I truly understand, if your reasoning is to let them advertise their idiocy/ignorance,but….. 

I truly believe you should never let them get away with using speciocities as foundations for “argument” (to me, argument implies they have unimpeachable verifiable information, not the heresay of Limbaugh and Hannity or Beck). When you do so, it seems to validate their stone age tools for argument in the Space, Nuclear, Digital age of information. When they talk and “argue,” it sounds to me like blathering obfuscation and conflation of superstitious mumbo jumbo boogey men and the monster under the bed. All they have, and you have correctly called them on this, is the mythic legacy of Reagan, who took many actions in diametric opposition to much of the rubbish recapitulated in smiling ignorant absolutism of today’s espoused “conservatives.” Can you imagine WFB having a conversation with Palin? I think he is hammering in palings around his grave to blunt the charge of the ignorant brigade, or choking on his vomit to die again rather than face a confederacy of dunces (great book!). Please, as a friend take this as an exhortation to stand firm against their efforts to drill little holes of doubt left by not hermetically sealing their “arguments,” and a photo of the intellectual wreckage of conservative “argument.” 

For example; One of the callers brought up health care “to prove a point.”  His example went this way; If Obama’s health care were in place and the caller’s dad needed a stent and died would it be OK to prosecute Obama because the “policy” killed his Dad something such as that. While the specific words I am using may not be exact, the logic constructed is.

I am going to cut down this moronic flanking attack on universal healthcare. I other countries, we are told that you have to wait for specialists and their procedures, but you just might get it. Here, in the USA, if your insurance company wins the right to not cover one of these life saving procedures what happens? YOU PAY FOR IT. YOU YOU YOU PAY PAY PAY or you are dead. Waiting gives no additional hope. GOT IT?!!!? In those other countries is it illegal to PAY so you don’t have to wait? No you don’t. NO! YOU DO NOT HAVE TO WAIT. Yes, that means you can PAY and the rest of the healthcare is about 40% less expensive than here in the USA for the same thing, except that if you do wait you just might get the specialist.

The health care example above, was then used to justify the idea of not creating a precedent in going after a president in a partisan way. Really hmmmm, what about “equal justice under the law,” inscribed on the Supreme Court? Oh and excuse my amnesia or that of conservatives/Republicans, but it must have been Democrats that drew up the articles of impeachment against William Jefferson Clinton, right? Of course not. The Republicans in the most insidious partisan manner in national history went after Clinton, A SITTING president, as part of an effort for a constitutional coup de etat through impeachment. The word was IMPEACHMENT!! This was over lying about a private sexual affair. Does anyone question whether the impeachment happened? Why is it hard to consider this precedent setting or whether it was anything but partisan?

While Republicans are revenge and vendetta oriented, as a fundamental tenet of their party modus operandi, I am not. Republicans will rely on lying, deceit, half truths, misinformation and theft of ethical honor as “apologists” for their activities, legal or illegal, prosecuted or not. I will not do the same for liberals and/or Obama. If Obama was going to allow a “Nuremburg defense” for the Bush Administration, then we would part company very sharply on the issue. I would support going after him, based on obstruction of international justice, stemming from congressional ratification of the treaty which includes the USA, as a part of the Geneva Convention. You see there is this thing called law, and a presumptive concept of rule of law, which in this country theoretically does not tolerate inequity before Lady Justice, even when you feel she is being a little b–itchy. This also ties in with the efforts to rationalise discrimination in social debates over what is just, the theoretical halcyon of law and synonomously stated on the Supreme Court, and justice which is a frequent corruption of that very same halcyon.

The difference between my self and most Republicans, is that I have principles, and defending the party comes first for Republicans; not America, not the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. There is more, always more….

These “confidence conservatives” then have the intellectual temerity to claim they needed information about 9-11 afterward and that justified the various tortures. What they leave out as always, is WE ALREADY HAD THE INFORMATION BEFORE 9-11!!!! The convictables simply chose to not act on the intelligence gathered without torture. The should be convicted Bushites, also ignore the deep murderous bloodthirsty legacy of Al Qaida and the Taliban. When the Taliban started firing shells into the greatest historical treasure of Afghanistan to this outsider, the Buddhas of Bamiyan instead of feeding their citizens, I clearly understood the evil and brought up that point in an email circulated petition regarding Taliban descent into proto paleolithic Olduwan gender discrimination. I might be insulting the 2+million Y.O. Olduwan culture, but so be it. They’re extinct.

Do we remember where our noble God afeared Republicans were, while our embassies were being blown up, women murdered, etc., etc., etc.,…..? Getting after the Al Qaida/Taliban? You might think so, but would be thinking wrong. No, instead in the high minded spirit pervading that party, they impeached Clinton for the private sexual affair in the interest of national security.

Back to Equal Justice Under the Law. I quoted that earlier and come back now, because that is the reason much of the Bush admin AG, WH legal council, Bybee, Yoo, and much of the foreign affairs crew Rumsfeld, Cheyney, Bush and any other proscribers of legal contempt of the Constitution/laws, should be prosecuted and taken away for war crimes to the Hague and after sentencing, then remanded to serve sentences imposed here first, and wherever Milosovic had a chance to rest his sleepy head after that. I did say legal contempt NOT circumvention; you do not circumvent a treaty, you may circumvent prosecution. You violate or abrogate a treaty if it has not expired, whether prosecuted or not, you are up for some serious charges. I see very little defense, since the revelation of smoking gun documents and the filmed history of the events. Treaties superceed all other laws, since adherence to them is clearly constitutionally defined through congressional ratification.