Obama's Pre-crime indefinite preventive detention for future crimes

Red1966

Well-Known Member
wow you've read the bill? I get payed to know what's in it and haven't even come close. By our estimation once these 2700 pages are done referencing article such and such and provision X the total amount of reading is in the 10's of thousands. The reason you can't find anything about death panels is owed entirely to that loon Palin. There was a provision before final passage involving a committee (panel) to discuss, plan, and implement care for end of life (death). It was a stretch to go from end of life committee to death panel sure, but Hospice and palliative care already does this. This was put in so it could be centrally planned and regulated how an individual receives this care and how much they receive instead of those dirty doctors and stupid patients. It was taken out when Palin made her claim, because it had no chance of passing with that in it. The government is notorious for stopping what they call maintenance. If you have a condition that doesn't improve you no can longer receive care for it unless it exacerbates. They refer to these conditions as "chronic", not pre-existing so they can say it's not the same thing. Govangelicals are cute.
How is Palin, not holding any office at the time, responsible? Since they haven't repealed the bill and voted in a replacement, those provisions are still there. You can't change the wording of a law after it has been enacted, except by Judicial action.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
wow you've read the bill? I get payed to know what's in it and haven't even come close. By our estimation once these 2700 pages are done referencing article such and such and provision X the total amount of reading is in the 10's of thousands.

The reason you can't find anything about death panels is owed entirely to that loon Palin. There was a provision before final passage involving a committee (panel) to discuss, plan, and implement care for end of life (death). It was a stretch to go from end of life committee to death panel sure, but Hospice and palliative care already does this. This was put in so it could be centrally planned and regulated how an individual receives this care and how much they receive instead of those dirty doctors and stupid patients. It was taken out when Palin made her claim, because it had no chance of passing with that in it.

The government is notorious for stopping what they call maintenance. If you have a condition that doesn't improve you no can longer receive care for it unless it exacerbates. They refer to these conditions as "chronic", not pre-existing so they can say it's not the same thing.

Govangelicals are cute.

Those references and reference changes to other bills make it tough, I wish they wouldn't do that but I don't know how they would avoid it. I read it as a result of my getting a viral e-mail which pretended to explain to the lay folk what it really said. It went point by point claiming certain things. I simply didn't believe some of it so I started reading. It turned out that the viral e-mail - and the viral video were all bullshit of the highes order. I could almost always see how they got to claim the bill said what it said but it was bullshit anyway. For instance, the part where the government will have access to your bank accounts - it says that you can make automatic payments - kinda different. The one that got me is that doctors cannot refer patients to hospitals in which they have a significan investment. The viral email read that to say that doctors couldn't send patients where they wished and that doctors were prohibitied from investing where they chose.

But the list of half truths goes on for point after point. I did not read the hospice portions that way but as I said, it stated that doctors would be paid for end of life consultation. Further, there are provisions that say you can't be continualy readmitted for the same conditions but this was taken to mean rationing.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry doc, where is this "right to not have to pay an insurance company for the privilege of staying out of prison"? You do indeed have the "right" to decline to purchase what obama deems good and needful. You never had the righth to use medicinal cannabis. I see no right to be free from rabid wolverines anywhere in the Constitution. Is it perhaps a right eminating from a penumbra?
You will be punished until you comply. Cannabis use was legal until the government decided they could use the commerce law to ban it some time in the 50's. Federal authorities have no right whatsoever to regulate intra-state commerce, but they do so anyway. No government was allowed to seize private property except for public use. SCOTUS recently decided that "public use" meant anything local governments wanted it too. Now they seize private land and sell it at a profit to private developers. This is a clear example of judicial activism that violates the Constitution.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
1) No, of course not, although courts have disagreed. 2)"Commerce" is misdirection. Would you have Catholic hospitals shut down rather than violate their beliefs? That would be at least a third of US hospitals. Not a ruse, that's like saying you're wrong because you're wrong, doesn't prove anything. 3)Preventing the ballot box from being packed with illegal votes certainly protects my right to vote. 3) Not sure what you're trying to say. 4)Treatment is already being denied by these panels. Certain cancer treatments for women, no treatment but painkillers is allowed for treatment of prostrate cancer. You can bet exceptions will be allowed for politicians, tho. Congress gets their own "special" insurance plan 5)You're assuming the arbitration is slanted in favor of the insurance companies. Also, new legislation has overruled the validity of those clauses. You can purchase insurance with no caps, cost more, tho. The affordable health care law institutes it's own spending caps. Private insurance companies is starting to get off-topic.
2. Commerce is the point and not a misdirection at all, the point is that when religion goes to the workplace it is subject to the same rules, they do not get special dispensation simply because they believe differently.
3. Certainly, preventing a ballot box from being stuffed protects your right, but in actuallity, no one is stuffing the box and there are more people who's legitimate vote is being compromised than fraudulent votes are being cast. The cure for a problem that doesn't exist is keeping real voters from voting - a far greater infringement.
4. Where? the law isn't fully implemented yet
5. I am assuming arbitration is slanted because it is slanted, there is lots of evidence of this.
I have not yet seen any overruling of binding arbitration provisions
Neither have I seen any yearly or lifetime caps in the affordable care act, I have seen those caps rendered illegal in that same act. It would be peculiar (but not unheard of) for an act to do both.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Those references and reference changes to other bills make it tough, I wish they wouldn't do that but I don't know how they would avoid it. I read it as a result of my getting a viral e-mail which pretended to explain to the lay folk what it really said. It went point by point claiming certain things. I simply didn't believe some of it so I started reading. It turned out that the viral e-mail - and the viral video were all bullshit of the highes order. I could almost always see how they got to claim the bill said what it said but it was bullshit anyway. For instance, the part where the government will have access to your bank accounts - it says that you can make automatic payments - kinda different. The one that got me is that doctors cannot refer patients to hospitals in which they have a significan investment. The viral email read that to say that doctors couldn't send patients where they wished and that doctors were prohibitied from investing where they chose.

But the list of half truths goes on for point after point. I did not read the hospice portions that way but as I said, it stated that doctors would be paid for end of life consultation. Further, there are provisions that say you can't be continualy readmitted for the same conditions but this was taken to mean rationing.
so kids with severe asthma shall be denied admittance to hospital, and left to gasp their last feeble breaths on the street? wow, thats so not a death panel.

the interlocking and incestuous nature of modern laws is a practice started by lawyers and legalists to turn our formerly simple and understandable laws (as required by constitutional mandate and numerous supreme court rulings) into massive and impenetrable barriers to justice and common sense.

previously simple operations like instituting a stamp tax on liquor for interstate sale or export are now massive undertakings which require years of planning and debate before the measure can even be put up to a vote. the tax must reference 500 other bills with all the wherefores, hearbys, and therefore notwithstandings that the legalist class can cram into the document. this is done to make our laws as vague as possible and to leave them open for wide interpretation by the various powerbrokers in washington. Obamacare is not only far reaching, it is unconstitutional on it's face since it is drafted in such convoluted language that even the congress 9who ostensibly wrote it) cant understand what it says does or portends.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
2)"Commerce is not the point at all. Claiming it is doesn't make it true. I reject that argument. 3)Lorette Sanchez, Al Franken, John F. Kennedy and others were elected through voter fraud. Ballot boxes are being stuffed. You have no idea of the number of votes being compromised, if any. No undue burden does not mean the process has to be completely effortless. 4)The benefits haven't been fully implemented, true, but the taxes and regulations are already being enforced. The law doesn't start implementing all the benefits until 2016. 5)The consumer gets to select the arbitrator. I didn't say anything about "yearly" or "lifetime". Some treatments will not be paid for, period. Like treatment for prostrate cancer. You know there's a reason this, and other legislation, isn't implemented until after next election?
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
2. Commerce is the point and not a misdirection at all, the point is that when religion goes to the workplace it is subject to the same rules, they do not get special dispensation simply because they believe differently.
3. Certainly, preventing a ballot box from being stuffed protects your right, but in actuallity, no one is stuffing the box and there are more people who's legitimate vote is being compromised than fraudulent votes are being cast. The cure for a problem that doesn't exist is keeping real voters from voting - a far greater infringement.
4. Where? the law isn't fully implemented yet
5. I am assuming arbitration is slanted because it is slanted, there is lots of evidence of this.
I have not yet seen any overruling of binding arbitration provisions
Neither have I seen any yearly or lifetime caps in the affordable care act, I have seen those caps rendered illegal in that same act. It would be peculiar (but not unheard of) for an act to do both.

2: religious views do receive special consideration in the workplace and the marketplace. observant jews cannot be compelled to work on friday. moslems get to stop and pray 5 times a day regardless of the labours they are required to do for their jobs. hindus cannot be compelled to handle beef products. the list is endless. your point is hearby refuted with prejudice. please do not trot that cunard out again.

3: ballot nboxes have been stuffed in the past, and will be stuffed in the future. as evidence i need only say one word: Chicago. Nuff Said. that strawman is also refuted.

4: i believe red had inadvertently conflated the british socialized medical system with obamacare. in britain many cancer treatments are deemed too expensive and are thus denied to anyone unless they pay for them out of their own pockets.

5: arbitration is the powerful side in a dispute defeating the weaker side by shouting "fuck you im right!!" over and over until you give up. arbitration is only binding on the little guy, with limited legal resources to fight against an unjust ruling. heres a personal example: while driving home behind a vehicle my brother had just bought from a wrecker with the intention of restoring it to service as a sport vehicle,, we both stopped at a red light, himself and the pumpkin orange jeep dj 4x4 in front at the line, and myself immediately behind in my truck. the light turned green, so it let off the brake depressed my clutch and shifted to 1st gear. he did not move, i presumed a breakdown on this shitbox,, but in fact he was waiting for an ambulance with lights and sirens running. i shifted out of gear and put my brake back on. I was then struck from behind by a car. myself and the bitch both had the same insurance company, so we were sent to arbitration. the insurance company offered me 50 bucks for damage to my truck ($1500 in damage without even considering the cosmetic damage, but its a farm vehicle not a show pony) and nothing for my medical costs (dislocated discs in my neck, and a concussion from my dome hitting the rear window so hard the glass popped halfway out of it's seals) the arbitrator declared this was fair, because i was "50% at fault" for "not being in control of my vehicle" when the bitch moved my shit forward 6 feet despite being on my brakes, and the bitch claimed that the jeep i was behind at the green light didnt exist (despite the bill of sale for a wreck that day and at the time in question and the testimony of my twin brother) and the ambulance was fictional (despite documents from the ambulance company showing that there was a dispatch call at that time in that area, and the testimony of my twin brother who was on the scene.) the bitch claimed i was the only one there, and her own witness (her daughter who was in the car) said she was wrong and there was two dudes who looked alike. the arbitrator still felt it was at least partly my fault that i got rear ended. my only recourse after this "arbitration" was to sue my own insurance company to try to force them to pay my damages,, but no lawyer would take the case for so little and i would wind up paying more in legal fees than i could recover in court. fuck arbitration and fuck insurance companies. if you trust an arbitrator (usually a lawyer who couldnt make it as an ambulance chaser employed by insurance companies to secure their interests) or an insurance company to tell you the truth then you deserve what you get.
 

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
In essence no, he is autonomous and can opt to ignore the actions of previous presidents. What I wonder is why this president's actions are taken to task when the last one's identical actions were not.

Why is that? Do you even know the names of the citizens Bush put in prison and deprived of their constitutional right to due process and their privelege of Habeus corpus?
I see you specialize in logical fallacies because your boy looks awful. Stop emotional reasoning please. I railed hard against Bush too. And your comparison about one group poisoning many people vs another not wanting to be forced to pay for something they do not want to pay for is not even remotely close to the same thing. Stop emotional reasoning.

It is the very foundation of why political discussion is absurdly stupid most of the time. Do not feed the beast. Accept that Obama is an awful President and you do not have a viable alternative in this election. Then work to change that.
 

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
all my posts are factual, and all are backed up by truth, you may disbelieve, and unlike mohmmedans i shall NOT have made for you rainments of fire or have the flesh stripped from you only to be regrown by mighty allah, so that it may be stripped from you again, in his mercy

i will say however, being called a "non- factual person" by you is high praise. when a deceiver calls another person deceptive it generally informs the wise man as to the nature of the truth. so thanks for the props homey!
Those laws you claim the average American has nothing to worry about have been used almost exclusively on Americans. As was easily predictable. You say don`t be a terrorist. Well, don`t be a drug dealer either because the laws have mostly been used against drug dealers. And of course we always get the brunt of that, don`t we?
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Those laws you claim the average American has nothing to worry about have been used almost exclusively on Americans. As was easily predictable. You say don`t be a terrorist. Well, don`t be a drug dealer either because the laws have mostly been used against drug dealers. And of course we always get the brunt of that, don`t we?
your comment is specious, the constitution still previls when dealing with domestic crime, even in the case of drug kingpins, rapists, murderers and pickpockets. bernie maddoff was tried and convicted for his crimes under the law, he was not subject to indefinite detention as an enemy combatant.

even the fort hood shooter is not held incommunicado and waterboarded for his ACTUAL relationjship with terrorist organizations and his ACTUAL commission of political terrorism on US soil. had he deserted,, gone to afghanistan and taken up arms with the talibs he would be in an entirely different kettle of fish.

THAT is the point. terrorist detainees are not scofflaws, drunk drivers or potheads, they are armed spies and saboteurs attempting to destabilize and undermine lawe and order in a military war zone,, and later in a military occupation zone. the laws and conventions pertaining to THOSE douchebags are entirely different from those pertaining to domestic criminal douchebags.

the left and the blind bush haters deliberately avert their gaze from these abundantly clear facts to allow their continued narrative that bush was a war criminal and a scoundrel. pull your head up from rachel maddow's dick and catch a breath of clean clear air. you just might get your noodle bubbling again.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
How is Palin, not holding any office at the time, responsible? Since they haven't repealed the bill and voted in a replacement, those provisions are still there. You can't change the wording of a law after it has been enacted, except by Judicial action.
The law was not enacted yet. It was still in debate and this part of the bill is what Palin famously shouted "death panel" to anyone who would listen, especially those with a camera and microphone. A lot of dems already figured out this bill could be the end of their careers in politics when they came home before the vote and went to the town halls and it was scaring the bejeezus out of them.

Death panel made for a great sound bite, the focus for a short while became the death panel discussion, denial that's what it meant, and indignation that the government was going to get involved in this very personal moment. It became very prudent to remove this little tidbit.

Man, this really wasn't that long ago. Once this was removed and a personal promise and wink from Obama that taxes wouldn't fund abortions for the cherry on top the bill was passed. We lost some very decent people in Congress like Stupac and the man who did more for Vets other than maybe McCain, Jim Marshall paid the price. More than a few dems voted no and weren't spared by the disgust over this process. It was derangement syndrome 2.0 at the polls. People who ran ads starting with "I'm not a witch" were nearly voted in to act on our behalf.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
The law was not enacted yet. It was still in debate and this part of the bill is what Palin famously shouted "death panel" to anyone who would listen, especially those with a camera and microphone. A lot of dems already figured out this bill could be the end of their careers in politics when they came home before the vote and went to the town halls and it was scaring the bejeezus out of them.

Death panel made for a great sound bite, the focus for a short while became the death panel discussion, denial that's what it meant, and indignation that the government was going to get involved in this very personal moment. It became very prudent to remove this little tidbit.

Man, this really wasn't that long ago. Once this was removed and a personal promise and wink from Obama that taxes wouldn't fund abortions for the cherry on top the bill was passed. We lost some very decent people in Congress like Stupac and the man who did more for Vets other than maybe McCain, Jim Marshall paid the price. More than a few dems voted no and weren't spared by the disgust over this process. It was derangement syndrome 2.0 at the polls. People who ran ads starting with "I'm not a witch" were nearly voted in to act on our behalf.
I would say that's some crazy shit and no way it could be true, but it happened it really did :shock:
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Those references and reference changes to other bills make it tough, I wish they wouldn't do that but I don't know how they would avoid it. I read it as a result of my getting a viral e-mail which pretended to explain to the lay folk what it really said. It went point by point claiming certain things. I simply didn't believe some of it so I started reading. It turned out that the viral e-mail - and the viral video were all bullshit of the highes order. I could almost always see how they got to claim the bill said what it said but it was bullshit anyway. For instance, the part where the government will have access to your bank accounts - it says that you can make automatic payments - kinda different. The one that got me is that doctors cannot refer patients to hospitals in which they have a significan investment. The viral email read that to say that doctors couldn't send patients where they wished and that doctors were prohibitied from investing where they chose.

But the list of half truths goes on for point after point. I did not read the hospice portions that way but as I said, it stated that doctors would be paid for end of life consultation. Further, there are provisions that say you can't be continualy readmitted for the same conditions but this was taken to mean rationing.
Yes, but this is where I get to slam your side and you have to take it because this bill is law now. Your side claimed it would cover everyone and lower costs. Those two lies trump all the distortion in the world because this is what we wanted. People believed their elected leaders and why wouldn't they? We in the medical community have been screaming for years (while cashing our checks yes, so what?) that we are doing it wrong.

We deal with insurance companies,hospital bureaucracies and pharmaceuticals on a daily basis and are sickened by how powerful they've become over how we practice medicine. When we started screaming to anyone who would listen nobody would give us a microphone or a camera. We were being drowned out by the rhetoric of the Palins, Limbaughs, Maddows and Mathews of the world.

So yeah, when you go off on how evil the right is, I'm reminded of how you guys followed Saints Pelosi, Reid and Obama and not only believed the shit they spouted, you clapped, cheered and defended their bullshit. I used to think liberals were noble and interested in their fellow man. I now think they are more interesting in getting "wins" for your political team.

Well your team passed what is possibly the worst piece of legislature in our history and you guys cheered. Some are still cheering in spite of the facts coming out. It's embarrassing.
 

deprave

New Member
and instead i should believe what you and rachel maddow tells me? i think not, both those sources are unreliable.

those prisoners are individuals who took up arms or hid weapon caches in their houses, or aided and abetted saboteurs. you have once again refrained from answering a rational argument with evidence and sources (the geneva convention no less!) to support a claim, and instead attacked the opponent personally.

i have extremely strong views on the evils of marxism and primitivism, and savagery. i do not dispute that. these trends are increasing worldwide in every corner of the world from chechnya to xinghai provence, and from yemen to the mexico. socialism, radical primitivism (mainly in the form of mohammedanism) and savagery have become the "new normal" throughout africa,, most of central and western asia, all of asia minor, and a large swath of central and south america, as well as the indochina aand the archipelagos of oceana.

i do not "respect" these attitudesand ddo not feel guilty for imposing my own "cultural bias" on these foreign "cultures" and their shenanigans. i guess i9m just nbo post-modern enough for you. too bad.
What sources? Rachael maddow is dumb when it comes to some things I agree with that(Guns for example) but she has a good heart and good intentions evidenced by the fact she frequently covers things others won't cover and does real investigative reporting, its a miracle she works for MSM. Don't even know what your ranting about I guees its your marxist/savage takeover fantasy again lol

Sorry everyone doesn't fit into your very narrow world view. The political compass is not some vast conspiracy theory that looks like this:


politicalquiz.jpg
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Actually it needs to be cut into thirds. You forgot the Warg! Orcs.
Wargs are war wolves ridden by goblinoids in dungeons and dragons, you despicable nerd!

WAAAGH!! is the gestalt field of bold overconfidence created by the noble spacefareing Ork and their mighty warbands.

i used WAAAGH! as an exemplar of a theoretical perfect anarchic society, which they are. primitive savages who live by the simple proposition that those who are bigger and stronger may simply take what they desire,, and all disputes are settled in a pit fight. it's anarcho-flawlessness!
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
What sources? Rachael maddow is dumb when it comes to some things I agree with that(Guns for example) but she has a good heart and good intentions evidenced by the fact she frequently covers things others won't cover and does real investigative reporting, its a miracle she works for MSM. Don't even know what your ranting about I guees its your marxist/savage takeover fantasy again lol

Sorry everyone doesn't fit into your very narrow world view. The political compass is not some vast conspiracy theory that looks like this:
again you argue from rhetorical fallacy.

Rachel Maddow is quite bangable, but is completely ignorant of anything which might disrupt her perfectly ordered imaginary world where liberal = good and anybody who disagrees with any portion of the progressive agenda = PURE EVIL. she smirks and smugly pontificates from her position in a TV studio with all the implicit Appeal To Authority confidence of a televangelist selling magical prayer hankies. every syllable that falls from her admittredly well formed lips is sophistry, based in stupidity and a poltiucal agenda where compromise is the only currency for her opponents, and total victory on every political issue is the only acceptable outcome from a debate. her arguments regarding prisoners at guantanomo are ignorant retarded specious and ultimately a waste of breath. these clowns are not prisoners of war, because they never wore any uniform, they are criminal mercenary beligerants in a war zone, (spies and saboteurs) and forign insurgents attempting to cause insurrection and sabotage in a military occupation zone. they chose their path, and must now be kept in confinement until the security of the occupation is no longer threatened by their actions (when the occupation is over) had they been actual POW's they would already be home now,, but they are not. they deserve no trials,, no juries, no lawyers,, and no communication with their fellows in the occupation zone. they do deserve a military tribunal, and in my opinion if they are found guilty of placing IEDs or assisting those who did they should be shot as saboteurs. this is the punishment specified for that crime in the geneva convention.

my opposition to the glorious and noble cultures of somalia,, cuba, mexican narcotrafficos, chechnyan terrorists, abu sayyaf, the Lords Army in Uganda, the Sudan, Hamas and Hezzbollah obviously chaps your ass, but i dont care. you can celebrate diversity with those bastards till they hack you up with machetes for all i care. i refuse to lower my standards of civilized behavior to accommodate primitivism, savagery, magical thinking, dark ages mysticism, magical beard cults and totalitarian regimes.

your continued inability to understand the simple and foundational flaw in your regurgitated pablum in your origina post to start this mental abortion of a thread marks you as mentally defective.

foreign insurgents from syria, lebbanon, iran, chechnya, xinghai province in china, egypt, the sudan and other nations in the war zones and later the occupation zones of iraq and afghanistan are not shoplifters and kids sneraking a cigarette behing the gym whgen they should be in class. they are illegal combbatants with no uniform acting as illegal mercenary forces in a war zone. they are spies saboteurs and murderers. they hide in the populace using the real civilians as human shields as they plant explosives on city streets and butcher the children of dissidents against the intolerable regimes which the occupation forces are trying to depose.

heres a blast from the past, we've all seen this picture:

Nguyen.jpg

but the story behind it is rarely told. the "victim" was the leader of a vietcong death squad who infiltrated south vietnam with no uniforms,, pretending to be civilians, and then in the chaos of the tet offensive, they rounded up unarmed women and children, the falimies of south vietnamese police officials and any civilian police officers as they could find, tied them up and executed them in a ditch. he was caught doing an end-zone dance over the ditch which contained 34 bodies, most of them tied up women and kids,, several of them the god-children (if youre not catholic look it up) of the police cheif,, who happens to be the guy with the gun in the picture. nguyen van lem, the "victim" had just finished declaring that his revolutionary brothers would liberate him and he would then continue his task of murdering as many local police officers and their families as he could find, and there is nothing you can do abou- bang!

un-uniformed spy, saboteur and murderer in a war zone,, justice served. end of story. but it was sooooo shocking to the bleeding hearts in america, who never saw the ditch full of women and kids this dog butchered, and dint hear his insane monologueing just before his brains painted the street. if the us populace had got that story there would have been no controversy. thanks walter cronkite and all his other fellow travellers.

and now you, and the others like yo have taken up the fallen banner of lies and halftruths so that you can once again march boldly into conflict with logic sense and honesty. nice job.
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
your comment is specious, the constitution still previls when dealing with domestic crime, even in the case of drug kingpins, rapists, murderers and pickpockets. bernie maddoff was tried and convicted for his crimes under the law, he was not subject to indefinite detention as an enemy combatant.

even the fort hood shooter is not held incommunicado and waterboarded for his ACTUAL relationjship with terrorist organizations and his ACTUAL commission of political terrorism on US soil. had he deserted,, gone to afghanistan and taken up arms with the talibs he would be in an entirely different kettle of fish.

THAT is the point. terrorist detainees are not scofflaws, drunk drivers or potheads, they are armed spies and saboteurs attempting to destabilize and undermine lawe and order in a military war zone,, and later in a military occupation zone. the laws and conventions pertaining to THOSE douchebags are entirely different from those pertaining to domestic criminal douchebags.

the left and the blind bush haters deliberately avert their gaze from these abundantly clear facts to allow their continued narrative that bush was a war criminal and a scoundrel. pull your head up from rachel maddow's dick and catch a breath of clean clear air. you just might get your noodle bubbling again.
You got everything right except for the fact that
Bush is a war criminal
 
Top