Skip to main content

View Diary: The truth about the Nixonian presidency of Obama (98 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh, stop pretending: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    duhban

    "Wonder where the "Hey, it's legal!" crowd Draws the line?  The same acts committed by a Republican president is my educated guess."

    Which Thug President would it be then?   And why do you continue pretending what Bush did was "Hey, its legal"?

    At least have the courage to admit what you said.

    •  Let me explain it to you carefully. (0+ / 0-)

      *President Obama has implemented certain policies like killing some Americans abroad, massive surveillance of electronic communications, and unprecedented scrutiny of journalists and whistleblowers.

      *Many people find these policies objectionable while others find them perfectly acceptable.

      *It appears the courts will agree these policies are legal regardless of some people's objections.

      *Many of the people who think those policies are fine, legal or not, would be up in arms if they were committed by a Republican president.

      How is that lying about Bush's illegalities?

      In other words, WTF are you talking about?

      A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

      by MrJayTee on Thu May 23, 2013 at 03:51:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You began by characterizing anyone who disagrees w (0+ / 0-)

        you as "the 'Hey, it's legal!' crowd".  You then accused them of "partisan hypocrisy".

        This you explicitly invoked legality, thus injecting the issue of same and by comparing BO to "a Republican president".  You did not say "people who think those policies are fine, legal or not," as you now try to.  You said "the 'Hey, it's legal!' crowd".  

        Further, given the context this discussion takes place in, how could you honestly not expect that to be understood as comparison to Bush?  But, as I said, Bush's scandals were largely perpetrated by acts violating the law and Constitution (the 'supreme law'), i.e., illegal acts.  Not too mention the cartoon called bullshite on the accusations of BO being 'Nixonian'.  The peculiar character of Nixon was that the acts he is condemned for were almost uniformly illegal and unconstitutional (IOW also illegal).

        Or, more succinctly, as I said 'Which Thug President would it be then?'

        You then distorted the position of those who point out the current issues re: BO's admin are not scandals bc the acts are legal, as instead somehow approving of the morality or wisdom of them - those are entirely different things, which is kind of the whole pt of the 'it's legal' argument.  And again, it is the entire point of what really made Nixon 'Nixonian', as the cartoon pointed out.  

        Again, you did not say "people who think those policies are fine, legal or not," as you now try to.  You said "the 'Hey, it's legal!' crowd".  

        Finally, you leveled an ad hominem insult of the honesty and ethics of people who note there are no scandals here bc Obama's acts were legal,  i.e. as 'partisan hypocrites'.  In doing so, you misunderstand or choose to ignore the fundamental difference, to wit: Bush's were mostly illegal.

        Only by doing so can you then create the equivalency b/t Bush's actual scandals and these Obama scamdals - and b/t Bush apologists and opponents of current scamdal b/s - necessary to accuse them of acting solely out of "partisan hypocrisy" and assuming they would think Obama's acts scandals if they were done by a Thug.

        •  Rubbish. (0+ / 0-)

          Again, slowly:

          The cartoon is about Benghazi, the IRS, and the legality of drone attacks on Americans and the AP seizure, AKA the subject of the diary.  

          Lots of Democrats are defending the apparently legal drone attacks and the AP seizure, people who would be livid if any Republican were doing it, regardless of legality, putting party and President about principle.  

          They are the "Hey, it's legal" crowd" and they are hypocrites.  Big ones.

          Simple as that.  You can churn out as many paragraphs of twisted parsing and bullshit as you like, but you can't make my words say something they don't to fulfill your manic need to defend the President.

          Don't let that stop you from twelve or fourteen more paragraphs of a really close reading.  At least it'll keep you busy.  

          Obsess away, my friend!

          A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

          by MrJayTee on Fri May 24, 2013 at 05:08:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site