Bring on the Weed and Clones!

http://www.wxyz.com/content/news/2008vote/story.aspx?content_id=e12184f9-c3d2-43af-a526-dddc96a2c776&rss=785

In defiance of every possible expectation, the State of Michigan is threatening to leap into the late 90's and take some real, actual, progressive action by legalizing medical marijuana use and embryonic stem cell research. Holy fucking shit.



Opponents of the medical marijuana proposal have been decrying it's usage, culminating with the country's official Drug Czar John Walters saying "the proposal in Michigan would make it too easy for people to get the drug". Wait... is that supposed to make me vote against this proposal? Since I'm out of school and not many of my friends smoke, I don't think official Drug Czar John Walters knows how goddamn hard it is for me to find weed these days. If I want a bag I have a few options- I can call old friends in different towns I rarely talk to (desperate), go to concerts, parties and bars and try to make connections with people who smoke (super desperate), hang out at the 7-11 on 8 mile and Inkster and play the "approach the dudes who look stoned but not too threatening and probably aren't undercover cops" game (incredibly desperate), or finally go downtown into Detroit and buy from some sketchy dealer on a street corner and hope it's not laced with Angel Dust (no fucking way). None of these are good options, and if there is any possible way some of that sweet, sweet Mary Jane is going to leak onto the streets for the people to snatch up, I say all the better.

Also in his little anti-ganja hate speech, official Drug Czar John Walters tried to scare people into voting against the proposal by showing "pictures of marijuana vending machines that popped up in California when that state approved the use of medical marijuana." Even if you are against the idea of this proposal, you have to admit how awesomely awesome it would be to be in, say, a shopping mall and see this beautiful baby next to the Coke and snack vending machines:



Would it really be that bad if more people smoked weed? I don't know if you noticed, but everybody seems to be an asshole nowadays. Last week at a Tim Horton's the lady working behind the counter* literally threw the cardboard sleeve that goes around my coffee at me when I asked her for one because she forgot. Fucking bitch. If she was high, she still might not have remembered, but she might have given me a free bear claw, because when you're high you're happy and you want to share the wealth. Once at work, feeding off the early-morning sugar rush of a large coffee and a free bear claw, I may have been extra productive, which in turn might have helped my company turn a bigger profit, which in turn would have meant more tax revenue went to the Federal Government, which may have given the government enough money to fix Medicare, which would have helped old people get their medicine and live longer, happier lives. Are you against old people getting their medicine, official Drug Czar John Walters, you heartless bastard?

As for the other proposal, unsurprisingly the reactionary and totally lame right is mounting a fight against stem cell research in Michigan, because, you know, fuck those people with Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease whose lives could someday be completely changed by the treatments and discoveries that experimentation on stem cells could bring. And fuck all those high-paying research and medical jobs it would bring to the state, we have so many jobs here we don't know what to do with them. I have like four old jobs sitting in my garage I haven't touched in years. Maybe I should have a job bonfire this weekend, all my job-saturated friends can bring their discarded and unused jobs over, and we can just have some drinks around the job bonfire and laugh and laugh about how great our awesome economy is and how everyone has so many fucking jobs they're littering the street and choking out all the wildlife and vegetation in southeastern Michigan. In fact, all I needed to make up my mind how to vote was the following video:



Once again arguing against the proposal, but after seeing this I have never wanted something to happen more in my life. A human-cow hybrid? Yes please. And why stop there? Why not bat-tiger hybrids, a flying nocturnal super-efficient killing machine we could unleash on our enemies and destroy once and for all? If you don't think an army of bat-tiger hybrids couldn't find Osama bin Laden in his stupid cave hideout in the mountains of Afghanistan, then you're nuts. Or what about a turkey-duck hybrid, so instead of buying one of those expensive duck-stuffed turkeys on Thanksgiving you could just kill one horrific abomination of God and get all that turkey-duck goodness on our tables more efficiently? How about an ostrich-dolphin hybrid? I don't know what that creature would be useful for specifically, but don't even tell me if there was one in a zoo you wouldn't drop everything and go see it.

More importantly, it may allow me to inject myself with some sort of DNA-altering substance that could give me animal superpowers. My life is extremely lacking in the superpower-having area, and if I could somehow get the speed of a cheetah or the eyesight of an owl or the cock of a horse, well, then, color my life advanced.

Hopefully one day once these proposals pass my ultimate dream could become reality: getting high with animals. This dog has already figured out how to take bong rips (good boy!), and I've always wanted to get high with some monkeys to see if we could somehow create a new language where we could finally, like understand each other. Or something. It seemed way better when I was high. Anyway, thanks Science!

* Seriously though, I hope that bitch who works at Tim Horton's get scalding coffee in her eyes. You make my life miserable every morning. You suck not only at your job, but at life.

Stop the Stupid Bullshit

The man pictured here next to Sen. Barack Obama is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. You’ve probably seen him in the news, as he has come under tremendous fire from politicians and media alike, in regards to some strong and inflammatory comments he’s made at his church, which just so happens to be the church of Sen. Obama, who just happens to be running for President.

The outrage machine has been working overtime to link Obama and some of the more insensitive things Rev. Wright has said, and the main-stream media is especially giddy about this- I think Sean Hannity actually had to hide his outrage boner last night on his show. It's been the lead in the N.Y. Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post, as well as on every major evening news network. This is the type of garbage that passes for news nowadays.

I’m willing to bet almost nobody knows anything about Barack Obama’s healthcare plan (here’s the link: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/ -there’s some good stuff in here, especially the subsidies for people who can’t afford to pay for their own health care, as well as mandated universal health coverage for children- something Pres. Bush VETOED late last year, but I digress), but you know he’s a shitty bowler, and that he doesn’t wear a flag pin on his lapel, and his middle name is Hussein, and the pastor of his church seems like kind of a dick.

Does anybody give a shit about Hillary’s plan to help fix the housing market/subprime loan mess (some of the details are here: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4530 -she’s calling for moratoriums on home foreclosures for up to 90 days and possible rate freezes for people locked into subprime adjustable-rate mortgages- some solid first steps)? Nope, but I’ll bet you know she lied about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire when she was first lady, and how she cried while campaigning in New Hampshire, and how her husband got some BJ’s from a chubby bimbo ten years ago.

Or what about John McCain’s stance on Iraq? Does anybody realize that Sen. McCain advocates increasing the troop levels in Iraq and rejects unconditional negotiations with Syria and Iran (here the link to his official website, less you think I jest: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm)? Maybe vaguely, but no doubt you know John McCain is hailed as a “maverick” in the U.S. Senate, repeatedly adorned with the false moniker of “Straight Talker” by the adoring press? I’ll bet you didn’t know how McCain voted on the last piece of legislation regarding torture (look it up, it’s quite surprising), but I’ll bet you knew is campaign bus is called the “Straight Talk Express”.

I started with Rev. Wright because he embodies the epitome of the stupid bullshit that not only passes for news with our lazy, sycophantic mainstream media, but also the motivations of our votes as Americans. Much was made in 2000 when George W. Bush “beat” Al Gore (not even going to get into that one) by appealing to regular folk- many voters perceived him as the guy they wanted to have a beer with, the guy who loves baseball and golf and isn’t a big reader and who clears brush on his ranch on his days off, as opposed to the seemingly elitist Gore, a robotic lifetime bureaucrat who probably drank cabernet sauvignon and threw like a girl. But look at what this got us- this “regular guy” got us balls deep into an unwinable, costly and deadly war in the desert, neglected our national security and economy, and generally fucked things up as much as one human being could possibly fuck something up. It’s fair to say that if the effete, boring wine-drinker were elected, we wouldn't be in this war, almost 4,000 of our soldiers would be still alive, and our federal deficit wouldn’t be higher than Willie Nelson (hey-0!).

So, do you think, America, that possibly, maybe, this stupid bullshit we read in the papers and obsess about, the crap we allow to substitute for debate about actual issues, might not the best judgments of how our leaders will act and carry out their duties? Do you think that maybe just because a politician names his fucking bus the “Straight Talk Express”, it means he’s actually a straight talker? If I chartered a bus and had “World’s Smartest Man” emblazoned on the side and traveled the countryside giving speeches about how I was indeed the World’s Smartest Man, would you believe a word of it? Hopefully not, because if you met me for ten seconds you would know this wasn’t true (I drool a lot), but I’m willing to be there are some assholes that would. They would tell their friends they met the World’s Smartest Man, and it had to be true because it said it on the side of his bus.

Herein lies the fundamental problem with us as a voting electorate. We’re extremely fucking intellectually lazy. We'll take the word of the side of the bus. We don’t want to take the ten minutes to log onto Hillary Clinton’s website to find out about her plan for withdrawing our troops from Iraq, but we’re sure we’re not voting for her because she seems like kind of a bitch. We are sure we aren’t voting for Barack Obama because here’s a picture of him in a turban, and Muslims are our enemies, and he might secretly be one. In fact, here’s a perfect illustration of this, its an article about some bumblefuck pastor down in South Carolina who tried to raise the question on his church sign of whether or not Obama is a Muslim: http://www.wspa.com/midatlantic/spa/news.apx.-content-articles-SPA-2008-04-20-0005.html

The best part about this is his quote: Pastor Byrd says the sign is not meant to be racial or political but rather to make people think. "His name is so close to Osama I have a feeling he might be Islamic therefore he doesn't recognize Christ," Pastor Byrd said.

No, you ignorant dickhole, Obama isn’t “Islamic” and if you had taken one second to search this on the interwebs you’d have found out that yes, he is in fact a Christian, and no, you shouldn’t make assumptions based on things as frivolous as people’s names, and yes, your parents probably are related you slack-jawed yokel. Only this guy apparently isn’t as much of a slack-jawed yokel as a representative sample of our voting electorate, as displayed by the fact that his church voted unanimously to keep this sign up, and as much as most people don’t want to admit it, these are the kinds of things that go through our minds as we walk into the voting booth.

It’s too difficult for us to research the issues, investigate the candidates and come to our own independent conclusion- we need things pre-packaged for us, we need it black-and-white, good vs. evil, we need the Black Guy vs. the Bitch, we need it all wrapped up neatly in a bow. We rely on rumors and hearsay and our gossipy neighbors-that’s why we know that Obama bowled a 37 but don’t really remember John McCain’s role in the Savings and Loan scandals of the 80’s (here's a primer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five).

I hate to say it, but we deserve exactly the leaders we get, and if a smirking, faux-cowboy trust-fund baby, a legacy Yale and Harvard failed oil tycoon convinces us he could possibly have any of our best interests at heart, then whatever happens is our fault. If you don’t want shitty, ignorant leaders, then we need to stop being shitty, ignorant voters, and we need to reject the crap about flag pins and sniper fire and make the effort to educate ourselves. If all you know about John Edwards is that he allegedly pays $400 for his haircuts, then shame on you.

As the great philosopher Daniel Plainview might say: “I… drink… your… MILKSHAKE! I DRINK IT UP!” Right now, the political and economic elite are drinking our milkshake, and we’re way, way too lazy to do anything about it. They distract us with stupid bullshit, and while we’re sending each other YouTube clips of Obama’s pastor saying disturbing things about 9/11, they stick the long straw of stupidity into our milkshake. They drink it up.

* UPDATE: Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Sen. John Edwards, wrote a wonderful (and incredibly more eloquent) Op-Ed in the New York Times talking about much of the same I covered here, only, you know... better, and with much less profantiy and boner jokes. Check it out: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/opinion/27edwards.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1#

No more "24" for you, Tony

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7239748.stm

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: “I suppose it’s the same thing about so-called torture. Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to determine where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited in the constitution?” he asked.


Really? You want to justify torture because of that ridiculously elaborate scenario straight out of an episode of "24"? Listen: shit like that doesn't happen in real life. It just doesn't. It's like the people who want to ban partial-birth abortions, and then use that to extend it to all abortions. Partial-birth abortions are extremely rare, and almost always are done because the mother's health is at stake. So go ahead, ban partial birth abortions, but keep in a provision for the health of the mother. Same with torture laws: KEEP our laws against torture, and if the "ticking time bomb" scenario that Justice Scalia masturbates to every night actually comes to fruition, then sure, let's torture that fucker. Scalia, you can even attach the electrodes to his nipples. But guess what? We need proof. We need a warrant, let's say from FISA, in order to proceed.

Once upon a time, our country prided itself on being morally superior. We made tremendous strides in civil rights; we had fair and progressive labor laws; we tried to foster the idea that anyone could make it here, with hard work and playing by the rules. And for the love of Christ, we didn't torture anybody. That was shit the Viet Kong pulled on our soldiers. Ask John McCain how he feels about his stay at the Hanoi Hilton.

I may be naive, and almost guaranteed I am, because I'm pretty sure the CIA has been torturing people as long as it's been around. But nobody was in favor of torture, mostly because it's fucking barbaric and almost always unnecessary.

It seems like now, we've forgotten all of this. Expose a Covert CIA agent for political purposes? Sure, why not. Spy on our citizens, then give amnesty to the telecom companies who implicitly participated in the crime? Fuck it. Start a bullshit war resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths? Whatta you gonna do about it, pussy?

Apparently nothing, since what use to be known as the "Democratic Party" have actually been replaced with a bunch of spineless, nutless, corrupt weasels. I'm talking to you, Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller. Thanks for helping get the telecom amnesty passed, dipshits. Grow a pair. Oh, and that complete abortion of a war in Iraq you promised to stop so you could get elected? Still going on. Great job. Fuckers.

I can't even really blame this shit on the neocons anymore. They've proved themselves so shameless, so blatantly and intellectually opposite of our country and all it stands for, that they've completely passed on to the dark side. Unfortunately, we don't have anybody to stand up to them in the House or the Senate. And the way things are looking, it might not happen anytime soon, if ever.

Drunk Blog!!!

OK, trying something new... I'm going to watch the GOP debate and write down my observations, only I am shitfaced. My drink count:

3 Guinness
1 Black & Tan
3 Irish Car Bombs
1 stupid shot Casey bought, it was sweet and tasted like cough syrup
2 SoCo & Lime

ANYWAY... the debate is starting, and the Republican candidates are very... white. Very white. In fact, Rudy Giuliani looks like a vampire. Come to think of it, he looks like this vampire:



And here is Rudy trying to feast on the blood of the young:



Vampires already? The debate just got started.

Observation: Mitt Romney looks like a Ken doll, only a Ken doll's evil boss. What a tremendous douche bag.



Mike Huckabee is not talking... the moderator is not asking him (or Ron Paul) any questions. These are the two most popular candidates with the people. LET THEM SPEAK! LET THEM SPEAK! What's that you say? The GOP is controlled by special interest groups and large corporations? Oh... oh yeah, that makes sense.

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! This debate has been boring as shit so far, but Mitt Romney and John McCain are getting into a pissing match over illegal immigration. Apparently, Mitt Romney's Mormon religion not only prevents him thinking black people have souls (ED NOTE: The Mormons do not believe this, they admitted black people had souls in the 70's), but it also prevents him from giving a straight answer to a question. Good stuff. Oh, and Editor? Here's a direct quote from Brigham Young, lest you think I jest:

"You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham..."

The Mormons, everybody! Happy New Year!

Oh! Ron Paul is talking. He is asked to compare himself with Barack Obama, and he says they're similiar because they are both campaigning with the support of the young people. In fact, he just introduced his new campaign spokesman:



Romney says McCain advocates amnesty for illegal immigrants... Romney advocates burning the genitals of each illegal immigrant with a hot poker... Sen. McCain opposes this, therefore he is soft on immigration... Fred Thompson is sleeping...Rudy Giuliani is drinking the blood of Britney Spears... Ron Paul says the pharmaceutical companies are evil... Mike Huckabee apparently doesn't exist... an emu has wandered onto the stage, but no one has noticed.

Nevermind. This is fucking exhausting. I quit.

Mahalo, bitches.

Primary Predicitons

So I'm sure all four people who read this blog (Hi, Mom!) have been anxiously anticipating my next political blog, and have been severely disappointed. I haven't blogged about politics in a while because it has been so fucking depressing lately, and it has been nice not to pay attention to the flaming, sinking rat-infested shithole we currently call our government and political class.

Problem is, I just can't stay away. So I'm not going to get into it tonight, but one is on the way soon. And it will BLOW YOUR FUCKING MIND, MAN. Also: maybe not. Anyway, I just wanted to make some quick predictions on the eve of the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary, for posterity's sake:

Iowa
D- Barack Obama rises above Hillary and Edwards. This is totally happening.
R- Mitt Romney (I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit) with a big stiff-arm to Mike Huckabee. Huckabee has the momentum and the Jesus-freak vote on lockdown, but Romney poured so much money into Iowa and his organization is run so much better, I'm guessing they'll have better turnout.

New Hampshire
D- Hillary Clinton, but it's not going to matter because Obama is going to catch fire and sweep the Super Tuesday states, or come damn close.
R- John McCain- Imagine the GOP coming to their senses! Holy shit! I think McCain is going to get the nomination, but get his ass beat in the general election. This reeks of the run John Kerry made in the 2004 primaries when Democratic voters looked at their options and decided to reluctantly choose the guy that didn't scare them the most. And in this GOP field, which is incredibly fucking scary, the most rational choice is McCain (a sad statement in itself). This is definitely an upset, but so was Kerry in '04.

One more note: why the fuck do Iowa and New Hampshire get to decide who gets to run for president? Have you ever even fucking met someone who is from New Hampshire? I thought it was in Canada until a few weeks ago. There has GOT to be a better way to run this. We're letting a bunch of corn farmers and chowder eaters have a disproportionate amount of power in deciding who will be President. I am not cool with this.

Why should you care? Because last time we tried this, this fucktard is the best we could come up with:

Incredible.

Mahalo, bitches. Enjoy the spectacle.

Tom Tancredo: Presidential Candidate, Fucking Tool

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/05/tancredo-defends-threat-to-bomb-muslim-holy-sites/

Tom Tancredo thinks it’s a good idea to retaliate by bombing Mecca if we are attacked by “The Terrorists” again. Also, Tom Tancredo thinks that if we are flooded by illegal Mexican immigrants we should bomb the Christian holy sites in Israel because most of them are Catholic. Tom Tancredo also feels it’s a reasonable idea to bomb Greenland if any “Terrorists” from Iceland attack the homeland because, let’s be honest, nobody thinks they’re different countries.

This is the kind of crap that got us stuck up to our nipples in sand and corpses in Iraq, a complete lack of intellectual curiosity and general ignorance about the world outside our borders. If Tom Tancredo really thinks this, then he is a dangerous and ignorant bastard. It’s almost too obvious, but let’s recap the ways his foreign policy is horribly, horribly wrong:

1- What good would come out of this? Bombing Mecca, Islam’s holiest city, is a purely symbolic act. I think I understand what Tancredo’s real meaning is, that we need to be on the offensive against Saudi Arabia, and I agree- the most recent National Intelligence Estimate showed that they were actually the majority of the insurgent fighters in Iraq killing our soldiers and bombing innocent people. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis as well, so most of the saber-rattling about Iran funding the insurgency and military action against them is woefully misplaced. However, bombing Mecca would do nothing except encourage and partially legitimize more Islamic fundamentalist fury.

If Tancredo could put a coherent thought together through his fire-and-brimstone haze, he probably would realize that if we needed to attack Saudi Arabia (and by needed to attack I’m not even sure what circumstances would dictate that), an assault on the country’s capital and largest city, Riyadh, would be much more practical, no?

2- A bigger problem with this idea is the general premise of “carpet bombing to exact revenge” theory we have practiced militarily the past forty years. Seriously, have we not gotten the picture yet? Stopping terrorists and terrorist attacks is not going to be stopped my an army, it’s going to be stopped by solid, diligent police work. We’re trying to put out a giant grease fire with a high-pressure water hose- sure, some of it may go out, but we’re not really solving the problem. Flames will still remain, and as long as they’re still around they can spread.

By bombing the shit out of all of these countries we’re not giving their citizens a very good impression of our country. Think about it: people born in the middle east the last twenty-five years have seen us attack Iraq in Kuwait, and invade Afghanistan and Iraq. We also funded a proxy cold war through the Taliban in Afghanistan, stuck our noses into Iranian politics and have bombed several targets in Pakistan. Now, some of these were legitimate causes, but how would you feel about the United States if you were a 22 yr-old unemployed man in Afghanistan?


We’re incredibly lucky we haven’t had any further terrorist attacks in this country, no thanks to the Bush Administration’s unwillingness to fully implement the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations to strengthen our security. Great Britain, on the other hand, is not lucky to have stopped the few terrorist attacks they have, they’ve deserved it, simply because they view fighting terrorism in a different way. They recognize that instead of a “shock and awe” policy, using their police and government law enforcement agencies to combat these things on a micro level. We can’t stop them from trying to attack us, especially by blowing them up. What we can do is respect their culture, withdraw our troops from an occupying position in their countries, and guard our borders with as much intelligence and care as possible. The whole idea of “fighting them over there so they don’t follow us home” is having the opposite effect- we’re disenfranchising hundreds and thousands of people, and this is what will cause them to follow us home.

3- How does Tom Tancredo know that it would be Saudis that attacked us? Here’s a scenario: we bomb Iran. Iran is pissed and attacks Toronto. Canada is now pissed and attacks the Iranians themselves, who ally themselves with the Saudis and the Syrians who Canada is also forced to attack. Of course, the Brits and Americans can’t let a good fight go and now we have a giant clusterfuck of a world war.

Ridiculous? Of course, but who’s to say these things can’t happen in result of this asinine idea? If someone attacks us, we have every right to defend ourselves. That’s why I believe the overthrow of the Taliban, financiers of 9/11, was a legitimate cause. But then we decide it’s a good idea to invade Iraq, which scares the Iranians into thinking they’re next so they step up their nuclear-weapons programs, and on and on and on. Why do we insist on provoking everyone? By taking the fight to the people who deserve it we can act justly. By invading a sovereign country that was no threat to us we just made the mess bigger.

4- Here’s a quote from the genius himself:

“I’m telling you right now that anybody that would suggest that we should take anything like this off the table in order to deter that kind of event in the United States isn’t fit to be president of the United States,” the GOP presidential candidate said.

Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, called the comments “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy”. Here’s Tom Casey’s official profile from the State Department website:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/70066.htm

If this guy, who has risen to be the Spokesman for the State Department in George Bush’s administration, thinks you’re crazy for suggesting something like this, then I don’t know what to tell you. This basically means the ignorant chicken hawks that pushed us into this unnecessary war are telling you that you’re too aggressive. This is like Jeffery Dahmer calling another murderer “a real cannibalistic sicko”, but truly meaning it.

What’s the lesson here, kiddies? Voting for Tom Tancredo could be hazardous to our health. Who the fuck are the people giving this guy money, anyway? Oh, right, here’s a nice little list:

http://politicalmoneyline.com/cgi-win/x_candpg.exe?DoFn=P80003429*2008

Food for thought…

Dear "Anonymous":

Thanks for posting and not leaving any way to identify yourself. Very brave to take the time to write a comment and not have to be held accountable. Sadly, it doesn’t surprise me coming from your side of the aisle. If I do have the opportunity to reach you again, I can only assume you’re an avid reader of my blog- in which case I am flattered by your support, attention and love. Thank you.

As for your comments, well, let me be the first to pick apart piece by piece what you said, because it will give me genuine enjoyment. I’ll start with your points chronologically, since they’re all so silly no rhyme or reason can really put them in order.

“It is neither an abuse of power or a perversion of the rule of law. What Bush did was COMPLETELY legal.”

Where in my post did you spot the part where I said what Bush did was illegal? Oh, that’s right, it’s not there. What he did was legal, but it doesn’t make it right. What I said was his actions were a “gross perversion of the Rule of Law as we know it, but also an open and bald-faced abuse of power.” I didn’t say he broke the law, but it WAS a shady and shitty thing to do. He used his legally granted power to give someone a break that didn‘t deserve one. This is my point. And as a matter of fact, I didn’t hear you mention anything about whether or not he deserved the mercy he received. Let me say this as loudly and clearly as I can: SCOOTER LIBBY IS A LYING, MALICIOUS PIECE OF SHIT. He deserved to serve time for betraying his country.

Next, you said:

“He "lied" to a Grand Jury. Out of all the counts the jury found him guilty on, NONE were "lied to a federal prosecutor" Two were lying to a grand jury. You dont have a clue as to what you're taking about.”

Hey, you got me! You’re right, he wasn’t convicted of lying to the prosecutor, it was for lying to the grand jury. In fact, I’ll also throw in the part where you point out he didn’t use his pardon power in this case, which you are technically right again. I used an incorrect term, but he did use his powers to commute Libby’s sentence. Touché. By the way, just out of curiosity, who do you think asked him those questions in front of the grand jury? You may have more insight into this than I, but while under oath in front of a grand jury do they let just anybody question the witnesses? Do random people picked for a jury get to question? Can the janitor walk in, put his mop down and grill someone on the stand? Or was it a prosecutor’s questions he answered? I’m guessing the latter. Just a hunch.

You arguing that I don’t know what I’m talking about is like saying I’m incorrect because I said I was run over by a red Ferrari when in reality I was run over by a red Porsche. I’m not a big car guy, but either way the point is I was run over. But way to go, you pointed out an inaccuracy, that must invalidate my entire argument.

But wait! You said: “He [Bill Clinton] was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice. And the penalties wasn’t (sic) so severe. He wasnt kicked out of office. He was only disbarred from practicing law…” Bill Clinton was found guilty by the House and acquitted by the Senate. So you weren’t TECHNICALLY correct. Then, in a separate case, he was disbarred by the state of Arkansas from practicing law for five years, also in a case he was not found guilty of perjury, like Scooter Libby was. Do your inaccuracies invalidate your underlying point?

Next up is my favorite, and I’m so freaking happy you said this:

“Was not covert.”

Really? Have you picked up a newspaper in the last three months? For your education, here’s Patrick Fitzgerald’s filing of an unclassified history of Valerie Plame’s employment history with the CIA, but I’ve posted it on the site as well. Patrick Fitzgerald, by the way, is a Republican appointed by a Republican President, and the Judge presiding over this case and the sentencing is a conservative also appointed under a Republican. Just thought it warranted mentioning.

http://www.salon.com/news/primary_sources/2007/05/30/plame/index.html

Sorry, you can’t make this argument anymore. This proves you’re wrong, and if you got your news from anywhere else but Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly, then you’d probably know the truth. Spouting GOP talking points probably feels safe and familiar to you, but you may want to broaden your horizons a bit.

After this, here was your rebuttal to my statement:
"Regardless of the fact that the Prosecutor did not find anyone had clearly broken a law,"“See? Now you admit that there was no underlying crime. But "regardless of the fact"?”

YES “regardless of the fact”! It’s a criminal investigation! Does the government do this for shits and giggles? You’re a government employee being questioned under oath. Tell the fucking truth. Is that so hard? And now you’re running in circles, because you made a point that it was the grand jury that found him guilty, not the prosecutor. So what the hell are you talking about here? His perjury is separate from the criminal investigation, but a crime as well. I’m not sure why you and your ilk are so quick to point out that the investigation didn’t lead to any other convictions (yet). Obstruction of justice is a crime in and of itself, and he was found guilty. Whatever conclusion the investigation he obstructed (and he did) resulted in has no bearing on his crime.

Your next attack was on my statements regarding the previous administration, the “left” and their double standard in regards to Bill Clinton’s trials and tribulations. When I say “People in our government need to know that they cannot lie, especially when they're under oath. Period” I mean it. To sideswipe that qualifying statement with a broad attack on my entire side of ideology is disingenuous and lame, and I won’t let you get away with it. I am not represented by everyone on the internet you heard defend Clinton, I speak for myself and I say what I mean.

You and I both know too that that entire investigation and many of the allegations against him were politically motivated bullshit. He still can’t lie under oath, and should be held accountable. But these two cases are fundamentally different: a COVERT CIA agent was exposed, a legitimate reason for an investigation, and a legitimate reason to pursue perjury and obstruction charges against someone who didn’t cooperate. The Whitewater prosecution was a political witch hunt of the most disgusting and unnecessary degree. Even if you wouldn’t admit this to your Bush loving friends you know it’s true.

As for the names you requested I Google, I did, and Bill Clinton shouldn’t have pardoned either of those men. I wasn’t aware he did, but what he did was just as slimy as what Bush did. You make me out to be a Clinton apologist, and I am in no way. He behaved unbecoming of a President on many occasions, which I have always said. But does the fact that others have done this make it O.K.?

Also, here is a neat little difference between the behavior of our two Presidents, though: Clinton’s indiscretions were to cover up an affair that hurt him and his wife. Bush’s indiscretions involve illegally spying on American citizens (check out the FISA laws), imprisoning people without due process (they’re human beings, they deserve it regardless of what they’ve done or what we think of them), and most importantly pushing a case of flawed intelligence in order to send our country to a needless war directly resulting in the deaths of 3,500 US soldiers and thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of Iraqi nationals. Again, you cannot rationally compare the two.

And finally, your last statement:
“And you havent a clue as to what the founding Fathers envisioned.”

Let me ask you a question: do you think the Founding Fathers would approve of this? Was this in the spirit of what they were trying to accomplish? One of the main tenants of their work was the system of checks and balances put in place to stop the President from ruling unchecked and at whim. In fact, many scholars argue that the Founding Fathers never intended the office of the Presidency to have even close to the power it holds today. The modern Presidency is something completely different, and the current administration has, yes, PERVERTED it to new extremes.
In fact, here is a little something from the Notes of Debate from the Constitutional Convention in regards to the powers of the President that I think you may want to brush up on:

Art: II. Sect. 2. "he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the U. S. &c"
Mr. RANDOLPH moved to "except cases of treason." The prerogative of pardon in these cases was too great a trust. The President may himself be guilty. The Traytors may be his own instruments.
Col: MASON supported the motion.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS had rather there should be no pardon for treason, than let the power devolve on the Legislature.
Mr. WILSON. Pardon is necessary for cases of treason, and is best placed in the hands of the Executive. If he be himself a party to the guilt he can be impeached and prosecuted.
Mr. KING thought it would be inconsistent with the Constitutional separation of the Executive & Legislative powers to let the prerogative be exercised by the latter. A Legislative body is utterly unfit for the purpose. They are governed too much by the passions of the moment. In Massachusetts, one assembly would have hung all the insurgents in that State: the next was equally disposed to pardon them all. He suggested the expedient of requiring the concurrence of the Senate in Acts of Pardon.
Mr. MADISON admitted the force of objections to the Legislature, but the pardon of treasons was so peculiarly improper for the President that he should acquiesce in the transfer of it to the former, rather than leave it altogether in the hands of the latter. He would prefer to either an association of the Senate as a Council of advice, with the President.
Mr. RANDOLPH could not admit the Senate into a share of the Power. the great danger to liberty lay in a combination between the President & that body.

Is it possible that the directive for Libby to lie, cover up or obstruct came from either the Vice-President or President himself? Would that really truly surprise anyone? If that is the case, then this dialogue is incredibly pertinent and insightful. The Founding Fathers were worried that what just happened would happen, and they felt it would be wrong. We probably won’t know either way, but it’s improper for Clinton or Bush pull this kind of thing.

I think I have a pretty good idea of what the Founding Fathers wanted their country to look like, and I can say with confidence that they didn’t intend for the bullying, corrupt thinly veiled theocracy we have now. George W. Bush regularly wipes his ass with the Constitution, and there’s a hell of a lot of us (70% of the country at last check) that are sick and tired of it.

R.I.P., Rule of Law

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070702-3.html

Above you'll find the signing statement from President Bush in regards to his commuting of Scooter Libby's jail term. This represents not only a gross perversion of the Rule of Law as we know it, but also an open and bald-faced abuse of power that only demonstrates how little regard our President has for our own legal system and the intelligence of our citizenry.

Scooter Libby lied to a Federal Prosecutor investigating the very serious case of an information leak that compromised the identity of a covert agent in the C.I.A. Regardless of the fact that the Prosecutor did not find anyone had clearly broken a law, in the process of his investigation he found that Scooter Libby, Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, purposely and egregiously lied and attempted to obstruct the prosecution of justice in this investigation. This is a crime, and a very serious one.

People in our government need to know that they cannot lie, especially when they're under oath. Period. And President Bush's argument that "I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive" is ridiculous. Hundreds of people every year are convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice and are handed similar fines, but because Scooter Libby a good soldier for the neocon cause and Dick Cheney's hatchet man, he shouldn't have to serve time.

Ninja please! This only demonstrates the need for our elected officials to be subject to harsher penalties and fines because they are the ones charged with carrying out and upholding the Rule of Law itself. If this investigation was not valid in the first place, then why did Bush's own Justice Department refer this for criminal investigation? If government officials are caught lying under oath, they need to know they are going to be held responsible. If under oath, how many of these lifetime bureaucrats supposedly charged with running our government would tell the truth if they knew that the consequence was serving some time in a Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison? My guess is all of them.

This goes across the board, Democrats of course should be held to the same standard. President Clinton granted some extremely shady pardons at the end of his term, although none of them were for people from his own administration who he decided to let free. Still, if he had been found guilty without a shadow of a doubt that he lied to the investigators from Kenneth Starr's office (no matter how bogus the investigation was in the first place), he should have been subject to the same consequences as anyone else.

Does nobody else see the ridiculousness of someone from your administration committing a crime and then pardoning them for it? It basically means that you can break laws as you see fit, and you won't have to deal with the consequences as long as you've got a sympathetic ear in the Oval Office. What complete and udder bullshit. I imagine this is how the Kremlin was run under Stalin, or how illegitimate iron-fisted Dictators in African countries trying to uphold the sham of "legitimacy" and "democracy" operate: let your own break the law, and then absolve them of their sins when they're caught. This cannot be how our Founding Fathers envisioned the Presidential powers of pardon to be used.

Prediction #1: President Bush grants a full pardon for Scooter Libby just before his term is up, if not well before.
Prediction #2: Scooter Libby gains employment from a large corporation which just happens to be a large Republican donor within the next couple of years. As for President Bush's statement in regards to this:

"My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting."

This too is a steaming pile of horse shit. Scooter Libby, even without the full pardon, will get a six-figure job somewhere else and live a happy, fat, rich life. Fuck him and fuck the rest of the people that have no respect for the laws they were elected to uphold. It's time to get someone else in office that will.