"Reagan failures?" The very phrase is an oxymoron. As where "Carter failures" is redundant.
Ronus Magnumus Reagan made no mistakes, zero, none, nada and I won't have one more word of this blasphemy repeated, period.
****
On Wilkow Titus ... don't worry, we already knew you had a vagina. By the way, the argument isn't over "torture", it's defining torture, and I think one could make a legitimate psychological case that precisely BECAUSE McCain was tortured he shouldn't be making that determination as CiC.
And I hope you realize that your exposure to NEPA is rapidly turning you further and further left. At some point I expect to stand up (behind Jambo of course) at your all male Canadian wedding in commie red suits with cycles and hammers dangling from the ceiling, Marx look-alikes juggling, and the whole thing government funded......
****
*sniff* ... Mardi Gras parade floats.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
That was funny. But come on... You can name a couple of shortcomings.
Wasn’t it you that coined the term within this forum “Too cute by half”?
Two points concerning your comments here about McCain’s ability to objectively judge what is torture and what isn’t, then I’ll let it go, okay?
If, by your definition, McCain should not be allowed a voice in defining torture because he WAS tortured, then why would we want a “veteran” to lead our armed forces? There is the distinct chance that “veteran” might have experienced combat and suffered because of it, correct? How then could a CIC make the needed “objective” determinations concerning the commitment of combat troops in potentially hostile areas? This is truly an imbecilic argument if ever I heard one…
Secondly, so many conservative pundits out there are calling repeatedly for Government to stop “interpreting” the Law and simply enforce it… whether it is concerning immigration, or foreign policy, or national security and defense… stop trying to re-write every single law and regulation and simply ENFORCE what is there. Is this not the conservative position any more?
If it is, then why do we need to “re-define” the term “torture” as it applies to US departments and agencies, when it is very clearly defined in both the US Code of Military Justice and the US Federal Code of Regulation (two arms of the same body of law, remember) as THE EXACT SAME THING. BOTH of these bodies of regulation and law have determined “water-boarding” and similar extreme reflex techniques to be illegal under current statutes… so what is the deal? ENFORCEMENT FIRST, right? Use the laws on the books and if they prove inadequate, then follow the legislative procedure to correct them as needed.
Seems fairly simple to me…
Post a Comment