The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    jollyroger's picture

    Romney to Prez: Don't bullshit a bullshitter

    By jollyroger on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 7:23pm |

    In today's stump speech, a man who is rapidly becoming famous for his willingness to say anything, regardless of it's veracity, manages to stumble upon Obama's chief vulnerability: A propensity to promise big, deliver little, and then shrug off his shortcoming as doing the best he could.

    Thus, focussing on the limping economic recovery, Romney jabs that Obama favors words over action..

    Of course, Prez and his acolytes will rightly fume that action has been deliberately frustrated by a Republican party determined to subvert any amelioration in the interest of unseating a Democrat. Well and good.

    Withal, the vulnerability persists. Weakness is never an easy sell.

    By succumbing to his inner punk, Prez has brought this conundrum upon himself. There were a host of executive initiatives available which he eschewed, even as he dithered and delayed in making executive appointments which he is duty bound by job description to make. If he now must wear the "all talk, no action" jacket, he has no one to blame but Barry.

    Comments

    You live in a world where macho bullshit is the name of the game, don't you. You use words like weak, punk, and then in the same phrase you use duty. 

    Macho bullshit is the ultimate sign of weakness. You have set up quite a trap for yourself though, because it reveals how Limbaugh has affected even you. 

    Oh and Romney gets nothing right about our President. Romney is a pathological liar.  If you are using his words to support your bizarre assessment of who the President is as a person, it shows the weakness of your premise. Myself, I am quite happy that this President refuses to have a douche-off with everyone you hate. Our public discourse needs much less Limbaughification, not more.

    But then you didn't want a discussion about anything did you, you just want have a fight, just like the Republicans.


    by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 10:05pm

    Surely there's a way to persuade this President to douche-off with at least a couple of people Jolly hates. I'd really like to see that.


    by kyle flynn on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 10:32pm

    I could not care less what Romney says. I'm pretty sure that "pathological liar " is what sums up "willing to say anything regardless of it's (lack of) veracity.

     

    Let's review the bidding. Obama could have appointed Fed board members to nudge (prop up) Bernanke in supplying the only available aid to economic recovery. He did not, until the last months of his first term.

    He still has three appellate positions unfilled on the CRITICALLY IMPORTANT D.C. Circuit Court.

    He had laid down and died to the detriment of what he professes to be his policy goals, where no impediment to action by exec order exists (ENDA)

    When pressed by unconscionable blackmail, (debt ceiling ) he both failed to preempt (demand a quid pro quo before caving on extending the tax cuts) and then failed effectively to combat (mint the platinum coin) forces determined to hobble his administration.

    "punk" gives him the benefit of the doubt. Actually, I think him a plutocratic plant.


    by jollyroger on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 10:55pm

    He continues, as Commander in Chief, to allow women under his command, WHO HAVE BEEN RAPED to have their medical interventions held hostage by the execrable and without peradventure unconstitutional Hyde Amendment without so much as a peep of objection, let alone vigorous traduction.


    by jollyroger on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 11:04pm

    No TMC, we weren't looking for a fight, it was cast upon us.

    You don't hold any ground, turning tail. 

    Whether you like it or not, this political atmosphere isn't for sissies with excuses.

    Who told Obama;  his election signaled an end to the hostilities and it would be acceptable to begin hugging the Republicans and singing kumbyjah? 

    Election Night Victory Speech
    Grant Park, Illinois
    November 4, 2008

    http://obamaspeeches.com/

    “Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.”

    What world do you live in Obama?

    It’s the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.

    HOPE? We get hope .....and the bankers get the money?

    It’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.

    Arrogance?

    This is your victory. I know you didn’t do this just to win an election and I know you didn’t do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead.

    Yes!!!!  We did do this to win..... and beat the republicans, so they could never rise up again

    "Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.

    Why should us Democrats resist the temptation, when our adversaries wish to destroy us?

    "And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn – I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help,

    and I will be your President too.

    Did he get hit on the head in Chicago...He was never going to be President to all the people.

    Republicans : "See Ya Obama, don't let the door hit you on the way out." 

     

    "Everyone lay down your arms and hug one another" sayth Obama.......... and TMC?


    by Resistance on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 10:58pm

    "Everyone lay down your arms and hug one another" sayth Obama

    Not exactly.

    More here.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 11:56pm

    As if....(Nothing concentrates the mind like the prospect of being hung) I wouldn't care from whence came the motivation if he would just declare a state of siege.

    by jollyroger on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 12:04am

    Obummer.

    Not exactly ....inspiring

    "if you want to give the policies of the last decade another try, then you should vote for Romney".

    if you want the policies of muddling along you should vote for Obummer.

    As I remember the last decade, I had more net worth.


    by Resistance on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 1:06am

    Permit me to unburden myself of my true assessment. I don't think "his inner punk" is what's really got his balls in hock. It's his inner white boy.

    by jollyroger on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 11:10pm

    He's not going to get the white boy vote and he knows it.

    A related BTW: I do see some merit in TMac's criticism towards you re: the machismo talk. Not every voter likes the rock'em sock'em give as good as you get macho politics, specifically: many women. Like me--I don't like it in my politics. I'd have a hard time voting for a liberal that spends his/her time with the faux Kung Foo fighting, say, like Alan Grayson, even if his actual policy and voting was simpatico I'd have to hold my nose to vote for him, because I find the bullshit tought guy act a real turn-off. My dear departed bleeding heart liberal Mom (to be clear: not a protected elite, housewife and mother of 5, high school education, child of immigrants, raised on a farm) -was much worse in this regard, she would just not vote if it were going on, and there was no other choice, she hated that stuff so much.

    Your kinda talk is fun for a Damon Runyon novel, in a presidential race, not so much; faux fighting reminds me too much of actual war and wrasslin' and extreme sports that the testosterone  overdosed seem to like so much. Am always looking towards someone who ignores the play-acting fighting jerks and debates like a grown up about issues.

    Another BTW: didn't anyone ever mention to you that many feminists (and quite a few not so feminist women, I imagine) find the word "pussy" very offensive? It's almost on the level of the c-word, but not quite. You  seem to have feminist sympathies, yet you use it quite often, as if you were naive about that. I can take the usage without having a snit fit along the lines of hanging with Damon Runyon types in my mis-spent yut', however I still get a queasy when I see it used they way you do, can't say I don't wanna quit the thread in disgust when I see it.


    by artappraiser on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 12:57am

    Not every voter likes the rock'em sock'em give as good as you get macho politics, specifically: many women.

    Flash your eyes and beg “ Pretty please, would you please give woman the right to choose” 

    I cant imagine woman got the right to vote, flashing their eyes and looking pretty and asking "please let us vote"


    by Resistance on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 1:02am

    You will certainly get no argument from me on the generally pernicious impact of testosterone poisoning on the political process, or ratiocination in general. That said, bringing a knife to a gunfight has predictable results. (sorry to pile Pelion upon Ossa in the macho analogy biz...) Re: The pussy usage, my third wife, the hooker, was gay before me, so all our social circle and all my predecessors in interest were lesbians. That's where I picked up the usage, which never had a derogatory aura. YMMV. BTW, you surely (or should) know how highly I value your opinion, and would sorely miss it were you to boycott my posts.

    by jollyroger on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 1:44am

    OIC, well my understanding is that lesbians using it is like gay guys calling each other faggots and blacks calling each other nigger, an attempt at appropriation and disarming of a slur. But in mho, there's more than a little bit of fail there, because it's butch lesbians attempting to affect testosterone airs and talking about femmes like they are pieces of meat

    And that's what I see when I see you write "I want to get some pussy" (instead of "I want to make love to a woman" or "I'm horny" or "I want to get laid"):

    I want one of them female pieces of meat; women as their genitals; all of you females why don't you just shut the fuck up and fuck us; put a bag over their heads, that part is useless, who needs anything but their cunts, etc.

    I believe the etymology is that it started with hetereo males, often adolescent or of similar mind, using pussy as such a derogative of women, amongst themselves, bragging how many conquests they racked up, like pieces of meat. Then from there they started calling lesbians "pussy eaters." And the butch lesbians picked that up as a sign of solidarity with the whole testoterone mindset, they can demean a femme along with the best of them. From there of course as others pick it up it might lose its sting within the subculture, but it doesn't to me and a lot of other women.

    It is very macho, it's like locker room bullshit. No surprise that it's used in porn and stripper world as they're selling bodies, and also using derogatory terms is part of some couples sex play. Both are fine with me (sex as commodity and using words in private sex play that are not appropriate elsewhere,) I just don't like seeing it used in public discourse, because the real ugly baggage comes with it then.

    I think it's such a negative to see a writer use it, I think it's so bad that If I didn't know your opinions and style as I do, and I saw you use it, I would immediately judge you as a troglodyte male sexist pig.

    This has nothing to do with using the word as a political slur, BTW, I read calling a male politician a pussy as saying he's a kitten, a pussycat, that is actually the main use of the term in the King's English going way back

    would sorely miss it were you to boycott my posts.

    Not planning on it! Appreciate your participation in this little discussion group and miss it when you're not here. As I tried to imply, it's not something that's going to get me up out of my chair to protest, I just always found your non-political use of the word  puzzling, as if you didn't know how offensive it was to many, including me. Always meant to say something in case you weren't aware; this time the occasion seemed to present itself. It's kind of dumb to be insulting when you don't mean to, I thought you'd want to know that's how it could come off.

    P.S. I found this good description of the offensiveness on an old discussion board somewhere, my bold:

    .I do--it's dissociating a body part from my body and making up a name for it. My body parts all belong to me, and I am a complete human being--you can not reduce me to one of them and mark the fact that you have reduced me to a body part by making up a demeaning name for that body part and calling me by that name.

    I especially like her use of "mark," because to me there is that dog marking his territory thing to it, ownership of all the females, just so many breeding organs there for your pleasure to utilize.


    by artappraiser on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 4:33pm

    I don't know if it will count in mitigation, but the aforesaid third wife used to say (and it remains a point of pride) that I was the femmiest man she knew...

    by jollyroger on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 5:09pm

    I see that in your other writing, hence the confusion when seeing you use the term. Also too, that does not sync with the other "Damon Runyan" stylistics, but that makes for an intiguing mix in your writing.

    To take that around to what others are beating you for on this thread, on this thread you are advocating for a politician to act that way, too. I disagree. No excessive macho needed there; that is all. Example: It was always a joy to read Norman Mailer but no way did I ever want to see him in any political office or any office with any power. (Just comes to mind: even the arts, even if he was given a chairmanship of some arts council or similar function, one could foresee everything in it going downhill in a ball of fire.)


    by artappraiser on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 5:19pm

    O/T..Norman Mailer was a fuckin' nut! (wrote pretty good)

    by jollyroger on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 5:28pm

    I readily confess to having been driven mad by teeth grinding frustration watching Obama create precisely the ineffectual history that exposes him to Romney's (unfair) gibes. To have clung to the mirage of some bipartisan polity for even one day after Mitch McConnell virtually declared war on him, let alone through the catalog of crap and falsehoods that greeted his embrace (in betrayal, let us recall, of his campaign pledges) of THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION health plan evinced a disconnect both with reality and the demands of minimal consistency. Dismantling OFA immediately upon squeeking through a terribly flawed and inadequate stimulus showed a fatally disabling discomfort with direct confontation against his legislative opponents, yet he was profoundly diffident in using the enormous administrative discretion that he has suddenly and belatedly embraced. Then, of course, there is the poor bleeding corpse of the Bill of Rights. So taking it all together, I have no hesitation in admitting to suffering like a lover betrayed.


    by jollyroger on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 5:50pm

    More substantively, I don't think it's the white boy vote that Prez courts via excessive politesse. It's the white grandma-the one who he said would tighten her hold on her purse when walking towards an unknown male of color.

    by jollyroger on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 1:50am

    Why run for President if you don't want to be in charge? That would be like running for State Senate and then not voting yes or no on stuff when you got there ....oh, wait...

    by jollyroger on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 11:33pm

    At the time of the votes he could be heard in an inquirng voice;  Present? 

    Maybe he was confused. Maybe he thought he was there for presents, from plutocrat donors.


    by Resistance on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 12:56am

    This is quite a direct attack on Jolly - launching straight into his "macho bullshit". Must. Defend. At. All. Costs.

    Great you get to control all the acceptable words - "punk" is now off limits, Jolly, you've been reprimanded by the blog scold.

    As for "bizarre", you implying JR's psychoanalyzing Obama when he's just giving a pretty tame observation of his tactics?

    How about stick to topics first and you less launching into personal attacks - "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander", as the URL you link to notes.

     

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 3:22am

    Talking about someone's "inner white boy" doesn't sound like a "tame observation of tactics" to me.

    I don't get how tmc's comment is a personal attack. If it is one, it is less of one than calling someone the "blog scold."

    I don't know, I am pretty dense sometimes. Maybe you were just executing an ironic jest of some kind.


    by moat on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 11:00pm

    PP as we know, is not shy about speaking for himself. That said, my remark about inner white boy was not yet up when. he posted. BTW, I didn't feel scolded, but I was disappointed that Tmac chose to ignore what I think may be. characterized as content dense reply. in support of the criticism that drew her ire.

    by jollyroger on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 11:48pm

    Moat, if you're going to wade into the diatribe, how about read carefully before you do. The most pertinent - JR's post & TMac's response. As JR notes, not the stuff he wrote later.

    What was JR's contention: " A propensity to promise big, deliver little, and then shrug off his shortcoming as doing the best he could...Withal, the vulnerability persists. Weakness is never an easy sell.

    By succumbing to his inner punk, Prez has brought this conundrum upon himself. "

    ​Contentious? A bit - that's part of why we blog. But a valid analysis. Hardly visceral or uncivil.

    ​TMac slams back "You live in a world where macho bullshit is the name of the game, don't you. You use words like weak, punk, and then in the same phrase you use duty."

    You don't get how that's personal? Well read the opening sentence, how about it - for a second I thought she was channeling Col. Jessup:

    Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns.... You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives....You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. 

    ​Yes, TMac is our liberal on that wall saving our freedoms. JR was just a casualty of that needed effort to protect Obama at all costs. Case closed.

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 2:31am

    She's welcome to the top of the wall if I can avoid being up against it...


    by jollyroger on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 3:23am

    Careful reading of your comments shows no trace of the simplest element in TMac's reply to JR. I heard her saying that taunting references to perceived defects in character such as the cowardice of a "punk" is an emasculation of a certain kind, an expulsion of a man from the world of manly men.

    You speculate that the motive behind TMac saying this is ulterior to her true purpose; humiliating JR in her capacity of another role you have assigned for her.

    All this matter of assigning ulterior motives is an infinite regress. For instance, I could take the fact that you evaded the simplest part of TMac's question and offer it as evidence of a defect in your character.

    But to hell with that; guys would start saying I hit like a girl.


    by moat on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 4:31pm

    All this matter of assigning ulterior motives is an infinite regress.

    Where's that comment of the day award?! I thank you, and everyone sane in blog forum world thanks you, never seen it put so succinctly.


    by artappraiser on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 4:45pm

    An AA accolade is reward enough for me. Hopefully that check Genghis said he mailed last week will arrive today and I can go out and celebrate properly.

     


    by moat on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 9:35am

    Huh? I didn't speculate. She launched into him for his "macho bullshit". I told you to go read it. More carefully this time.

    Go psychoanalyze someone else.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 5:26pm

    I am not psychoanalyzing you. I am arguing with you.  I am not trying to assign any motives as to why you said what you did or accusing you of anything nefarious. I just disagree with your take on what was being said.

    If my attempt at humor at the end of my last comment offended you, I apologize.

     


    by moat on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 6:07pm

    No offense - my girls hit hard, much harder than that.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:41pm

    SUCH LANGUAGE!


    by Richard Day on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 7:42pm

    Even as his sudden acquisition of religion on youth deportation suspension by executive action gives us a glimpse of what a vigorous fighter might look like, we should note that (per Amy Goodman) it only came after three days of occupation by immigration activists of re-elect Obama campaign offices in multiple cities and following YEARS of begging to no avail of this precise sort of independent action which was refused on the pretext that he lacked the authority. Panic brings clarity to even the most timid.


    by jollyroger on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 5:50am

    There you go - #OccupyObama4America - the only way to get jackshit out of the dude.


    by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 7:33am

    Hey, be grateful they didn't send in the guys with the pepper spray...bad optics for the youtoobz..it was prolly a close call

    by jollyroger on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 8:37am

    I just gotta say, since there's no one here but you, me, and the cricket chorus, that Tmac. came with mad style, but seems disinclined to engage on substance. That weasel has the defenders he deserves.


    by jollyroger on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 8:47am

    Forget the inner punk.

    Guy's a preppie.


    by quinn esq on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 10:41am

    For a fact.

    by jollyroger on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 10:51am

    Come to think, I wonder who was the last presidential candidate who went to public high school

    by jollyroger on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 10:54am

    Looks like Bill Clinton, Hot Springs. High

    by jollyroger on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 10:57am

    Let me explain jolly;

    When I compared your piece to a Limbaugh style piece, this is what I mean: Weak, punk, pussy, all the things you've written about the President, all the terms you use to describe the President are attempts to feminize and dehumanize him as a person. Something that has been happening to women in this country, well to this day, I am looking at you  Michigan State legislature! Those words are words that Limbaugh uses to describe the President as well, but the larger point is the mode, the bully name calling rhetoric designed to dehumanize and only sets us up to argue on and on about whatever it is you want to argue about, but does not set the stage for discussing in a rational way policy disagreements.  This is the Limbaugh way. How is your piece different than any Limbaugh rant?

    To me it is just an example of how deeply entrenched the Limbaughification is in our politics. I find it, exasperating and sad. Because I believe that the men who are mostly on my side would avoid that language and express themselves fully without those rhetorical devices. (Limbaugh only used slut on air tho')   It is a method of communication that not only continues to pit us against each other, but could be considered deeply misogynistic because it pits what are perceived as feminine traits as somehow not worthy of consideration when it comes to governing the nation. It seems to suggest that the only way to govern correctly is to bully and fight and never ever give ground as though war mode is the only mode.  I deeply disagree with that assessment, but Limbaugh suggest this every single day on his program.  Dehumanization is the name of the game baby. I hate it.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 12:10pm

    1. Kindly guide me to the word "pussy " in my post.

     

    2. Analysis of the rhetoric and his exposure does not mean granting the truth of the charge.

    "punk" means coward. How is that feminine.?

    I differ from Limbaugh in lamenting, not chortling over the failure to act. Moreover, L.would have it that Prez is a wannabe. leftist who is getting roughed up by his strategic superiors. I know better, and thus deem him a deliberate. deceiver whose inaction stems from having. made an inner decision to betray the interests he professes

    Did you click the links that I adduced as explication?


    by jollyroger on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 12:54pm

    As for equating feminine with weak, surely you have read my laments that it is "Bambi" and not Hilary in the White House. By now she would have directed the minting of the six trillion.dollar coin and we'd have a new WPA. Also prosecutions. Lots of prosecutions.


    by jollyroger on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 1:01pm

    You just think women should be assertive to be like men (except the ones who aren't assertive), making this a misogynistic assessment. Covering it with a "some of my best friends are women" type framing only makes it moreso.

    As we learned in last primary, Obama can better represent women than a woman can, and now by trying to once again promote a woman over Obama, you're denigrating the hopes and dreams of all women who've placed their hopes in Obama. Leave him alone!


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 5:48pm

    alooone. There, fixed it for you.

    by jollyroger on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 5:54pm

    Thought you'd link the Youtube clip.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 6:06pm

    Brilliant. By pointing out that Obama isn't decisive & instead weasels out with "it's the best we could have gotten", we're feminizing him & dehumanizing him.

    Brilliant. Your psychosis, our strictures on posting.

    Who knew that an innocuous phrase like "inner punk" was being a Limbaugh bully? while I always assumed "punk" was kinda male & full-on testosterone, now I find it's trying to make Obama a girlie boy. (subtext to "God Save the Queen"?)

    As I said before, Rush Limbaugh eats breakfast - does that mean I should stop eating it to be on the right side of the political fence?

    Here's a tip - politicians are typically paid to be decisive and generate results. If your man can't do it, I suggest he resign and give any available man, woman, child the opportunity to be effective. If that's "misogynistic", I'm a Lithuanian kelp farmer.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 5:42pm

    If he now must wear the "all talk, no action" jacket, he has no one to blame but Barry.

    Even if true...so what?

    "Poor Barry, he fucked up. He made his bed. Now he'll have to lay in it all by himself. Even the dumbest guy in the world has his number. The end."

    What is the point of this?

    Do you think OFA is reading this and will start pushing the prez in the right direction?

    Or do think it's just too late--Obama shoulda listened to the progressives--and we might as well enjoy saying "we told you so!" while we watch the downward spiral?

    I guess if the guy pulls it out, the one thing we can say for sure is...progressives had nothing to do with it...right?

     


    by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 8:53pm

    Short summary of this blog and comments:

    Obama:....dithered and delayed  failed could have laid down and died Obummer. Not exactly ....inspiring driven mad by teeth grinding frustration  terribly flawed Why run for President if you don't want to be in charge roughed up by his strategic superiors  If your man can't do it, I suggest he resign..

    A question:

    If Obama is all the above, why are Sheldon Adelson, Koch and other billionaires, spending tens and hundreds of millions to kick Obama out of office, and put Rmoney in? Think about it....money talks...what is it saying?


    by NCD on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:25am

    Because they want the greater evil, and are really cool, indeed enthusiastic, about it As my rather florid thought experiment lays out, I don't want my fingerprints on murder.

    by jollyroger on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:29am

    I don't want to let the,"Bin Laden" doctrine disappear with no serious discussion. Virtually all the sturm & drang to which you have applied your reductionist formula relates to domestic wins of ommision or commission.. We ought not pass over with no comment that this shrinking violet who could not muster the recess appointments and executive orders that repugnant obstruction demanded had no problem flagrantly violating the war powers act, putting us on notice that murders will be cheerfully done in our name and tough shit if we get blown back on.

    by jollyroger on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:47am

    Would You really want to argue that Libya was anything but an impeachable offense as great as anything Nixon ever did?

    Above read "domestic sins" (stupid auto complete ...)

    by jollyroger on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:53am

    Nixon wasn't impeached, he was tossed to the Democratic dogs by the right wing because the right couldn't stand Nixon, they hated his long list of liberal policies, and the NATO operation in Libya was approved by the UN Security Council, it was not an impeachable offense. The Iraq invasion by Bush wasn't approved by the UN and was impeachable.

    Jolly, are you just another Ronulan Dag fruitcake, so delusional that you voted at least once for George W. Bush, because you thought he stood for freedom? Tell me it's not true!


    by NCD on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 10:11am

    I was better than fine with security council justification


    by jollyroger on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 5:02pm

    Not so fine with excluding the Libyan adventure from the definition of "armed conflict " on account of we weren't losing any personnel.


    by jollyroger on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 5:06pm

    Ronulan fruitcake, guilty as charged. "w" voter?

    by jollyroger on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 5:58pm