atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#1372: Leaving Gitmo open after all?

How interesting: Michelle Malkin reports that the incipient Obama administration is rethinking Obama's campaign promise to close "Club Gitmo".

Why? Weeelll, because it turns out that those guys are terrorists, after all, and no Democrat wants to let them all go and then have one of them turn up in the middle of some massive 9/11-style attack on US soil, that's why.

Oh, okay. When George Bush does it because he's trying to protect the American people, he's a nazi and a thug who is deliberately trying to strip us of our civil rights. But when Democrats do it, it's a principled attempt to prevent a terror attack.

What, you think I'm exaggerating?
Listen to relentless Bush critic David Cole, who told the New York Times last week: “You can’t be a purist and say there’s never any circumstance in which a democratic society can preventively detain someone.” Added Ben Wittes of the Brookings Institution: “I’m afraid of people getting released in the name of human rights and doing terrible things.”
So here we go again: when Republicans do it, it's horrible, but when Democrats do the exact same thing it's perfectly reasonable.

* * *

Also from Michelle: Students decide not to hold a charity fundraiser for cystic fibrosis. Why, you ask?

Because the disease only affects white people. Primarily white males.

Since CF is not "diverse", the students decided they would drop the charity from their fundraiser.

Well, sickle cell anemia only affects blacks. I would say that the argument against funding CF charities ought to apply to charities for sickle cell as well. After all, a disease which only affects one race is not "diverse", right?

Oh wait, that would be racist, wouldn't it? Well, guess what....

* * *

Democrat city councilor asks, "Who cares about being unconstitutional?" What'll happen is that her idiotic law will be negated because it's unconstitutional, and then she'll bitch and moan about how unfair it is.

The one dissenting vote pointed out that "...no municipality can legally regulate firearms of any kind, at any time, for any reason..." which was, as I recall, the result of a recent Supreme Court decision. (Heller vs District of Colombia 2008, IIRC.)

* * *

OMG! OMG! We can't wait any longer! Impeach Bush!

My God, WTF.

If there had actually been anything done by the Bush administration which that rose to the level of impeachment, does this libtard actually think Pelosi would have brushed off the idea of impeachment? The simple fact is that there is nothing over which Bush could be impeached, and the Democrat party knows it. (Well, except for Kucinich, Conyers, Nadler, and a few others.)

And what good would it do to impeach Bush now anyway? With a scant eight weeks remaining of the Bush administration, Congress wouldn't even be able to get the paperwork out of the way before Obama took his oath of office, and Congress would then be impeaching an ex-President civilian, which it has no Constitutional authority to do whatsoever.

Okay, sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Sit down, take a deep breath, go to a happy place. For fuck's sake, there aren't even two months left of the Bush administration. Relax already.

Jesus Christ.

* * *

...so it's White Wednesday again, and I have to drive to freaking Lansing (Illinois, not Michigan) to pick up pies. Argh etc.

First Cinnabon, now Baker's Square. I smellz a rat.
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments