^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^TheFlipTop wrote:
His actions proving he cannot eat a Pretzel without helpful third party help. Oh if he had only been left to cope with that pretzel on his own..............
Well I guess this proves my point.
Well I guess this proves my point.
that poll is a load of crap. Only flaming libs would ever visit the MSNBC website. ergo, the poll is not a true poll. it's like asking a church choir if they believe in God.
If you had the exact same poll on the Fox News website, you would have a stark contrast. That, too, would not be a true poll.
If you have kept up with the news all along...if you watched Colin Powell present the case for war on TV at the time, if you listened to Bill Clinton and John Kerry in 2002 and 2003, you would know that Bush did not deliberately mislead us. We had faulty evidence. True, that may be carelessness, but that is not the same as knowing one thing and lying to us, which is what this poll implies.
Bush does not stay up at night and listen to phone conversations. Nor does anyone else. Before you flame me, look into the laws governing the NSA and wiretaps: http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/w … iretap.txt
Has Bush broken the law? If you think so, provide your research. Don't provide an editorial. Provide facts. Do your own research. Do not simply regurgitate Chris Matthews. It is important, as voting Americans, that we keep ourselves informed, and learn about what is going on. Just as a conservative should not rely on Sean Hannity for news, a Lib should not rely on Hardball with Chris Matthews. These guys present opinion as factual news. It is deceiving. It's ok to listen to them, but not ok to let them define your perception of reality.
If you had the exact same poll on the Fox News website, you would have a stark contrast. That, too, would not be a true poll.
If you have kept up with the news all along...if you watched Colin Powell present the case for war on TV at the time, if you listened to Bill Clinton and John Kerry in 2002 and 2003, you would know that Bush did not deliberately mislead us. We had faulty evidence. True, that may be carelessness, but that is not the same as knowing one thing and lying to us, which is what this poll implies.
Bush does not stay up at night and listen to phone conversations. Nor does anyone else. Before you flame me, look into the laws governing the NSA and wiretaps: http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/w … iretap.txt
Has Bush broken the law? If you think so, provide your research. Don't provide an editorial. Provide facts. Do your own research. Do not simply regurgitate Chris Matthews. It is important, as voting Americans, that we keep ourselves informed, and learn about what is going on. Just as a conservative should not rely on Sean Hannity for news, a Lib should not rely on Hardball with Chris Matthews. These guys present opinion as factual news. It is deceiving. It's ok to listen to them, but not ok to let them define your perception of reality.
Perhaps gross abuse of human rights? Just a theory.lowing wrote:
and what actions might that be? please tell me so I can beat you over the head with your own post.
oh ya mean that it is a violation oh human rights to treat our enemies like prisoners instead of putting them up in the Hyatt Regency hotel??Bubbalo wrote:
Perhaps gross abuse of human rights? Just a theory.lowing wrote:
and what actions might that be? please tell me so I can beat you over the head with your own post.
Last edited by lowing (2006-06-17 08:38:54)
No, I mean it is a violation of human rights to imprison them without trial, and to torture them. But you know what, you just keep putting words into my mouth, you seem to enjoy it so much, and simpletons need to find happiness wherever they can.
shhh! this is how they think they are always going to win, don't let on that they need actual strategyG3|Genius wrote:
it's like asking a church choir if they believe in God.
lol... if onlyTheFlipTop wrote:
His actions proving he cannot eat a Pretzel without helpful third party help. Oh if he had only been left to cope with that pretzel on his own..............
Oh I forgot, humiliation is torture now.Bubbalo wrote:
No, I mean it is a violation of human rights to imprison them without trial, and to torture them. But you know what, you just keep putting words into my mouth, you seem to enjoy it so much, and simpletons need to find happiness wherever they can.
War prisoners do not get trials
Last edited by lowing (2006-06-17 14:10:19)
Torture seems to be a relative term.
Don't misquote me. I just put it how it is. So many people know almost nothing about the facts, have absolutely zero first hand experience with government affairs, and form the most biased opinions on Bush I have ever seen. Kinda like you.Bubbalo wrote:
I think calling him brain dead is a little harsh. I mean, yeah the man's the dumbest president I know of, but brain dead?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
dead Bush haters of these forums.
Sure, but POWs are expected to be released once the war is ended. If you're still holding them, they must be criminals rather than POWs, and as such get a trial.lowing wrote:
Oh I forgot, humiliation is torture now.
War prisoners do not get trials
So only people who have been president can criticise the president? Brilliant logic there?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Don't misquote me. I just put it how it is. So many people know almost nothing about the facts, have absolutely zero first hand experience with government affairs, and form the most biased opinions on Bush I have ever seen. Kinda like you.
And seriously, you trust this man?
I don't recall the war being over..did I miss something??.......Or are you going to try and hang your arguement on that "mission accomomplished" thing?Bubbalo wrote:
Sure, but POWs are expected to be released once the war is ended. If you're still holding them, they must be criminals rather than POWs, and as such get a trial.lowing wrote:
Oh I forgot, humiliation is torture now.
War prisoners do not get trialsSo only people who have been president can criticise the president? Brilliant logic there?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Don't misquote me. I just put it how it is. So many people know almost nothing about the facts, have absolutely zero first hand experience with government affairs, and form the most biased opinions on Bush I have ever seen. Kinda like you.
And seriously, you trust this man?
A new government has been installed, one which has not declared war with the US. War over.
yes. look at those results.
OWNED
OWNED
Also, if we succeeded in helping form a stable govt. in Iraq, then I want you to acknowledge the successful leadership of our president in winning the war if that is how you see it.lowing wrote:
And did you dream this logic up all by yourself? Or do you have an article to share? either way it is ridiculous.Bubbalo wrote:
A new government has been installed, one which has not declared war with the US. War over.
I didn't say it was stable, did I. But there is a sovereign government, which means no matter how war-like the situation is, it is not a war.
yes bush is a scumbag
but you have to assume bush's base doesnt spend alot of time on a videogame forums
but you have to assume bush's base doesnt spend alot of time on a videogame forums
I don't think you could tab GWB with all of the points that the poll sees as being in support for his impeachment. None of them can be proved to be made directly under him, so, yeahp.
does anyone remember ( or read about) the watergate scandal?
Richard Nixon, resigning before impeachment? Not familiar?
Well he claimed to have no responsibility.
What he did was this. There were tapes of recorded conversations in the whitehouse regarding fraudulent and corrupt govt activities (one of which was to get E Howard Hunt his hush hush money, but that's another can of worms). It was Nixon's decision to destroy that evidence, by means of breaking into private property.
The president was trying to get away with breaking his own law.
What happened is that REAL patriots had the thing blown open for what it was, and incriminated corrupt members of cabinet, secretaries, and advisors. People recognized the fact that the president is supposed to represent the will of the people, and to be an example of the law. They found evidence to prove that he was acting unconstitutionally, and therefore was unfit to be the leader of your country as such.
He and his lawyers fought to say that breaking the law was within their juristiction, so the presidency would not be threatened, and that it was in the best interest of the country. Luckily, it was a unanimous decision that the president has no right to do shit like that and just like any citizen, not above the law, must accept the consequences under their own laws.
That was 30 years ago, when people were aware and conscious of poliotics happening around them, and took an active role in government in any way they could. People stood up for beliefs.
The very actions that so many call ANTI AMERICAN are exactly the kind of values that made men and women heroes in America's history. It's your job as a citizen to ask questions, to make sure the govt isn't fucking you over. I love America. I believe in the core American values, but I strongly feel that it is NOBODY's place to accuse another of being ANTI anything for looking out for their own ass. That was the reason for the second amendment. Go ahead, call me anti American, which I'm not, and you are also calling George Washington a terrorist anti american etc. You understand.
Not 30 years ago it was feasible for the people to put the president in his place for the right reasons. Bill Clinton: dick sucked. Weak way to go, good reason to impeach. Bad example of being a president for that.
If you think what Bush is doing to America is patriotic, or a good thing for American values, or freedom, you might want to consider history. As a citizen, you are very much doing the right thing being PRO AMERICAN by making sure your interests don't get tread on. All you 'conservatives' about to flame me think about this.
When England was fucking you over and ignoring your interests as people, and taxing you, and spying on your people, threatening your free way of life, telling you what goes, telling you who terrorists are (that means you if you do the 'anti American' thing and question the govt.'s authority)
What did Americans do then? They put the fucking boot down. Long live the American Revolution.
Richard Nixon, resigning before impeachment? Not familiar?
Well he claimed to have no responsibility.
What he did was this. There were tapes of recorded conversations in the whitehouse regarding fraudulent and corrupt govt activities (one of which was to get E Howard Hunt his hush hush money, but that's another can of worms). It was Nixon's decision to destroy that evidence, by means of breaking into private property.
The president was trying to get away with breaking his own law.
What happened is that REAL patriots had the thing blown open for what it was, and incriminated corrupt members of cabinet, secretaries, and advisors. People recognized the fact that the president is supposed to represent the will of the people, and to be an example of the law. They found evidence to prove that he was acting unconstitutionally, and therefore was unfit to be the leader of your country as such.
He and his lawyers fought to say that breaking the law was within their juristiction, so the presidency would not be threatened, and that it was in the best interest of the country. Luckily, it was a unanimous decision that the president has no right to do shit like that and just like any citizen, not above the law, must accept the consequences under their own laws.
That was 30 years ago, when people were aware and conscious of poliotics happening around them, and took an active role in government in any way they could. People stood up for beliefs.
The very actions that so many call ANTI AMERICAN are exactly the kind of values that made men and women heroes in America's history. It's your job as a citizen to ask questions, to make sure the govt isn't fucking you over. I love America. I believe in the core American values, but I strongly feel that it is NOBODY's place to accuse another of being ANTI anything for looking out for their own ass. That was the reason for the second amendment. Go ahead, call me anti American, which I'm not, and you are also calling George Washington a terrorist anti american etc. You understand.
Not 30 years ago it was feasible for the people to put the president in his place for the right reasons. Bill Clinton: dick sucked. Weak way to go, good reason to impeach. Bad example of being a president for that.
If you think what Bush is doing to America is patriotic, or a good thing for American values, or freedom, you might want to consider history. As a citizen, you are very much doing the right thing being PRO AMERICAN by making sure your interests don't get tread on. All you 'conservatives' about to flame me think about this.
When England was fucking you over and ignoring your interests as people, and taxing you, and spying on your people, threatening your free way of life, telling you what goes, telling you who terrorists are (that means you if you do the 'anti American' thing and question the govt.'s authority)
What did Americans do then? They put the fucking boot down. Long live the American Revolution.
as for war prisoners, there is a new definition: terrorist.
this is a legal definition according to that P_triot act.
Terrorists have no right to trial
Terrorists can be held indefinitely
Terrorists can be executed
Terrorists are not prisoners of war.
^^Fact.
you can be found to be a terrorist with absolutely no probable cause (legal proof)
^^Fact.
Homeland Security: for dealing with terrorists
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency, for finding *terrorists within the American Populace*
facts
soon, *all criminals* will be called terrorists, enemies of the state, in treason of the crown if you like.
these legal definitions are changing now with that act
this is a legal definition according to that P_triot act.
Terrorists have no right to trial
Terrorists can be held indefinitely
Terrorists can be executed
Terrorists are not prisoners of war.
^^Fact.
you can be found to be a terrorist with absolutely no probable cause (legal proof)
^^Fact.
Homeland Security: for dealing with terrorists
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency, for finding *terrorists within the American Populace*
facts
soon, *all criminals* will be called terrorists, enemies of the state, in treason of the crown if you like.
these legal definitions are changing now with that act
Ah, so if America says something, it must be true, regardless of international conventions on human rights. How silly of me.
Tiny point of order here. The people in Guantanamo Bay are NOT prisoners of war - if they were the USA would be in breach of the Geneva Convention to which it has long been signed up to.lowing wrote:
Oh I forgot, humiliation is torture now.
War prisoners do not get trials
Under the wording of the Geneva Convention the USA has declared the detainees not to be prisoners of war - that is a distinction the USA has repeatedly, aggressively and publically made and so it is unacceptable for people to use the term "prisoners of war" to justify their arguments as you have here. It's nothing personal against you lowing, I have just seen it in a number of places and it really ticks me off. They are NOT prisoners of war, YOU have declared them not to be so please don't use that term to justify whatever you may or may not be doing to them.
As a case in point - to whoever thinks the war is over... well, if that is the case are you going to repatriate all those "POWS" now? No, thought not. Because they are not POWS they are terrorists and as such are being held outside the normal, internationally recognised jurisdictions. Which, under the circumstances is understandable! Just please be prepared to admit it! Rant over
Last edited by nikki_lighthouse (2006-06-18 02:21:01)
*goes back to reading "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"*
See, it's funny. Conservatives on these forums constantly go on about how liberals are stupid, and don't understand anything, and mindless, rather than arguing facts (obviously, there are exceptions, as with all generalistations). And this makes you smarter?||BFA||xZeler8 wrote:
*goes back to reading "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"*
so, if I have a god, that makes being a tyrant ok?
are you a fundamentalist?
sounds to me like you might be a terrorist
you're reading liberal literature
uh oh
you're reading literature
how liberal
you obviously take your lifestyle for granted.
Be happy you still have it, since you choose to have no part in how it gets run.
do you even vote?
I have a god, and it says stfu.
Does that make me a conservative now?
http://bathroomjokes.com/fart/sound.htm
WAIT a second, Jesus: liek, teh biggest liberal of all time?
Friend, that path called faith can help you get so far, but if you don't want to help yourself, you can't be helped. Choose to bury your head in the sand and it's all good, until someone makes YOUR religion, or way of life, which may include political awareness whatever it is, illegal. (You wouldn't like that I'm sure)
I wonder what god it is that can justify the torture and execution of other humans, based on no legal rigors.
Sounds like the shit you're fighting against in Iraq. How fully you contradict yourself if you think like that. If you want to live in a despotism, go live in Africa. I'm sure your politics will do well there (the church certainly has). This discussion is for people who believe the president is NOT god, but alas another regular fucking guy who NEEDS TO BE CRITICIZED. That's how 'democracy' works. It's not like faith.
are you a fundamentalist?
sounds to me like you might be a terrorist
you're reading liberal literature
uh oh
you're reading literature
how liberal
you obviously take your lifestyle for granted.
Be happy you still have it, since you choose to have no part in how it gets run.
do you even vote?
I have a god, and it says stfu.
Does that make me a conservative now?
http://bathroomjokes.com/fart/sound.htm
WAIT a second, Jesus: liek, teh biggest liberal of all time?
Friend, that path called faith can help you get so far, but if you don't want to help yourself, you can't be helped. Choose to bury your head in the sand and it's all good, until someone makes YOUR religion, or way of life, which may include political awareness whatever it is, illegal. (You wouldn't like that I'm sure)
I wonder what god it is that can justify the torture and execution of other humans, based on no legal rigors.
Sounds like the shit you're fighting against in Iraq. How fully you contradict yourself if you think like that. If you want to live in a despotism, go live in Africa. I'm sure your politics will do well there (the church certainly has). This discussion is for people who believe the president is NOT god, but alas another regular fucking guy who NEEDS TO BE CRITICIZED. That's how 'democracy' works. It's not like faith.
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-06-18 04:57:45)