My worst nightmare

[thatcrazycajun]

...is that Junior is watching what ol' Pervert Newsheriff is doing over in Islamabad and taking notes for January of 2009...as this cartoon illustrates.


(click here to view)

Monte Wolverton, Cagle Cartoons, Inc.
Nov 5, 2007 •EditorialCartoonists.com

Comments

[robin-june.livejournal.com]

Well, I've been convinced for a while that they use "1984" and "Brave New World" as instruction manuals instead of the horrible anti-examples they were intended to be.

[zsero.livejournal.com]

Anyone who thinks this is even remotely possible needs to be locked away in a padded room, before they start thinking that the cars zooming by are pretty kittens, and step into the road to play with them.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

>>Anyone who thinks this is even remotely possible needs to be locked away in a padded room, before they start thinking that the cars zooming by are pretty kittens, and step into the road to play with them.<<

Really? What's to stop him? The military? Half of them support him. The balls-free Democratic Congress? Puh-lease; they can't even get enough of a majority to cut off funding for a war most of the citizenry hates (and put them in charge last year for the express purpose of stopping!). The citizenry themselves? Judging from the lack of a popular uprising against his misdeeds strong enough to overcome GOP dirty tricks at the polls and either vote this guy out (see Ohio, 2004) or impeach him, I must say I have my doubts. The Constitution? He's already spent the past six years basically using it for toilet paper.

Likely? Maybe not. Possible? Don't bet the retirement fund on it. And if you think that makes me non compos mentis and that I should be locked away in a rubber room, so be it. He, Cheney and their gang have shown such breathtaking disregard for the Constitution, and for their own oaths to uphold same, that I can't put anything past them.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

"The military? Half of them support him."

The notion that half of the military would support an attempt to stay in power illegally strikes me as absurd.

[zsero.livejournal.com]

None of the above is even close to anything that has happened in the real world. You can tell all the stories you like for propaganda purposes, but between you and me you cannot possibly expect me to believe that you really believe this.

Meanwhile in this real world the president has shown no sign of any inclination to disregard the constitution. (Except in the ways that every president and 90% of congressmen have done for at least the past 75 years, and which have become, de facto, almost a new constitution, but let's not get into that)

As for betting the retirement fund, you're on. I'm willing to bet $1000 that, come 21-Jan-2009, George W Bush will not be president — de jure, de facto, or in any other way. Let me know if you, or a consortium of similarly deluded people, are ready to match me.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

>>None of the above is even close to anything that has happened in the real world.<<

What world have YOU been living in the last six years? Do you actually believe that Bush's abuses are no worse than 75 years' worth of past Presidents and Congresses? Read this (http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/articles/articles06/Starr-BushConstitution-3-06.htm) and tell me you still don't think this has actually happened. Or this (www.counterpunch.org/madsen02112003.html). Or this. (www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081106C.shtml) Go on, I'll wait.

What evidence do you have that any prior government we've had in this country save Nixon's has even come close to this kind of abridgement of Constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties? To this kind of arrogation of power to the executive that rightfully belongs to the other two branches of government, the states and/or the people? Show me your proof, sir.

I'll have to get back to you on the bet when I've arranged that consortium. :-) I don't want to believe that even Bush would be so hubristic as to think he could get away with staying in power past 21 January 2009...but I don't think it's fair or accurate to accuse me of lunacy for believing that such a thing could be at least theoretically possible. Again, do I think it's likely? I hope not. But I think you'll find the public record -- on the gutting of habeas corpus, on warrantless wiretaps, on imprisonment without charge and torture, on the "signing statements" attached to signed legislation -- backs me up quite amply on whether any of this has happened "in the real world."

Go on, I'll wait.

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

Matt: -but I don't think it's fair or accurate to accuse me of lunacy for believing that such a thing could be at least theoretically possible.-

Certainly not on the level where 'theoretically' the parts of the moon we haven't explored might be made of green cheese. Oh, wait! According to some of your "sources", we haven't actually been to the moon. It was all an elaborate hoax to fool... well, they never really say who's supposed to have been fooled by it, except the ubiquitous 'everybody'.

Your first source begins by calling for military action against the president and vice-president of the US for -- wait for it... wait for it... material breach of the constitution.

That's sedition Matt, and if you agree with them, you're just as much a traitor. And FYI, the article's from before the last election.
==================================================
http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen02112003.html

It is now time for the U.S. military to act against a dangerous regime that is in material breach of one of the most important legal instruments in the world--the U.S. Constitution....
==================================================

Matt: -Again, do I think it's likely? I hope not.-

Your second link is to an article that is over 15 months old which talks about Congressman Conyers' bill for impeachment and subsequent investigations being quashed by Speaker Pelosi.

The reason Congresswoman Pelosi was and is against it is that with an informed opinion and facts to build on, she decided that the charge didn't warrant further official investigation. If her rabid Bush-hating ass couldn't see the value in pursuing it, then you've got two choices; accept her judgement as able to inform your own, and stop spewing BS that even she knows would blow up in her face for lack of evidence, or call her a coward or a liar or a sellout, and admit that the very people who are driving you to hate the administration so badly, are just as full of it as the people you hate. I mean really, that's the conclusion of your "source".

Another FYI -- truthout.org is run by 9-11 truthers who say, in part, that we blew up the World Trade Center in order to start a mideast war to grab their oil and turn their land over to Israel. Get a grip, and do your own research.
============================
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/63/21754
...
All but 37 Democrats have refused to sign onto H. Res. 635, and many citizens now see the Democrats as complicit in Bush and Cheney's crimes...you can't tell that to Nancy Pelosi, who is following one of two paths: (1) tossing out the Constitution in order to follow a losing electoral strategy and avoid the possibility of becoming president by dfault, or (2) planning to do what is right and what the public demands after losing elections that would have made that possible....
============================


Your last link is to another rant, this one by a liberal talking-head Princeton Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs.
He has nothing to add to the conversation except his 'expert' opinion that America has made mistakes in time of war that it has changed its mind about when peace settled in. Just a thesis and a couple of propositions; no actual formal conclusions because there was no actual research original or otherwise.
==================================================
http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/articles/articles06/Starr-BushConstitution-3-06.htm
==================================================

Matt: -But I think you'll find the public record -- on the gutting of habeas corpus,...-- backs me up quite amply on whether any of this has happened "in the real world."-

Click on this link and we can talk about just how 'amply'.
============================
http://a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com/928.html?mode=reply
============================

Worst president ever...

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

-Do you actually believe that Bush's abuses are no worse than 75 years' worth of past Presidents...-

You could be right about that much. I heard that he threatened to put six or eight new Justices on the Supreme Court if the Supreme Court didn't start towing his line on some specific rulings he's got an interest in.(can you guess which rulings?) There's a loophole in the constitution wherein it gives life tenure to sitting justices, but says nothing about the number of justices sitting.

Also, he has secret legislation waiting only for congressional approval, which allows him to confiscate all privately held gold which is held by its owners strictly for its monetary value.(This excludes things like jewelry, gold stocks held by jewelers to ply their trade, and coin collections which can be proved to be of value greater than the coins' face values for numismatic purposes.) He even threatened to arrest anyone trying to avoid the confiscation by fleeing the country, and to arrest anyone who could be proved to have tried to help them. The legislation also provides for huge fines against Corporate entities for the same actions.

I will go as far as to say I don't think he's the best president we've ever had.

[ladyqkat.livejournal.com]

This would indeed be hysterically funny if it weren't so close to the truth.