Thugocracy: It's The Neo-Lib Way

[travelinman67]

Sorry about the delay...

...been knee deep in it out here in SoCal the past 24...I'll post more tonight once I get to the airport.


re: Bush, L.E. use...

Could you please cite examples (...and not the "convention" sh!t...or "free speech" zones, when the Pres travels...that goes both ways...). I honestly am unaware of any incidents, and if I were, the Bush Admin would have been the recepient of my rapier keyboard flames. ANY Presidential use of L.E. to silence citizen critics should be viscerally and loudly denounced.

BTW, be careful what doors you open up with Presidential abuse to attack critics...Bubba had a whole closet full of AG/FBI/IRS uses to investigate & attack critics...akin to what FTB's been doing in CA for decades.

Talk to you guys tonight...

(BTW BigApp...chill...I'm just f'n with you Hillbillies. I know there's no racism in N.C. )

So I guess it's OK to to question potential DOJ peronnel on their loyalty to president more than loyalty to law? Warrantless wire-taps before approval....it had to happen if telecoms were seeking retroactive immunity.....

Elaborate or source, please.

[Appaholic]

So I guess it's OK to to question potential DOJ peronnel on their loyalty to president more than loyalty to law? Warrantless wire-taps before approval....it had to happen if telecoms were seeking retroactive immunity.....

Elaborate or source, please.

http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF ... 1&.intl=us

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0807/final.pdf

http://www.infowars.com/articles/bb/wir ... retaps.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... ct_of_2008

[travelinman67]

Elaborate or source, please.

http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF ... 1&.intl=us

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0807/final.pdf

http://www.infowars.com/articles/bb/wir ... retaps.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... ct_of_2008

Thanks.

The first two links refer to former Bush Admin's AG Alberto Gonzalez's deputy, Monica Goodling's improper use of partisan criteria when selecting career employees. Goodling and Gonzalez were both rightfully forced resign. Again, I have never supported Gonzalez as his appointment was clearly inappropriate as his selection was for political purposes to help clear the path for unreviewed use of signing statements, a practice that many presidents have used, and was staunchily defended by now Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito during the Reagan administration, and later, in a published interpretation by Clinton AG Bernard Nussbaum... http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm
Again, Gonzalez, IMHO, was rightfully forced to resign, however, his deputies incorporation of partisan criteria does not equate to Bush's use of L.E. to intimidate, slander and silence his critics: The subject of this thread.
The second two links you posted refer to the FISA controversy over monitoring of U.S. communications without a proper FISA court warrant. Once again, while arguably inappropriate, principally because the FISA court's function was to allow such "In Camera" review of surveillance requests pertaining to National Security, therefore mitigating the AG's need to seek the statutory exemptions provided by The Patriot Act, ultimately, the use of "wiretapping" without a warrant was not unlawful, and the anticipated claims against the participating telecommunications company's would have been non criminal. And, as with your first links, the purpose of the FISA endrun has never been attributed as an attempt by the Bush administration to spy on political opponents for the purpose of intimidating, slandering, silencing or criminally prosecuting those opponents, so once again, it is not applicable to the topic of this thread.

Thank you, however, for opening the door into review of Presidential abuse of L.E. to intimidate, slander, and silence their critics. May I offer these germane examples...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A960958260

Clinton Apologizes Over Use of F.B.I. To Get G.O.P. Files

By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: June 10, 1996

The White House issued an apology today with President Clinton's endorsement to several prominent Republicans because their confidential files were improperly obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation by the White House two years ago.

In delivering the apology, Leon E. Panetta, the White House chief of staff, said on a television news program that the incident was "completely inexcusable."

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One later in the day, President Clinton said he fully supported a public apology though he said the incident appeared to be "a completely honest bureaucratic snafu."

and...

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2000/584.shtml

FEDERAL COURT HEARING TODAY IN FALWELL LAWSUIT OVER WHITE HOUSE FILES, FBI DATABASE ON RELIGIOUS AND PRO-LIFE LEADERS

Rev. Jerry Falwell Sues White House, FBI on Illegal Files and VAAPCON Database


and...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/travel_o ... e_6-6.html

Evidence has cropped up that Clinton staff members ordered the FBI to investigate the fired employees of the White House travel office.

[Appaholic]

Elaborate or source, please.

http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF ... 1&.intl=us

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0807/final.pdf

http://www.infowars.com/articles/bb/wir ... retaps.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... ct_of_2008

Thanks.

The first two links refer to former Bush Admin's AG Alberto Gonzalez's deputy, Monica Goodling's improper use of partisan criteria when selecting career employees. Goodling and Gonzalez were both rightfully forced resign. Again, I have never supported Gonzalez as his appointment was clearly inappropriate as his selection was for political purposes to help clear the path for unreviewed use of signing statements, a practice that many presidents have used, and was staunchily defended by now Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito during the Reagan administration, and later, in a published interpretation by Clinton AG Bernard Nussbaum... http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm
Again, Gonzalez, IMHO, was rightfully forced to resign, however, his deputies incorporation of partisan criteria does not equate to Bush's use of L.E. to intimidate, slander and silence his critics: The subject of this thread.
The second two links you posted refer to the FISA controversy over monitoring of U.S. communications without a proper FISA court warrant. Once again, while arguably inappropriate, principally because the FISA court's function was to allow such "In Camera" review of surveillance requests pertaining to National Security, therefore mitigating the AG's need to seek the statutory exemptions provided by The Patriot Act, ultimately, the use of "wiretapping" without a warrant was not unlawful, and the anticipated claims against the participating telecommunications company's would have been non criminal. And, as with your first links, the purpose of the FISA endrun has never been attributed as an attempt by the Bush administration to spy on political opponents for the purpose of intimidating, slandering, silencing or criminally prosecuting those opponents, so once again, it is not applicable to the topic of this thread.

Thank you, however, for opening the door into review of Presidential abuse of L.E. to intimidate, slander, and silence their critics. May I offer these germane examples...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A960958260

Clinton Apologizes Over Use of F.B.I. To Get G.O.P. Files

By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: June 10, 1996

The White House issued an apology today with President Clinton's endorsement to several prominent Republicans because their confidential files were improperly obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation by the White House two years ago.

In delivering the apology, Leon E. Panetta, the White House chief of staff, said on a television news program that the incident was "completely inexcusable."

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One later in the day, President Clinton said he fully supported a public apology though he said the incident appeared to be "a completely honest bureaucratic snafu."

and...

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2000/584.shtml

FEDERAL COURT HEARING TODAY IN FALWELL LAWSUIT OVER WHITE HOUSE FILES, FBI DATABASE ON RELIGIOUS AND PRO-LIFE LEADERS

Rev. Jerry Falwell Sues White House, FBI on Illegal Files and VAAPCON Database


and...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/travel_o ... e_6-6.html

Evidence has cropped up that Clinton staff members ordered the FBI to investigate the fired employees of the White House travel office.

No sh!t.....so, the Clinton Admin, who Republicans abhor, is the new standard for future Republican admins........thank you for clarifying the Republican position.......it never fails, independents like myself seldom expect much from pure party apologists like yourself and MJ and you guys seldom disappoint......

[travelinman67]

No sh!t.....so, the Clinton Admin, who Republicans abhor, is the new standard for future Republican admins........thank you for clarifying the Republican position.......it never fails, independents like myself seldom expect much from pure party apologists like yourself and MJ and you guys seldom disappoint......

Holy f&^k...

OK, put your banjo and mason jar down for a minute and re-read that carefully...

I realize comparing "political misuse of law enforcement to silence critics throught intimidation and slander" and "political misuse of executive authority to circumvent constitutional protections to pursue foreign terrorist and promote foreign policies financially beneficial to friends" sounds slightly the same when your wife/sister's kids are crying, but there IS more than a nuance of difference.

...as you were. Banjo up, and play.

[Appaholic]

No sh!t.....so, the Clinton Admin, who Republicans abhor, is the new standard for future Republican admins........thank you for clarifying the Republican position.......it never fails, independents like myself seldom expect much from pure party apologists like yourself and MJ and you guys seldom disappoint......

Holy f&^k...

OK, put your banjo and mason jar down for a minute and re-read that carefully...

I realize comparing "political misuse of law enforcement to silence critics throught intimidation and slander" and "political misuse of executive authority to circumvent constitutional protections to pursue foreign terrorist and promote foreign policies financially beneficial to friends" sounds slightly the same when your wife/sister's kids are crying, but there IS more than a nuance of difference.

...as you were. Banjo up, and play.

You're right....that's much better.....now what happened to McCain in 2000? Valerie Plame? All classy acts....quit apologizing for your heroes and join us in condemning unethical behavior from our highest office.....

[travelinman67]

You're right....that's much better.....now what happened to McCain in 2000? Valerie Plame? All classy acts....quit apologizing for your heroes and join us in condemning unethical behavior from our highest office.....

"Earth to Jethro...Earth to Jethro...Come in, Jethro."


Re-read the thread, numbskull. I am the one ROUNDLY condemning unethical (AND unconstitutional) use of L.E. for political purposes on both sides. You and Jon have knee-jerked in defense of the Dem's and have NOT ONCE taken responsibility or admitted Dem fault.

BTW, you ARE NOT independent, or you would condemn both sides, which you do not...

...watch for my next thread.

[Appaholic]

You're right....that's much better.....now what happened to McCain in 2000? Valerie Plame? All classy acts....quit apologizing for your heroes and join us in condemning unethical behavior from our highest office.....

"Earth to Jethro...Earth to Jethro...Come in, Jethro."


Re-read the thread, numbskull. I am the one ROUNDLY condemning unethical (AND unconstitutional) use of L.E. for political purposes on both sides. You and Jon have knee-jerked in defense of the Dem's and have NOT ONCE taken responsibility or admitted Dem fault.

BTW, you ARE NOT independent, or you would condemn both sides, which you do not...

...watch for my next thread.

Maybe not on this thread, but research any other posts oneither website and I feel confident in my calling out both sides.....you are the ONLY one roundly condemning both sides.....BS...look at your thread title hypo......

[travelinman67]

Maybe not on this thread, but research any other posts oneither website and I feel confident in my calling out both sides.....you are the ONLY one roundly condemning both sides.....BS...look at your thread title hypo......

The thread title accurately describes how Neo-lib's conduct themselves: Acting unethically if not unconstitutionally to silence those with differing views. AGS is, albeit a microcosm, yet exceptionally accurate example of, the Neo-lib method of political and cultural censorship by arrogant, dishonest, sociopaths.

The desired result of this censorship, in both cases, is a greater degree of manipulative control by the press/Dem Party leaders (i.e. Gore,Clinton,Soros)/ government/administration over the actions of people.

That, Dear Jethro, is not merely unconstitutional, it's seditious.

[Appaholic]

Maybe not on this thread, but research any other posts oneither website and I feel confident in my calling out both sides.....you are the ONLY one roundly condemning both sides.....BS...look at your thread title hypo......

The thread title accurately describes how Neo-lib's conduct themselves: Acting unethically if not unconstitutionally to silence those with differing views. AGS is, albeit a microcosm, yet exceptionally accurate example of, the Neo-lib method of political and cultural censorship by arrogant, dishonest, sociopaths.

The desired result of this censorship, in both cases, is a greater degree of manipulative control by the press/Dem Party leaders (i.e. Gore,Clinton,Soros)/ government/administration over the actions of people.

That, Dear Jethro, is not merely unconstitutional, it's seditious.

I actually do agree with your statement. But don't you think it works from both sides? It's the reason McCain and Bush courted the ultra-conservative religious right.......just think it's irresponsible to state that the Dems have the market cornered on these actions.

[travelinman67]

I actually do agree with your statement. But don't you think it works from both sides? It's the reason McCain and Bush courted the ultra-conservative religious right.......just think it's irresponsible to state that the Dems have the market cornered on these actions.

While there are undoubtedly cases of political motivated censorship by the right, those efforts IMHO are limited to small fringe extremist groups and not the pervasive norm as has been the adopted method of the Neo-libs. While I can't recall any studies I've read on this, I'll wager the limiting parameter for the right is the left's access to, and overwhelming presence in, the media (i.e., the right could never successfully employ a censorship-by-intimidation methodology as the press would shove a camera up their azz at the first sign of thuggery).

Just look at the NYT article today and ask yourself, "Have I ever seen any other major American newspaper print an article like that about Michelle Obama, or even Hillary when Bill was running for President?"

(Please, don't just say "Yes"...source. There have been many negative things said about Hillary, but specifically, I'd challenge you to find anything like the NYT's character defamation piece that was done before she became first lady and mired herself in controversy with the Rose Law firm, Whitewater and Travelgate scandals.)

[Appaholic]

I actually do agree with your statement. But don't you think it works from both sides? It's the reason McCain and Bush courted the ultra-conservative religious right.......just think it's irresponsible to state that the Dems have the market cornered on these actions.

While there are undoubtedly cases of political motivated censorship by the right, those efforts IMHO are limited to small fringe extremist groups and not the pervasive norm as has been the adopted method of the Neo-libs. While I can't recall any studies I've read on this, I'll wager the limiting parameter for the right is the left's access to, and overwhelming presence in, the media (i.e., the right could never successfully employ a censorship-by-intimidation methodology as the press would shove a camera up their azz at the first sign of thuggery).

Just look at the NYT article today and ask yourself, "Have I ever seen any other major American newspaper print an article like that about Michelle Obama, or even Hillary when Bill was running for President?"

(Please, don't just say "Yes"...source. There have been many negative things said about Hillary, but specifically, I'd challenge you to find anything like the NYT's character defamation piece that was done before she became first lady and mired herself in controversy with the Rose Law firm, Whitewater and Travelgate scandals.)

That's just it, T-man, I consider the media a small, extremist fringe group.......