a disaster for America and liberty. The problem we face now is that Obama is worse. While Bush felt that you could divide the whole and deny some parts liberty without weakening the whole (a fallacy). Obama thinks the whole should be divided and denied liberty.

Obama because of his political views and the political machine that created him has no understanding of liberty. He does not understand the truth that liberty for one means liberty for all, and that liberty for all requires liberty for one. He is more akin to Boss Tweed than politician holding national office in generations. The good life is not to be earned by hard work, but awarded for loyalty to the cause. Those kulaks who made it by the sweat of their own brow could not have done it on their own, but must have exploited others and must be brought low in the name of fairness. Others must be prevented from exploiting the workers and kept low, only the masters and their sot trusted servants deserve more.

Not only does he not believe in liberty, but he fails to grasp a very basic principle. He wants to force reality to fit ideology. However reality says it will be the American people not the government which drives prosperity. Government's role is simply enforcing the social contract not in writing it.

[Bluesman]

I'll get to the rest in a minute, as I think we're more-or-less on the same page about most stuff. But I have just got to know if you're crazy enough to really mean this:

Did their actions put more or less Americans in danger than using Gitmo to try and circumvent constitutional protections?

...as somehow granting Constitutional rights to America's enemies that were captured on a foreign battlefield while breaking every single one of the laws of armed conflict and even humanity? I mean, are you completely mad, as crazy as the liberals that have ZERO understanding of any aspect of this issue, from the nature of the threat to the meaning of the Constitution and international norms and

I'm stunned by the thought that you think that.

DUDE, you aren't really insane, are you? Should I write you off as a crank right now, and put you on 'Perma-Ignore', like the other low-grade morons that stink up the place from time to time with stuff like this? PLEASE tell me you don't actually think we should fight our wars like we're obligated to grant an enemy that displays the kind of barbarism that would make a caveman blush the same rights as a citizen, or even an honorable enemy.

Because if you're standing by that crap, then you're dead to me.

[bonehead]

It's a very nice area, but it's run like an insane asylum. You've never seen such a one-party state basket-case without at least having a massive defense establishment to go with it. This bunch o' loons manages to be a massive commie-nest, but they're not even good at nationalism, patriotism or support for their military. In some ways, they're even WORSE than the Soviets!

My last full on California experience was 3 summers ago. I had to work in the Sacramento area and surrounding burbs for a few months. I never had to deal with so many clueless people on a mission in my entire life. I damned near lost my sanity. The Disney trip last spring brought back to many bad memories. California is now dead to me as I am not ever going back. It is just not worth it.

[TopHatter]

That's insane. You're completely mad.

Enough of that. You can make your point without attacks like that.

[leib10]

But didn't Bush lied to the American people too about Iraq having WMD and other issues? Let's face it, No government is honest, regardless of what political party they belong too.

Yes, Bush did some things that were questionable, but Bush isn't the President anymore. He is no longer the issue, and I'm sick of liberals using that excuse when they want to deflect criticism aimed at Obama.

[zraver]

I'll get to the rest in a minute, as I think we're more-or-less on the same page about most stuff. But I have just got to know if you're crazy enough to really mean this:

...as somehow granting Constitutional rights to America's enemies that were captured on a foreign battlefield while breaking every single one of the laws of armed conflict and even humanity? I mean, are you completely mad, as crazy as the liberals that have ZERO understanding of any aspect of this issue, from the nature of the threat to the meaning of the Constitution and international norms and

I'm stunned by the thought that you think that.

DUDE, you aren't really insane, are you? Should I write you off as a crank right now, and put you on 'Perma-Ignore', like the other low-grade morons that stink up the place from time to time with stuff like this? PLEASE tell me you don't actually think we should fight our wars like we're obligated to grant an enemy that displays the kind of barbarism that would make a caveman blush the same rights as a citizen, or even an honorable enemy.

Because if you're standing by that crap, then you're dead to me.

It does not matter where we caught them- we brought them here to US controlled soil. I am equally fine with having field tribunals and shooting them out of hand. But once they are brought here for justice the constitution kicks in. Even the Nazi leadership got judged by the rule of law.

The problem is using a place that flies the US flag, and has flown it for over a century to try and circumvent the constitution. There is absolutely nothing at Gitmo we could not have done (imprisonment wise) here in the US. A federal Supermax for life or a humane strapping down and lethal injection. Just follow the rule of law, but we didn't. We became our enemy and resorted to extra-judical holding, torture and barbarity.

Ignore me if you want, but I think America has more to lose from ignoring the Constitution than it risks by granting those in our custody protections so that they get a fair trial. Look at all the detainees released, some have gone back to terror- kill them. But most have not and served between 5-7 years. They could just as easily done that time in a prison. There is absolutely zero reason for Gitmo to exist.

[Bluesman]

It does not matter where we caught them- we brought them here to US controlled soil. I am equally fine with having field tribunals and shooting them out of hand. But once they are brought here for justice the constitution kicks in. Even the Nazi leadership got judged by the rule of law.

The problem is using a place that flies the US flag, and has flown it for over a century to try and circumvent the constitution. There is absolutely nothing at Gitmo we could not have done (imprisonment wise) here in the US. A federal Supermax for life or a humane strapping down and lethal injection. Just follow the rule of law, but we didn't. We became our enemy and resorted to extra-judical holding, torture and barbarity.

Ignore me if you want, but I think America has more to lose from ignoring the Constitution than it risks by granting those in our custody protections so that they get a fair trial. Look at all the detainees released, some have gone back to terror- kill them. But most have not and served between 5-7 years. They could just as easily done that time in a prison. There is absolutely zero reason for Gitmo to exist.

Yep; mad as a rat in a coffee can.

[Bluesman]

Enough of that. You can make your point without attacks like that.

No, actually, the argument about the merits of his point is a different matter. My point was that he's insane.

He IS, you know.