What the flying eff does Arlen Specter have to do

[BuyingThyme]

before people realize he was placed in the Senate to protect the Bush Family?

The fact that Bush went out of his way to put in him there wasn't enough? Samuel Alito and John Roberts weren't enough? Spying on you wasn't enough? Making spying legal wasn't enough? Refusing to put witnesses under oath wasn't enough? Committing one of the largest cover-ups in the history of mankind wasn't enough? Crapping on habeas corpus wasn't enough?

Did he put some kind of magic powder in your beer to make you forget?

What the hell is it going to take? Really. What could possibly make people stop listening to what he says, and start paying attention to what he does?

[Bunny]

1. So, Poppy Bush, while VP, had him installed in 1980?

:tinfoilhat:

[BuyingThyme]

6. No, they got him reelected even though

his fake agenda was completely at odds with the Chimp's. And the Puke he defeated had a lockstep Chimp agenda.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Mainstream neocons hate him. Not sure I get this thread...

[cali]

4. Sure you do. n/t

[Buzz Clik]

12. Yeah, sure. Whatever you say, Carnak.

[BuyingThyme]

8. Name some neocons who hate him.

[Buzz Clik]

11. I'm talking of personal acquaintences.

Specter has taken some interesting stands during the Bush administration. He has not been one to march in lockstep with the blithering idiots; as a result, he's been unpopular.

If you want to hate him (and fantasize that one of the Bush boys put him on power :shrug:), have at it.

[BuyingThyme]

15. Nobody has walked more lockstep with Bush.

He has taken NO stands, yet has convinced you he has. Specter's talent is talking out of step with his walk.

In fact, Mr. Specter recently wrote a law which grants retroactive amnesty to all of the Bush criminals for the surveillance crimes they've committed against Americans. Arlen lied about that and you, of course, believed him. You believe he took a stand, but what he really did what take your rights.

As for putting him in power, that's a mater of fact, not opinion.

[cali]

17. LOL!

Nobody has walked more in lockstep with bush? Dozens of repuke Senators, not to mention a couple of hundred repuke reps have marched more in lockstep.

What is the law which you claim Arlen wrote to give retroactive amnesty to bushco? Did that legislation pass? Is it constitutional?

And your claim that bush put Arlen in power is a sterling example of opinion. You have nothing whatsofucking ever to back it up. Of course, you're the critter who even facing hundreds of post proving her wrong, still insisted that Section 4, Article II in the Constitution obligates the House to impeach.

[BuyingThyme]

19. Yes, you've made it clear that you believe Congress has no

sworn duties. We all know that. I disagree.

Now, back to the other truths from which you're running.

Here's a Raw Story item which exposes more inconvenient facts about Arlen's attacks on the Constitution:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Post_Specter_compromise_gives_Bush_amnesty_0609.html

And from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060801992.html

I'm not sure as to which of Arlen's attacks on the Constitution are now law and or which are unconstitutional (with exception of habeas corpus).

But nobody even comes close to Arlen as far as walking lockstep with Bush. I suspect it's easy for him because he's so damn evil.

[cali]

22. Oh, for fuck's sake

Yet another moronic blanket statement from you. Hardly a surprise.

I'm not defending Specter. I'm trying to get it through your skull, that in the Senate we need republican votes. And Arlen's vote on many issues is a lot easier to get than say Coburn's or Brownback's or Cornyn's. And for the record, they're far more in lockstep with bushco than Arlen is. Just check their voting records. If Arlen is willing to vote to restore habeas, are you suggesting that Leahy should just tell him to fuck off because he's so damn evil? Is that what you'd do?

Let me repeat it: We need republican votes in the Senate on some vital issues. We need Specter's vote. That's just life. That's just the way the legislative process works.

[BuyingThyme]

24. So, let's get this straight: You jumped into this thread

not because you wanted to show how much you didn't know about Arlen Specter, but to explain how much you need Arlen's vote. And you thought I was going to convince Leahy to tell Arlen to fuck off, forcing him into your version of lockstep with Bush, thus sending the stem cell issue into limbo, therefore depriving you of that important vote.

Is that right?

I don't remember any of this.

[cali]

3. Nutty. And we're going to fucking need snarlin' arlen's vote

on many issues, whether you like it or not.

[BuyingThyme]

7. What's nutty today, Cali? More inconvenient facts?

What do you need Arlen's vote on? More anti-choice judges? More spying? More secrecy?

[cali]

9. Embryonic stem cell research

bush is still against it, if we can get a veto proof majority, that would be great. Restoring habeas. That's fucking critical. And there's more. I personally can't stand Arlen; I've never forgiven him for the hit job he did on Anita Hill, just to mention one thing, but we need republican votes in the Senate on any number of issues.

As for what's nutty? Try your completely whacko and unsupported assertion that Arlen was installed by bushco to protect them. Facts? You wouldn't know one if it came up and hit you upside the head just like Tilopa's slipper.

[BuyingThyme]

13. Arlen was one of the primary factors in the loss of habeas corpus.

So it might not be a good idea to count on him to get it back.

And not only did Bush single-handedly get Arlen reelected, but he was solely responsible for Arlen staying on as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Now, why would Bush do that, with moderate Arlen being at odds with Bush on abortion, stem cells, etc.?

Why wouldn't Bush allow the extreme Republicans to put somebody else in there, like they so badly wanted to? Do you think it was just a coincidence? Or did they know Arlen would come in handy? Did they know Arlen would reach out and grab the FISA scandal and rewrite law for the sole purpose of protecting Bush?

What is so hard to understand?

[cali]

14. Bullshit.

Bush did not single handedly get Arlen elected nearly 30 years ago. And if you're referring to the last election, it's hardly unusual at ALL for a sitting pres to campaign for a legislator of their own party who's up for re-election. That is not installing him in order to protect him. It would have been almost unprecedented if bush hadn't supported Specter. And just how is Arlen going to come in handy for bushco? Get real. Oh, never mind, I forgot who I was addressing for a moment there.

Yes, Arlen is unreliable, but he's making noises now about restoring Habeas. And sorry, I want his vote on restoring Habeas.

Oh, and of course you just happened to forget to address the stem cell issue.

[BuyingThyme]

16. The stem cell issue is a sucker issue, just like abortion.

It's intended to herd the sheep in the right direction. No, I'm not saying it's not an important issue; I'm saying they're more interested in using it as a wedge than using it to improve lives.

As for Bush getting Arlen elected 30 years ago, I said nothing of the sort, but it looks like you knew that and wanted to throw in a little more silliness so I could expose it.

As for Bush standing up for Specter in the 2004 Republican primary, it was extremely unusual, because all of the other Pukes wanted him to back the challenger, who not only backed Bush by his actions, but in his words. The challenger was a guy named Pat Toomey, a Cato type who wanted more tax cuts and less government oversight. Toomey lost by only a couple points because Bush went in to save him at the last moment in the face all of the false perceptions which pegged Toomey as the the ultimate Bush shill. But it was Specter who had already signed on to be the shill.

[cali]

18. Excuses, excuses.

What else can be expected from you? Facts? You have no use for them. Critical thinking? Clearly something else you have no use for.

And sorry, it wasn't even remotely unusual that bush supported Specter in 2004 against former rep Toomey- who I happen to know quite a bit about, thank you very much.

Your endless nonsense- sorry it's really the only word that fits- represents all that's wrong with mindless adherence to a rigid ideology. No matter how round the hole, you'll try and smash a square peg in it.

[BuyingThyme]

20. I challenge you to find any facts or evidence of critical thinking

in your post (the one I'm responding to).

It's pure attack-dog nonsense. You're projecting.

Why do you suppose?

BTW: What does "excuses, excuses" mean? I figure you must be working on some kind of excuses, and are unknowingly preempting your projection, but what is it you're referring to?

[cali]

25. Sure.

Fact: It ia not unusual at all for a president to support a legislator from his own party against a primary challenger. That is a fact. Period. And you do realize, don't you, that had Arlen been defeated, either by Toomey or a dem, another republican would have headed the Judiciary committee? And that person would undoubtedly have been even more in lockstep with bush, and even more protective of him.

[BuyingThyme]

27. Once again, it was Bush

who assured Specter's continuance as Judiciary Committee chairmanship.

Bush did that because he knew Specter would get him what he wanted, not the other way around.

See what's happening here, how the pieces are starting to come together?

[Divernan]

5. Don't forget his attacks on Anita Hill, and his "magic bullet' theory

He is and always has been one sick puppy.

[Virginia Dare]

10. I had a brief hope that his illness had caused him to..

grow a conscience, but I've abandoned that.

[EFerrari]

21. It's not gonna happen because like most sociopaths, he sounds

perfectly reasonable most of the time.

And because people want to hope that other people are, at bottom, ethical.

[cali]

23. bush is a sociopath.

Specter? I've seen nothing to indicate that he's anything more than your run of the mill self-involved and rather craven politician except that he seems to specialize in being particularly unpleasant. None of that makes him a sociopath.

And just out of curiosity, do you agree with the OP that Specter was picked by bushco to protect their criminal endeavors?

[EFerrari]

28. I didn't claim Spector is a sociopath but merely that like them,

he has a way of normalizing his abusiveness.

And yes, I probably do agree.

[cali]

26. Goodnight.

I actually enjoy following you down your rabbit holes. It's amazing to me that anyone can be so consistently wrong. But after a while it does get to be impossibly circular.

Have a good night.

[BuyingThyme]

29. Just try to name one little thing I was wrong about.

Don't keep projecting. It's just silly.