Post by: xmedia2004 on October 19, 2005, 10:15:00 AM
QUOTE
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's CIA-leak inquiry is focusing attention on what long has been a tactic of U.S. President George W. Bush's administration: slash-and-burn assaults on its critics, particularly those opposed to the president's Iraq war policies.
QUOTE
If top officials are indicted, it could seriously erode the administration's credibility and prove yet another embarrassment to Bush on the larger issue of how he and his national security team marshaled information -- much of it later shown to be inaccurate -- to support their case for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
With Dubya Approval ratings in a port a pottie now this.
I see an indictment lurking in the shadows, maybe Karl Rove will take one on the chin for Dubya.
To some it might appear that the "thug" Chaney leaked classified information regarding the identity of an CIA operative that exposed Dubya's smoke and mirrors over Iraq.
We may be looking at the " last throws of life " of this scripted administration.
Maybe he in Chaney will go on vaction in time for the trial of " The mayor of Bagdhad"
Source
Post by: thegame_evolution on October 19, 2005, 10:31:00 AM
Post by: XeroKitsune on October 19, 2005, 11:28:00 AM
Not that I trust polls to begin with, normaly you can phrase questions to mess with thier reactions. Much like some of the polls on the current war, a person who shouts the US should be out of iraq and a person who says the desert should have been hit with enough nucuar blasts to turn it into a single sheet of glass, are both chalked up to opposing Bush's approch to the war.
Post by: lordvader129 on October 19, 2005, 12:21:00 PM
and also how many people realize how much (or little really) is actually in his control, most people i talk to disapprove of bush for reasons that dont even have anything to do with him, stuff that is congress's doing
Post by: pug_ster on October 19, 2005, 04:19:00 PM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Oct 19 2005, 08:32 PM)
i often wonder if most americans really understand why they dont approve of bush, or if they just say they dont like him because everyone else says it
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: pug_ster on October 20, 2005, 12:51:00 PM
-
Our forefathers always stressed about the separation of Church and State. Yet there are many people who voted for Bush just because that he is a Christian and not much else. Now that's stupidity. What happened to voting for the the person who has the best ideas, and the best qualifications for the job?
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: Statecowboy on October 20, 2005, 12:53:00 PM
-
Post by: pug_ster on October 20, 2005, 12:51:00 PM
Post by: Statecowboy on October 20, 2005, 12:53:00 PM
QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 20 2005, 03:02 PM)
Our forefathers always stressed about the separation of Church and State. Yet there are many people who voted for Bush just because that he is a Christian and not much else. Now that's stupidity. What happened to voting for the the person who has the best ideas, and the best qualifications for the job?
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on October 20, 2005, 01:12:00 PM
-
To pass along classified information to someone who doesnt have clearance to handle matter is essentially espionage, which is a felony.
And to lie, cover up this act before a grand jury is also a felony. To date, there is no smoking gun leading to Bush, but Chaney all but has a fork stuck in him.
The government would appear to have "flipped" someone close to Bush.
P.S. Guys I started this thread to bring the issue of an elected official divulging the name of a CIA operative to settle a political score, to light.
How does religion have any bearing on this national security matter.
I thought that this was a serious issue, but if you all like I can stick to the more popular Jerry Springerish topics and popular distractions that only serve theatre.
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: pug_ster on October 20, 2005, 01:21:00 PM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on October 20, 2005, 01:12:00 PM
QUOTE
Unless of course you can impeach him. To my knowledge Bush hasn't committed any impeachable offenses. The whole "war on Iraq under false pretenses" cannot be blamed on Bush. He trusted the information from the intelligence agencies. Even if he coerced them to give him bad information, they are still at fault for being coerced. Maybe not to the everyday man, but Im pretty sure thats how Judge Roberts will see it
To pass along classified information to someone who doesnt have clearance to handle matter is essentially espionage, which is a felony.
And to lie, cover up this act before a grand jury is also a felony. To date, there is no smoking gun leading to Bush, but Chaney all but has a fork stuck in him.
The government would appear to have "flipped" someone close to Bush.
P.S. Guys I started this thread to bring the issue of an elected official divulging the name of a CIA operative to settle a political score, to light.
How does religion have any bearing on this national security matter.
I thought that this was a serious issue, but if you all like I can stick to the more popular Jerry Springerish topics and popular distractions that only serve theatre.
Post by: pug_ster on October 20, 2005, 01:21:00 PM
QUOTE(Statecowboy @ Oct 20 2005, 09:04 PM)
Well I hate to break it to you, but people vote for someone who reflects their beliefs, views, and someone who will benefit them the most.
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: Statecowboy on October 20, 2005, 02:47:00 PM
-
Post by: Statecowboy on October 20, 2005, 02:47:00 PM
QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 20 2005, 03:32 PM)
Maybe I am weird. Let's say manager in a company who wants to hire an accountant. To get the best qualified accountant, the manager a) went thru an exhaustive process of interviewing a couple of people and determine who is the most qualified. b ) hire a friend from Church service who did his taxes last year.
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: lordvader129 on October 20, 2005, 08:51:00 PM
-
Post by: lordvader129 on October 20, 2005, 08:51:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Oct 20 2005, 05:17 PM)
He has almost no responsibility as Vice-president except to be the backup.
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on October 26, 2005, 08:02:00 AM
-
Source
Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to decieve.
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: lordvader129 on October 26, 2005, 10:41:00 AM
-
sir walter scott.....and i have my own kudos
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: Chupathingy on October 27, 2005, 08:40:00 PM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on October 26, 2005, 08:02:00 AM
QUOTE
Notes in the hands of a federal prosecutor suggest that Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, first heard of the CIA officer from Cheney himself, The New York Times reported in Tuesday's editions.
Source
Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to decieve.
Post by: lordvader129 on October 26, 2005, 10:41:00 AM
Post by: Chupathingy on October 27, 2005, 08:40:00 PM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Oct 19 2005, 01:32 PM)
i often wonder if most americans really understand why they dont approve of bush, or if they just say they dont like him because everyone else says it
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: pug_ster on October 27, 2005, 10:45:00 PM
-
This is the reason why people like Michael Brown was the President of FEMA and why Miers is nominated for Justice. You're right, people can vote for whomever they want and the president can nominate whomever he wants. But I am sure that many Americans can sleep better at nights when someone qualified is working in the government, not a bunch of beaurocrats.
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: pug_ster on October 28, 2005, 08:00:00 AM
-
I was talking about that you shouldnt vote anybody just because he is more religious than the other person. And then you hijacked the thread saying that Statecowboy is correct. Now you are saying that I am talking out of context. Give me a break.
Again, you took a word from what I said and take it out of context. I am talking about government bureaucrats who is hired in his/her positions without much experience. Michael brown was confirmed by the senate but only as a deputy director. High level nominations like the director and the supreme court judge will be looked through a microscope.
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on October 28, 2005, 08:04:00 AM
-
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on October 28, 2005, 04:03:00 PM
-
Maybe Scooter Liby will convert to ISLAM in prison.
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: sn4k13s on October 31, 2005, 03:56:00 PM
-
Post by: pug_ster on October 27, 2005, 10:45:00 PM
QUOTE
Ok, why religion. Statecowboy is correct. People can vote however they want, and the president can nominate whoever he wants. The issue at hand is not related to this at all.
This is the reason why people like Michael Brown was the President of FEMA and why Miers is nominated for Justice. You're right, people can vote for whomever they want and the president can nominate whomever he wants. But I am sure that many Americans can sleep better at nights when someone qualified is working in the government, not a bunch of beaurocrats.
Post by: pug_ster on October 28, 2005, 08:00:00 AM
Again, you took a word from what I said and take it out of context. I am talking about government bureaucrats who is hired in his/her positions without much experience. Michael brown was confirmed by the senate but only as a deputy director. High level nominations like the director and the supreme court judge will be looked through a microscope.
Post by: xmedia2004 on October 28, 2005, 08:04:00 AM
Post by: xmedia2004 on October 28, 2005, 04:03:00 PM
QUOTE
Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff resigned Friday after he was indicted by a grand jury, accused of obstructing its investigation and lying about an effort to blow the CIA cover of an Iraq war critic's wife.
Maybe Scooter Liby will convert to ISLAM in prison.
Post by: sn4k13s on October 31, 2005, 03:56:00 PM
QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 20 2005, 12:02 PM)
Our forefathers always stressed about the separation of Church and State. Yet there are many people who voted for Bush just because that he is a Christian and not much else. Now that's stupidity. What happened to voting for the the person who has the best ideas, and the best qualifications for the job?
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: pug_ster on October 31, 2005, 04:43:00 PM
-
There's a difference between having Religious freedom and keeping religion out of government. Just because Christians believe that abortion and gay marriage is wrong, they shouldn't be pushing laws where non-christians have to obey these anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage laws.
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: pug_ster on October 31, 2005, 11:19:00 PM
-
That does bring up a point. The constitution directly does say that gay marriage and abortion is legal or not. So these conservative judges interpret from the constitition or their version of rule of law, of how they perceive of why gay marriage and abortion is illegal. Just like how many Christians over the past centuries interpret the bible that slavery is just.
Talking about Bush, even as bad of what happened last week to Bush, 39% of the Americans still approve what Bush is doing. Must be that same 39% who goes to Church every Sunday and hear surmons of why Bush is God.
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: puckSR on November 01, 2005, 01:35:00 AM
-
are you comparing the interpretation of law by judges to the interpretation of religious text by priests?
Law is fluid, so a different interpretation of the law in one era is not a flaw of the legal system. Religion is absolute, so any differing interpretation is a flaw.
At the same time that churches were condoning slavery, so was the American legal system. Luckily the interpretation changed. The legal system can point to reasons, the churches, well they are S.O.L.
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: pug_ster on November 02, 2005, 11:27:00 PM
-
http://www.cbsnews.c...in1005982.shtml
Okay getting back to the topic...
An interesting story about Job approval numbers for Presidents at their trouble times...
Lowest approval ratings...
Bush, Now, 35%
Clinton, Lewinsky Scandal 1/98, 58%
Reagan, Iran Contra Scandal 11/86, 46%
Nixon, Watergate, 8/74, 24%
Well, Bush haven't gotten as low as Nixon before he quit. But now that the Democrats wants to further this investigation of the war in the Iraq might further thrust the dagger into Bush's heart. Oh well, let's see what happens from here...
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 05, 2005, 10:00:00 AM
-
Powell quit when his BS did not sell Bush's arrogant cowboy machismo will not let him stand but I do se impeachment looming..
BYE, BYE,BYE
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: lordvader129 on November 05, 2005, 10:49:00 AM
-
Post by: pug_ster on October 31, 2005, 04:43:00 PM
Post by: pug_ster on October 31, 2005, 11:19:00 PM
Talking about Bush, even as bad of what happened last week to Bush, 39% of the Americans still approve what Bush is doing. Must be that same 39% who goes to Church every Sunday and hear surmons of why Bush is God.
Post by: puckSR on November 01, 2005, 01:35:00 AM
Law is fluid, so a different interpretation of the law in one era is not a flaw of the legal system. Religion is absolute, so any differing interpretation is a flaw.
At the same time that churches were condoning slavery, so was the American legal system. Luckily the interpretation changed. The legal system can point to reasons, the churches, well they are S.O.L.
Post by: pug_ster on November 02, 2005, 11:27:00 PM
Okay getting back to the topic...
An interesting story about Job approval numbers for Presidents at their trouble times...
Lowest approval ratings...
Bush, Now, 35%
Clinton, Lewinsky Scandal 1/98, 58%
Reagan, Iran Contra Scandal 11/86, 46%
Nixon, Watergate, 8/74, 24%
Well, Bush haven't gotten as low as Nixon before he quit. But now that the Democrats wants to further this investigation of the war in the Iraq might further thrust the dagger into Bush's heart. Oh well, let's see what happens from here...
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 05, 2005, 10:00:00 AM
Powell quit when his BS did not sell Bush's arrogant cowboy machismo will not let him stand but I do se impeachment looming..
BYE, BYE,BYE
Post by: lordvader129 on November 05, 2005, 10:49:00 AM
QUOTE(xmedia2004 @ Nov 5 2005, 10:07 AM)
but I do se impeachment looming..
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 05, 2005, 05:16:00 PM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 05, 2005, 05:16:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Nov 5 2005, 11:02 PM)
Xmedia what little world do you live in?
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: lordvader129 on November 05, 2005, 06:03:00 PM
-
Post by: lordvader129 on November 05, 2005, 06:03:00 PM
QUOTE(xmedia2004 @ Nov 5 2005, 05:23 PM)
No, actually the democrats are growing enough sack to put him to task about the
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 05, 2005, 06:21:00 PM
-
Yeah I guess you are right there isnt anything illegal in just invading a soveirgn nation just because you can. To promote democracy.
Cough
International
Cough
Law
Cough cough
But yet we persuade Tawain not to further democracy and succede from China
because the Chinese, I guess could make up a case for war, and invade Taiwan and being we have pact to protect Taiwan this would draw us into a third theatre of conflict.
The chicken hawks should be careful what they ask for.
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: lordvader129 on November 06, 2005, 11:59:00 AM
-
peopel fail to realize the world isnt much more civilized than it was a thousand years ago, the whole world works on a system of might makes right, we just pretend we are above that
as for international law, maybe he did, but again, what country is gonna hold it to us? besides, the world court cant impeach a president
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 06, 2005, 02:29:00 PM
-
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: Tony42077 on November 07, 2005, 07:25:00 PM
-
No brainer
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 08, 2005, 09:46:00 PM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 05, 2005, 06:21:00 PM
QUOTE
face it, theres nothing illegal about the war, its got congressional appoval, it congress yanks the approval bush wont be impeached, we'll just pack up and leave iraq, thats all
Yeah I guess you are right there isnt anything illegal in just invading a soveirgn nation just because you can. To promote democracy.
Cough
International
Cough
Law
Cough cough
But yet we persuade Tawain not to further democracy and succede from China
because the Chinese, I guess could make up a case for war, and invade Taiwan and being we have pact to protect Taiwan this would draw us into a third theatre of conflict.
The chicken hawks should be careful what they ask for.
Post by: lordvader129 on November 06, 2005, 11:59:00 AM
as for international law, maybe he did, but again, what country is gonna hold it to us? besides, the world court cant impeach a president
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 06, 2005, 02:29:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Nov 6 2005, 07:38 PM)
Post by: Tony42077 on November 07, 2005, 07:25:00 PM
No brainer
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 08, 2005, 09:46:00 PM
QUOTE(Tony42077 @ Nov 8 2005, 03:32 AM)
xmedia needs to get his nose out of the NY Times long enough to realize that he's an idiot. Just because you want something bad enough, doesn't mean it will happen.
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: puckSR on November 08, 2005, 10:41:00 PM
-
I love how xmedia doesnt apologize for being wrong, he just shifts into insulting people.
Hey xmedia, come on, you can say it, you were talking out of your ass earlier about international law and about impeachment. You probably tried to google the facts really quickly, and when you realized you were wrong, you decided to shut up.
You, however, want the last word, so you rebutt with some drivel about the mentality of the people your are arguing with, how typical.
Grow up, admit when your wrong, and keep the cheap insults to FOX news
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 09, 2005, 06:10:00 AM
-
Post by: puckSR on November 08, 2005, 10:41:00 PM
Hey xmedia, come on, you can say it, you were talking out of your ass earlier about international law and about impeachment. You probably tried to google the facts really quickly, and when you realized you were wrong, you decided to shut up.
You, however, want the last word, so you rebutt with some drivel about the mentality of the people your are arguing with, how typical.
Grow up, admit when your wrong, and keep the cheap insults to FOX news
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 09, 2005, 06:10:00 AM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Nov 9 2005, 06:48 AM)
I love how xmedia doesnt apologize for being wrong, he just shifts into insulting people.
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: lordvader129 on November 09, 2005, 10:28:00 AM
-
pucks response had nothign to do with invading a country being a violation of international law, it was about violating inernational law being grounds for impeachment, which it isnt
BTW, international law means precisely nothing, whos going to enforce it? naturally you would expect the most powerful nation to do that, well guess who that is? so whos going to punish us for violation of international "law?" no one can, like ive said before, we are living in a glorified system of might makes right
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 09, 2005, 10:51:00 AM
-
Post by: lordvader129 on November 09, 2005, 10:28:00 AM
QUOTE
If you believe international law endorses countries invading other countries that is another story. I am sure Desert Storm and Kosovo had nothing to do with the UN or international law
pucks response had nothign to do with invading a country being a violation of international law, it was about violating inernational law being grounds for impeachment, which it isnt
BTW, international law means precisely nothing, whos going to enforce it? naturally you would expect the most powerful nation to do that, well guess who that is? so whos going to punish us for violation of international "law?" no one can, like ive said before, we are living in a glorified system of might makes right
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 09, 2005, 10:51:00 AM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Nov 9 2005, 06:35 PM)
pucks response had nothign to do with invading a country being a violation of international law, it was about violating inernational law being grounds for impeachment, which it isnt
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: lordvader129 on November 09, 2005, 11:05:00 AM
-
so what were the lies about iraq? besides underestimations of how long it would take....and dont even start with some wmd crap, just because we didnt find anything doesnt mean anything, sadam has used sarin nerve gas to put down revolts and he used nerve agents against US troops in the first gulf war, those 2 things alone are vioaltions of your precious "international law"
i think we already established that none of that can be traced back to bush, doesnt necessarily mean he wasnt involved but no evidence = no impeachment
so china is going to move into iraq to push us out? or invade us to bring bush to trial at the hague? no, china realizes it might makes right too, if we are strong enough to smack iraq around we're welcome to it, just like they feel if they can smack taiwan around they are welcome to it (not that we wont think we can stop them, but thats another war for another presidency)
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 09, 2005, 11:19:00 AM
-
Post by: lordvader129 on November 09, 2005, 11:05:00 AM
QUOTE
And he said I was knee jerk, my point lying to the American people is grounds for impeachment hence slick willy.
1) Iraq War
1) Iraq War
so what were the lies about iraq? besides underestimations of how long it would take....and dont even start with some wmd crap, just because we didnt find anything doesnt mean anything, sadam has used sarin nerve gas to put down revolts and he used nerve agents against US troops in the first gulf war, those 2 things alone are vioaltions of your precious "international law"
QUOTE
2) CIA agent
i think we already established that none of that can be traced back to bush, doesnt necessarily mean he wasnt involved but no evidence = no impeachment
QUOTE
Americans are only 250 or so million, there are 6 billion people on earth. God forbid China decides to invade Tawain. Then all of you young girly men will be staring at a draft card.
You severly overestimate our hand.
You severly overestimate our hand.
so china is going to move into iraq to push us out? or invade us to bring bush to trial at the hague? no, china realizes it might makes right too, if we are strong enough to smack iraq around we're welcome to it, just like they feel if they can smack taiwan around they are welcome to it (not that we wont think we can stop them, but thats another war for another presidency)
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 09, 2005, 11:19:00 AM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Nov 9 2005, 07:12 PM)
so what were the lies about iraq? besides underestimations of how long it would take....and dont even start with some wmd crap, just because we didnt find anything doesnt mean anything, sadam has used sarin nerve gas to put down revolts and he used nerve agents against US troops in the first gulf war, those 2 things alone are vioaltions of your precious "international law"
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 09, 2005, 11:42:00 AM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 09, 2005, 11:42:00 AM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Nov 9 2005, 07:16 PM)
Bush claimed the war was a pre-emptive strike, he also argued that the war was legal because of multiple UN sanction violations. This at least satisfies the letter of the law, countries are allowed to go to war if they can demonstrate that it is for their own self-preservation.
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 09, 2005, 11:50:00 AM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 09, 2005, 11:50:00 AM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Nov 9 2005, 07:50 PM)
Hey Foghorn Leghorn
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: lordvader129 on November 09, 2005, 11:57:00 AM
-
who said anythign about the white house? iraqs own records show sarin gas was used to put down kurdish rebellions in the north, not to mention the countless video-documented crimes against humanity that sadam committed during his regime, if you dont think this invasion was not only legal, but also justified you are a fool (since this whole argument comes back to international law, right?)
as for use on american soldiers, im going by what my uncle and a dozen or so other verterans i have personally spoken to have told me about gas canisters being fired at them, sure they could have been smoke grenades but when they skull and crossbones painted on them it doesnt seem likely that they are harmless
i dont even know what your point is with all of that, you just spewing words to take up space
this has to do with my might makes right comments, doesnt it? i never said people wont or shouldnt object, i was saying if they arent pwerful enough militaily to do anything about it they are pretty much SOL, justified or not the stronger nations can walk all over the weaker ones and theres nothing the weaker ones can do except stand there an object
im also not saying thats how things should be, im just saying thats how they are, but people still believe in illusions like international law and the UN, the UN didnt authorize our invasion of iraq, france and germany objected to our invasion, but did anyone try to mobilize a peacekeeping force to push us back out? no, because they couldnt, we're strong, theyre not, thats how the world operates
case in point: isreal, a tiny little country that would probably be one of the weakest in the world. but we arm them with our weapons. why? so they can dictate policy to their neighbors. and it works
i think we have more to fear from n. korea than china, the cold war showed us its not the big guy with nukes you gotta worry about, he wont use them because hes got too much too lose. its the little guy with the little country. assuming nukes are the last resort for everyone youd have to fight through a billion-man chinese standing army before they hit the bottom of their barrel. for korea, its a much smaller fight before their finger is on the button.
if n. korea loses its powerful ally in china then kim jong-il will have nothing to lose by lobbing a few nukes at people, and he just might do it if china invades or china wont help defend them against a US invasion
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: Arvarden on November 09, 2005, 12:15:00 PM
-
If you are gonna harp on about war crimes L.V what about genocide/rape/mutilation in parts of Africa, shouldn't the world police be over there saving the day?
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: lordvader129 on November 09, 2005, 12:28:00 PM
-
i never claimed the US is some angelic protector of the weak, dont get me wrong we are just in it for ourselves, since none of the stuff in africa directly effects us we dont care, ive been saying this whole time that people like to pretend the world or at least the united states is more civilized than it really is
and neither the UN or the arab league take any military action (justified or not) to stop them because they know we'll kick their ass if they do (whether we are justified or not) once again, might = right
he had wmds and probably still does, they are buried in the desert where no one will find them in a hundred years (ever wonder why when the mob kills someone they toss the body in the desert, lol)
my point is that the US is outwardly justified in the invasion of iraq, so no one (xmedia) can call it a violation of international law, im sure everyone involved has their own reasons probably for personal gain, like i said at the beginning of this post, everyones in it for themselves, we just pretend we are better than that
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: puckSR on November 09, 2005, 12:50:00 PM
-
Last i read, and i may be wrong
Saddam didnt have any WMD's, Saddam either thought he did, or wanted people to think he did.
Hey your right, but your missing the point. Is Israel safe because of international law or is it safe because no one wants to attack Israel?
BTW the US could not attack Israel, that would be a violation of international law, since we do have a treaty with them.
Once again, your missing the point. You are allowed ulterior motives.
Let me give you an example. The police haul in a suspect rapist. They dont have enough evidence to collar him, but they do find an old speeding ticket that he never payed. They hold him on the speeding ticket for a short time to gather more information on him.
This is a clearly ulterior motive. They are technically holding him in jail on a speeding ticket, but they are doing it so that they can arrest him before he is arrested.
Bush could have invaded Iraq because he didnt like Saddam's beret. He did have to justify his invasion. As long as your justification is legal, you can have whatever personal motive you would like.
Xmedia, what the fuck are you talking about?
I was referring to the US policy of torture, and Sen. McCain's recent attempt to make it wholly illegal. You are off on some wild tangent because you dont know what the hell is going on.
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 09, 2005, 04:18:00 PM
-
Post by: lordvader129 on November 09, 2005, 11:57:00 AM
QUOTE
If you believe anything that comes from the White House regarding IRAQ you are a fool.
who said anythign about the white house? iraqs own records show sarin gas was used to put down kurdish rebellions in the north, not to mention the countless video-documented crimes against humanity that sadam committed during his regime, if you dont think this invasion was not only legal, but also justified you are a fool (since this whole argument comes back to international law, right?)
as for use on american soldiers, im going by what my uncle and a dozen or so other verterans i have personally spoken to have told me about gas canisters being fired at them, sure they could have been smoke grenades but when they skull and crossbones painted on them it doesnt seem likely that they are harmless
QUOTE
What did we establish there is an ongoing investigation, maybe soemone will flip maybe not. Point is that they are liars. I really wish someone would put a peep hole in his forehead that would end the war.
It is like the torture thing, you dont torture individuals because you can, you do it
because they can torture your sons and duaghters. I'm sure that point will be lost on the Chicken Hawks that read this.
I dont see purpose of UN anyway, but I guess there was some reason it was established back after World War to prevent countries from just invading their neighbors. That doesnt make sense huh.
It is like the torture thing, you dont torture individuals because you can, you do it
because they can torture your sons and duaghters. I'm sure that point will be lost on the Chicken Hawks that read this.
I dont see purpose of UN anyway, but I guess there was some reason it was established back after World War to prevent countries from just invading their neighbors. That doesnt make sense huh.
i dont even know what your point is with all of that, you just spewing words to take up space
QUOTE
Then, I am sure you would not object to a foreign power kidnapping american nationals on US soil, either.
this has to do with my might makes right comments, doesnt it? i never said people wont or shouldnt object, i was saying if they arent pwerful enough militaily to do anything about it they are pretty much SOL, justified or not the stronger nations can walk all over the weaker ones and theres nothing the weaker ones can do except stand there an object
im also not saying thats how things should be, im just saying thats how they are, but people still believe in illusions like international law and the UN, the UN didnt authorize our invasion of iraq, france and germany objected to our invasion, but did anyone try to mobilize a peacekeeping force to push us back out? no, because they couldnt, we're strong, theyre not, thats how the world operates
case in point: isreal, a tiny little country that would probably be one of the weakest in the world. but we arm them with our weapons. why? so they can dictate policy to their neighbors. and it works
i think we have more to fear from n. korea than china, the cold war showed us its not the big guy with nukes you gotta worry about, he wont use them because hes got too much too lose. its the little guy with the little country. assuming nukes are the last resort for everyone youd have to fight through a billion-man chinese standing army before they hit the bottom of their barrel. for korea, its a much smaller fight before their finger is on the button.
if n. korea loses its powerful ally in china then kim jong-il will have nothing to lose by lobbing a few nukes at people, and he just might do it if china invades or china wont help defend them against a US invasion
Post by: Arvarden on November 09, 2005, 12:15:00 PM
Post by: lordvader129 on November 09, 2005, 12:28:00 PM
QUOTE
If you are gonna harp on about war crimes L.V what about genocide/rape/mutilation in parts of Africa, shouldn't the world police be over there saving the day?
i never claimed the US is some angelic protector of the weak, dont get me wrong we are just in it for ourselves, since none of the stuff in africa directly effects us we dont care, ive been saying this whole time that people like to pretend the world or at least the united states is more civilized than it really is
QUOTE
Israel has broken God knows how many UN resolutions, you don't see the US or anybody else throwing there toys out of pram(well apart from Iran).
and neither the UN or the arab league take any military action (justified or not) to stop them because they know we'll kick their ass if they do (whether we are justified or not) once again, might = right
QUOTE
All the UN asked for was a little more time to clarify the data they had. If Sadam was indeed in possession of WMD's or creating a vast arsenals the US would have got full support from other nations rather than good will gestures.
he had wmds and probably still does, they are buried in the desert where no one will find them in a hundred years (ever wonder why when the mob kills someone they toss the body in the desert, lol)
QUOTE
I've said this before and I'll say it again. The US invaded Iraq because it wanted a) a regime change and big business contracts. If the US had waited she would have had to share the contracts between the various member states, meaning less $.
my point is that the US is outwardly justified in the invasion of iraq, so no one (xmedia) can call it a violation of international law, im sure everyone involved has their own reasons probably for personal gain, like i said at the beginning of this post, everyones in it for themselves, we just pretend we are better than that
Post by: puckSR on November 09, 2005, 12:50:00 PM
QUOTE
he had wmds and probably still does, they are buried in the desert where no one will find them in a hundred years (ever wonder why when the mob kills someone they toss the body in the desert, lol)
Last i read, and i may be wrong
Saddam didnt have any WMD's, Saddam either thought he did, or wanted people to think he did.
QUOTE
Israel has broken God knows how many UN resolutions, you don't see the US or anybody else throwing there toys out of pram(well apart from Iran).
Hey your right, but your missing the point. Is Israel safe because of international law or is it safe because no one wants to attack Israel?
BTW the US could not attack Israel, that would be a violation of international law, since we do have a treaty with them.
QUOTE
I've said this before and I'll say it again. The US invaded Iraq because it wanted a) a regime change and big business contracts. If the US had waited she would have had to share the contracts between the various member states, meaning less $.
Once again, your missing the point. You are allowed ulterior motives.
Let me give you an example. The police haul in a suspect rapist. They dont have enough evidence to collar him, but they do find an old speeding ticket that he never payed. They hold him on the speeding ticket for a short time to gather more information on him.
This is a clearly ulterior motive. They are technically holding him in jail on a speeding ticket, but they are doing it so that they can arrest him before he is arrested.
Bush could have invaded Iraq because he didnt like Saddam's beret. He did have to justify his invasion. As long as your justification is legal, you can have whatever personal motive you would like.
QUOTE
ChickenHawks dont care, they didnt serve, and they discourage their children from serving, so why even consider torture issue.
They send the naive sheepish moros to the killing fields like yourself to die for them.
Anyone that has ever been stationed at a military command would buy thoses 3 idiots at Abu Graib were runnig the whole show in a vacuum from the command,
thats BS. Just like Oliver North, gullable, naive BS.
They send the naive sheepish moros to the killing fields like yourself to die for them.
Anyone that has ever been stationed at a military command would buy thoses 3 idiots at Abu Graib were runnig the whole show in a vacuum from the command,
thats BS. Just like Oliver North, gullable, naive BS.
Xmedia, what the fuck are you talking about?
I was referring to the US policy of torture, and Sen. McCain's recent attempt to make it wholly illegal. You are off on some wild tangent because you dont know what the hell is going on.
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 09, 2005, 04:18:00 PM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Nov 9 2005, 08:04 PM)
who said anythign about the white house? iraqs own records show sarin gas was used to put down kurdish rebellions in the north, not to mention the countless video-documented crimes against humanity that sadam committed during his regime, if you dont think this invasion was not only legal, but also justified you are a fool (since this whole argument comes back to international law, right?)
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: lordvader129 on November 09, 2005, 04:33:00 PM
-
i think the real question about the invasion of iraq is why we didnt do it 10 years ago
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 09, 2005, 04:34:00 PM
-
Post by: lordvader129 on November 09, 2005, 04:33:00 PM
QUOTE
BOSTON, MA (April 29, 1993) - For the first time ever, scientists have been able to prove the use of chemical weapons through the analysis of environmental residues taken years after such an attack occurred. In a development that could have far-reaching consequences for the enforcement of the chemical weapons treaty, soil samples taken from bomb craters near a Kurdish village in northern Iraq by a team of forensic scientists have been found to contain trace evidence of nerve gas.
The samples were collected on June 10, 1992 by a forensic team assembled by the Boston-based Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) and the New York-based Middle East Watch (MEW), a division of Human Rights Watch (HRW). The samples were forwarded to the Chemical & Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) of Great Britain's Ministry of Defence at Porton Down which analyzed them.
Eyewitnesses have said that Iraqi warplanes dropped three clusters each of four bombs on the village of Birjinni on August 25, 1988. Observers recall seeing a plume of black, then yellowish smoke, followed by a not-unpleasant odor similar to fertilizer, and also a smell like rotten garlic. Shortly afterwards, villagers began to have trouble breathing, their eyes watered, their skin blistered, and many vomited--some of whom died. All of these symptoms are consistent with a poison gas attack.
"These scientific results prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Iraqi government has consistently lied to the world on denying that these attacks occurred," said PHR and HRW.
The samples were collected on June 10, 1992 by a forensic team assembled by the Boston-based Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) and the New York-based Middle East Watch (MEW), a division of Human Rights Watch (HRW). The samples were forwarded to the Chemical & Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) of Great Britain's Ministry of Defence at Porton Down which analyzed them.
Eyewitnesses have said that Iraqi warplanes dropped three clusters each of four bombs on the village of Birjinni on August 25, 1988. Observers recall seeing a plume of black, then yellowish smoke, followed by a not-unpleasant odor similar to fertilizer, and also a smell like rotten garlic. Shortly afterwards, villagers began to have trouble breathing, their eyes watered, their skin blistered, and many vomited--some of whom died. All of these symptoms are consistent with a poison gas attack.
"These scientific results prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Iraqi government has consistently lied to the world on denying that these attacks occurred," said PHR and HRW.
i think the real question about the invasion of iraq is why we didnt do it 10 years ago
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 09, 2005, 04:34:00 PM
QUOTE(Arvarden @ Nov 9 2005, 08:11 PM)
Israel has broken God knows how many UN resolutions, you don't see the US or anybody else throwing there toys out of pram(well apart from Iran). All the UN asked for was a little more time to clarify the data they had. If Sadam was indeed in possession of WMD's or creating a vast arsenals the US would have got full support from other nations rather than good will gestures.
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: lordvader129 on November 09, 2005, 04:43:00 PM
-
not always, only if they are found guilty of compromising national security and sentenced to death, we dont just drop gas bombs on their hometown
what does that have to do with north korea? unless you are agreeing with me that when faced with a no-win situation someone like kin jong-il will just fire nukes at anyone and everyone
you still cant tell us why it was so illegal, the official reason for the invasion of iraq was to remove saddam hussein due to crimes against humanty (see my above post) a perfectly legal and justified reason, hitler had no such justification for his invasion of poland
you can sell your car and say you are doing because you want to get a new car with better gas mileage, but really be intending to use the money to buy a new computer, does that make it illegal? no
as for the UN council, chickenhawk is better than just plain chicken if you ask me
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 10, 2005, 01:38:00 AM
-
Post by: lordvader129 on November 09, 2005, 04:43:00 PM
QUOTE
What do we do with TRAITORS in this country, we execute them.
not always, only if they are found guilty of compromising national security and sentenced to death, we dont just drop gas bombs on their hometown
QUOTE
Chicken Hawks only fight wars that they know they can win
what does that have to do with north korea? unless you are agreeing with me that when faced with a no-win situation someone like kin jong-il will just fire nukes at anyone and everyone
QUOTE
It was still an illegal act period point blank. That is why the UN security counsel didnt approve. Hitler invaded Poland, austria and others it was illegal then and its
illegal now.
illegal now.
you still cant tell us why it was so illegal, the official reason for the invasion of iraq was to remove saddam hussein due to crimes against humanty (see my above post) a perfectly legal and justified reason, hitler had no such justification for his invasion of poland
you can sell your car and say you are doing because you want to get a new car with better gas mileage, but really be intending to use the money to buy a new computer, does that make it illegal? no
as for the UN council, chickenhawk is better than just plain chicken if you ask me
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 10, 2005, 01:38:00 AM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Nov 10 2005, 02:38 AM)
Really, you stupid fuck, your telling me that anyone, at any level, cares about personal motive, as long as the official motive is justified? Ahh did your preacher molest you as a child, cause you seem really hung up on this?
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: Arvarden on November 10, 2005, 05:53:00 AM
-
"I think the real question about the invasion of iraq is why we didnt do it 10 years ago"
Because the US feared there would be a massive cull of American troops and the government feared they would loose public support when the fluff starts hitting the fan. Britain and a few other nations wanted to go all the way but when the US decided to pull out and leave Sadam in power they had no choice but to pull out with the Americans. It's a shame the shia uprissing couldn't do the same thing, they where left high and dry by the so called liberators of freedom and democracy.
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: lordvader129 on November 10, 2005, 10:12:00 AM
-
you really should be a politician, you can turn any statement around
you can criticize the government for liberating iraq in 2003 while at the same time criticize the same government for not doing it in 1993
seriously though, it is a shame we didnt do it when we were already there, we told the shiite and the kurds if they rebelled we would support them, so they did and we left (and thats the reason many citizens dont like us being there now, they dont trust us after that)
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: lordvader129 on November 10, 2005, 12:11:00 PM
-
saying that assumes theres some stute of limitations on crimes against humanity, hes somehow less guilty of the crimes he committed because they were committed 10 years ago
by the same right, is it more justified to arrest and punish a murderer 1 week after he kills someone or 10 years after he does?
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: lordvader129 on November 10, 2005, 02:09:00 PM
-
true, but based on what arvarden is saying it seems he feels we should have never gone back, or that we are not justified going back
im saying we are just as justified taking him down now as we would have been 10 years ago, but we didnt because our new president at the time was more interested in interns than politics
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 10, 2005, 05:32:00 PM
-
Post by: Arvarden on November 10, 2005, 05:53:00 AM
Because the US feared there would be a massive cull of American troops and the government feared they would loose public support when the fluff starts hitting the fan. Britain and a few other nations wanted to go all the way but when the US decided to pull out and leave Sadam in power they had no choice but to pull out with the Americans. It's a shame the shia uprissing couldn't do the same thing, they where left high and dry by the so called liberators of freedom and democracy.
Post by: lordvader129 on November 10, 2005, 10:12:00 AM
QUOTE
It's a shame the shia uprissing couldn't do the same thing, they where left high and dry by the so called liberators of freedom and democracy.
you really should be a politician, you can turn any statement around
you can criticize the government for liberating iraq in 2003 while at the same time criticize the same government for not doing it in 1993
seriously though, it is a shame we didnt do it when we were already there, we told the shiite and the kurds if they rebelled we would support them, so they did and we left (and thats the reason many citizens dont like us being there now, they dont trust us after that)
Post by: lordvader129 on November 10, 2005, 12:11:00 PM
QUOTE
Going into Iraq would have been more justified in 1993 than in 2003
saying that assumes theres some stute of limitations on crimes against humanity, hes somehow less guilty of the crimes he committed because they were committed 10 years ago
by the same right, is it more justified to arrest and punish a murderer 1 week after he kills someone or 10 years after he does?
Post by: lordvader129 on November 10, 2005, 02:09:00 PM
im saying we are just as justified taking him down now as we would have been 10 years ago, but we didnt because our new president at the time was more interested in interns than politics
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 10, 2005, 05:32:00 PM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Nov 10 2005, 12:40 AM)
yeah, abraham lincoln put down the rebellion in the south the same way saddam would have
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 11, 2005, 11:15:00 AM
-
At least he still has the hillbilly vote, I am sure the toothless will become a big swing voter demographic.
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: lordvader129 on November 11, 2005, 01:58:00 PM
-
whats with you and racism?
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 11, 2005, 07:25:00 PM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 11, 2005, 11:15:00 AM
QUOTE
WASHINGTON - Most Americans say they aren't impressed by the ethics and honesty of the Bush administration, already under scrutiny for its justifications for an unpopular war in Iraq and its role in the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity.
ADVERTISEMENT
Almost six in 10 57 percent said they do not think the Bush administration has high ethical standards and the same portion says President Bush is not honest, an AP-Ipsos poll found. Just over four in 10 say the administration has high ethical standards and that Bush is honest.
ADVERTISEMENT
Almost six in 10 57 percent said they do not think the Bush administration has high ethical standards and the same portion says President Bush is not honest, an AP-Ipsos poll found. Just over four in 10 say the administration has high ethical standards and that Bush is honest.
QUOTE
Whites, Southerners and white evangelicals were most likely to believe Bush is honest.
At least he still has the hillbilly vote, I am sure the toothless will become a big swing voter demographic.
Post by: lordvader129 on November 11, 2005, 01:58:00 PM
QUOTE
At least he still has the hillbilly vote, I am sure the toothless will become a big swing voter demographic.
whats with you and racism?
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 11, 2005, 07:25:00 PM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Nov 11 2005, 10:05 PM)
whats with you and racism?
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: lordvader129 on November 11, 2005, 07:33:00 PM
-
maybe raceism isnt exactly the right word, but its still a prejudice generalization, and sad you dont even realize it
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: puckSR on November 11, 2005, 08:42:00 PM
-
*************ACLU*****************
You like to lob accusations around.
Show me where:
The ACLU tried to ban christmas?
The ACLU tried to ban spanking?
The ACLU tried to ban public farting?
The ACLU is simply making sure that people's rights are respected.
The courts actually decide.
If you mad about the rash of trivial lawsuits..attack the courts
The ACLU does not make money, so they have no reason to file frivolous lawsuits
The ACLU frequently gets branded as being a liberal organization, yet they have defended many conservatives...including people who have spoken out against them
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: medievil on November 11, 2005, 09:02:00 PM
-
Post by: lordvader129 on November 11, 2005, 07:33:00 PM
QUOTE
Whites, Southerners and white evangelicals
QUOTE
At least he still has the hillbilly vote, I am sure the toothless will become a big swing voter demographic.
maybe raceism isnt exactly the right word, but its still a prejudice generalization, and sad you dont even realize it
Post by: puckSR on November 11, 2005, 08:42:00 PM
You like to lob accusations around.
Show me where:
The ACLU tried to ban christmas?
The ACLU tried to ban spanking?
The ACLU tried to ban public farting?
The ACLU is simply making sure that people's rights are respected.
The courts actually decide.
If you mad about the rash of trivial lawsuits..attack the courts
The ACLU does not make money, so they have no reason to file frivolous lawsuits
The ACLU frequently gets branded as being a liberal organization, yet they have defended many conservatives...including people who have spoken out against them
Post by: medievil on November 11, 2005, 09:02:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Nov 12 2005, 04:49 AM)
*************ACLU*****************
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: puckSR on November 11, 2005, 09:20:00 PM
-
First off...the ACLU is not doing a damn thing
Some atheist sued because he felt that Christmas was a rights violation. The ACLU defended him and im sure that the judge threw it out.
The ACLU has been known to look for particular cases that would challenge something that they find strongly violates civil liberties...but they still just offer legal aid.
They have to go overboard? Thats the whole fucking point.
If they only defended the cases that you thought were righteous...then they would be biased towards you.
They try to show no bias...so they defend everyone and everything.
Do you really think that the ACLU supported Nazis when they defended their right to march? They were represented by a Jewish Lawyer.
You are a reactionary. You do not like the ACLU because they try to bring cases to court. Are you telling me that you should decide what cases they defend?
The worst thing to ever happen to America was Christian Fundamentalism.
Fundamentalists are capable of becoming terrorists
Fundamentalists are willing to sacrifice a lot for their beliefs
Fundamentalists are a cult
Fundamentalists are destroying the chance that America can emerge as an Intellectual Power
God bless the fact that one organization will defend anything that can be described as a civil liberty. If you dont agree with the outcome of court cases...go yell at the judge or jury.
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: lordvader129 on November 11, 2005, 10:03:00 PM
-
thast why christmas break is called midterm break most places, and easter break is spring break
they arent banning the holiday or even the break, just removing the religion implications from the name
i don tknow how or if the ACLU is onvolved with that, i just want to clear up the issues in general lol
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 12, 2005, 12:17:00 AM
-
Post by: puckSR on November 11, 2005, 09:20:00 PM
Some atheist sued because he felt that Christmas was a rights violation. The ACLU defended him and im sure that the judge threw it out.
The ACLU has been known to look for particular cases that would challenge something that they find strongly violates civil liberties...but they still just offer legal aid.
They have to go overboard? Thats the whole fucking point.
If they only defended the cases that you thought were righteous...then they would be biased towards you.
They try to show no bias...so they defend everyone and everything.
Do you really think that the ACLU supported Nazis when they defended their right to march? They were represented by a Jewish Lawyer.
You are a reactionary. You do not like the ACLU because they try to bring cases to court. Are you telling me that you should decide what cases they defend?
The worst thing to ever happen to America was Christian Fundamentalism.
Fundamentalists are capable of becoming terrorists
Fundamentalists are willing to sacrifice a lot for their beliefs
Fundamentalists are a cult
Fundamentalists are destroying the chance that America can emerge as an Intellectual Power
God bless the fact that one organization will defend anything that can be described as a civil liberty. If you dont agree with the outcome of court cases...go yell at the judge or jury.
Post by: lordvader129 on November 11, 2005, 10:03:00 PM
they arent banning the holiday or even the break, just removing the religion implications from the name
i don tknow how or if the ACLU is onvolved with that, i just want to clear up the issues in general lol
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 12, 2005, 12:17:00 AM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Nov 12 2005, 03:40 AM)
maybe raceism isnt exactly the right word, but its still a prejudice generalization, and sad you dont even realize it
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: lordvader129 on November 12, 2005, 02:57:00 PM
-
Post by: lordvader129 on November 12, 2005, 02:57:00 PM
QUOTE(xmedia2004 @ Nov 12 2005, 12:24 AM)
Seeing that those are the words of associated press interpreted from a poll.
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 12, 2005, 03:04:00 PM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 12, 2005, 03:04:00 PM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Nov 12 2005, 11:04 PM)
the AP used "toothless" and "hillbilly" to describe southerners? i would like to see that link
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 12, 2005, 07:56:00 PM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 12, 2005, 07:56:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Nov 12 2005, 11:29 PM)
yeah...if you want to point to a sign that western culture is declining...the phrase "i saw it on the news" works perfectly.
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: lordvader129 on November 12, 2005, 08:24:00 PM
-
ok, good start, now lets discuss this data, this represents the over 65 polulation of 3 states, it does not represent the entire population of those states (likely less than 40% of the total populace) and probably less than 20% of all southern population, and this doesnt even account for the fact that seniors are more predisposed to have no teeth due simply to their age
so lets do some math (yeah yeah, math is the tool of the devil)
40% of 40% of 20% of the southern population is statisticly toothless, thats roughly 3.2% of the total popualtion, so, is 3% a basis for a broad generalization?
3% is probably an accurate estimate for the percentage of homosexuals in the navy, does that mean its ok to call all people in the navy homosexuals?
but seriously, basis generizations on a very specific 3% of a population could explain alot of the crap you spew, particularly the catholic priest thing
for example, and just so everyone knows im pulling these figures out of my ass they are merely an example, this is how your logic seems to work
90% of priests accused of sexual misconduct are found guilty, therefore 90% of all priests are guilty of sexual misconduct
you take a very specific sample group (those accused of misconduct) then apply those figures to a much larger group (all priests)
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 14, 2005, 04:06:00 PM
-
Post by: lordvader129 on November 12, 2005, 08:24:00 PM
QUOTE
In addition to West Virginia, more than 40 percent of Louisiana and Kentucky residents over age 65 were also toothless.
A number of factors contribute to the likelihood that a person will retain their teeth as they age. About 42 percent of high school dropouts had lost all their teeth, compared with 10 percent to 25 percent of those with more education.
And if you need another reason to quit smoking, keeping your teeth may be it. About 41 percent of daily smokers were toothless, compared with 29 percent of occasional smokers, 26 percent of former smokers and 20 percent of never-smokers.
SOURCE: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1999;48:206-209.
A number of factors contribute to the likelihood that a person will retain their teeth as they age. About 42 percent of high school dropouts had lost all their teeth, compared with 10 percent to 25 percent of those with more education.
And if you need another reason to quit smoking, keeping your teeth may be it. About 41 percent of daily smokers were toothless, compared with 29 percent of occasional smokers, 26 percent of former smokers and 20 percent of never-smokers.
SOURCE: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1999;48:206-209.
ok, good start, now lets discuss this data, this represents the over 65 polulation of 3 states, it does not represent the entire population of those states (likely less than 40% of the total populace) and probably less than 20% of all southern population, and this doesnt even account for the fact that seniors are more predisposed to have no teeth due simply to their age
so lets do some math (yeah yeah, math is the tool of the devil)
40% of 40% of 20% of the southern population is statisticly toothless, thats roughly 3.2% of the total popualtion, so, is 3% a basis for a broad generalization?
3% is probably an accurate estimate for the percentage of homosexuals in the navy, does that mean its ok to call all people in the navy homosexuals?
but seriously, basis generizations on a very specific 3% of a population could explain alot of the crap you spew, particularly the catholic priest thing
for example, and just so everyone knows im pulling these figures out of my ass they are merely an example, this is how your logic seems to work
90% of priests accused of sexual misconduct are found guilty, therefore 90% of all priests are guilty of sexual misconduct
you take a very specific sample group (those accused of misconduct) then apply those figures to a much larger group (all priests)
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 14, 2005, 04:06:00 PM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Nov 13 2005, 04:31 AM)
ok, good start, now lets discuss this data, this represents the over 65 polulation of 3 states, it does not represent the entire population of those states (likely less than 40% of the total populace) and probably less than 20% of all southern population, and this doesnt even account for the fact that seniors are more predisposed to have no teeth due simply to their age
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: puckSR on November 14, 2005, 10:23:00 PM
-
Anyways xmedia, you like every other kid who doesnt understand politics, thinks that George Bush is going to get kicked out for being unpopular.
Trust me, he wont get kicked out.
He wont even get in much trouble, unless of course he decides to veto this torture amendment. In that case....oh yeah, hes basically a dead duck
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 14, 2005, 11:22:00 PM
-
Post by: puckSR on November 14, 2005, 10:23:00 PM
Trust me, he wont get kicked out.
He wont even get in much trouble, unless of course he decides to veto this torture amendment. In that case....oh yeah, hes basically a dead duck
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 14, 2005, 11:22:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Nov 15 2005, 06:25 AM)
Romans 2:1
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 17, 2005, 06:34:00 PM
-
Legacy of the moron of the state:
1) Block gunmakers from being sued when they dont prevent kids from getting guns.
2) Cut taxes for big oil, expected they bought presidency for him.
3) Fraud on local, state, federal, and international level.
4) Making money for Halliburton
5) Oh yeah he captured the mayor of Bagdad, the greatest threat to humanity, while Kim Jhong IL builds more nuclear weapons.
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: lordvader129 on November 17, 2005, 08:16:00 PM
-
1:gunMAKERS not gunSELLERS, but i suppose if it were up to you we'd sue the guy who mined the iron and the guy at the steel mill where they got the metal for the barrel
besides, any kind of law like this had to originate in congress and pass through both the house and senate before the president even saw it, when was the last time you blamed a senator?
2:lower taxes reduces total overhead for the company, resulting a lower pump price for gasoline
how did they "buy" the presidency? no one paid me for my vote
also, law must come through congress first
3:evidence?
4:....because making money is illegal....
5:i suppose youd just leave them both alone, right?
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 17, 2005, 10:19:00 PM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 17, 2005, 06:34:00 PM
Legacy of the moron of the state:
1) Block gunmakers from being sued when they dont prevent kids from getting guns.
2) Cut taxes for big oil, expected they bought presidency for him.
3) Fraud on local, state, federal, and international level.
4) Making money for Halliburton
5) Oh yeah he captured the mayor of Bagdad, the greatest threat to humanity, while Kim Jhong IL builds more nuclear weapons.
Post by: lordvader129 on November 17, 2005, 08:16:00 PM
besides, any kind of law like this had to originate in congress and pass through both the house and senate before the president even saw it, when was the last time you blamed a senator?
2:lower taxes reduces total overhead for the company, resulting a lower pump price for gasoline
how did they "buy" the presidency? no one paid me for my vote
also, law must come through congress first
3:evidence?
4:....because making money is illegal....
5:i suppose youd just leave them both alone, right?
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 17, 2005, 10:19:00 PM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Nov 18 2005, 04:23 AM)
1:gunMAKERS not gunSELLERS, but i suppose if it were up to you we'd sue the guy who mined the iron and the guy at the steel mill where they got the metal for the barrel
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 21, 2005, 05:02:00 PM
-
BDT
BIG DUMB TEXAN...
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 28, 2005, 04:39:00 PM
-
In an Associated Press interview, former Powell chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson also said President Bush was "too aloof, too distant from the details" of postwar planning. Underlings exploited Bush's detachment and made poor decisions, Wilkerson said.
Wilkerson blamed Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and like-minded aides. He said Cheney must have sincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terror assaults, because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard."
Source
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: lordvader129 on January 08, 2006, 11:13:00 AM
-
he got himself banned, i didnt even do anything
that somewhat civil part was xmedia problem, and why he got banned
1: there ARE laws to prevent sale of guns to minors, however, if bubba's gunshop sells a shotgun to a 10 year old, bubba is the one held responsible, xmedia wants winchester (the company that makes the gun) to be held responsible, probably because they have more money
2: tax breaks and subsidies are 2 different things, if you want to start discussion subsidies to oil companies i agree with you, they shouldnt be given tax money outright
3:yeah, and its been going on forever, not a unique bush-ism like many people make it out to be
4:wars have always been about money, its like the governments business, lol, like saying bill gates has no money profitting from MS since he had a hand in making it
5:my uncle fought in the first gulf war, he witnessed firsthand saddams use of biological weapons against both his own people and american troops, in the meantime he has had ample time to destroy or hide them (not hard to do in half a million sq km of desert) my point is he is still accountable for past crimes
as for korea, yeah, they are a threat too, but they havent acted directly against america, besides, iraq was the easier target, and thats how things have always worked
but your right, this stuff is nothign new, its part of america, i wouldnt go so far as to say we are slaves, if we were you wouldnt be free to leave the country if you didnt liek it
-
Title: The Fall Of George Bush
Post by: PhatIrishBastard on January 08, 2006, 06:37:00 PM
-
Yeah, so I was reading over that Iraqi soldier thread and saw that you actually got her banned...
You may not argee with someone, but people should feel free to post their opinions in this forum as long as they are somewhat civil about. But yeah, so I stumbled into here and see the 3 of you fighting...
On this point I think that she is correct and you guys are wrong. In fact, your attempt to rip apart her 5 points only made her points stronger.
1. I agree with her and gunmakers/sellers should be forced to attempt to limit access to minors. In fact, I think there needs to be an intelligence test before someone can buy a gun, but that's an entirely different point. My justification is if the Tobacco Industry has to do it, why shouldn't the Gun Industry do it as well? Tobacco kills people a lot slower and less definite than guns (i.e. Someone could smoke 2 packs a day for their entire life and get lucky and not die or get sick, however if someone gets shot with a gun, damage is always going to be caused).
2. So the only reason we gave tax breaks to the Oil Industry was to save money for the consumers? That's is so far away from the truth that one couldn't even see the truth. I'm currently a Junior, pursuing a major in Business Management and minors in Economics and Finance so I think I might have a better grasp on it than you would (that is unless you could post some evidence of what makes you qualified). Let's look at the situation... The US government is giving taxpayer money to the Oil Industry in order to save us more money at the pump? If that was their intentions wouldn't it be smarter for them to just put the money back in our pockets through a tax break, or even elminating federal taxes on gasoline? Obviously there were alterior motives and I would have to agree that lobbying as well as campaign contributions are a huge factor in it.
3. I don't really pay attention to fraud that much since it is a lot more difficult for us to correct that since it's pretty easy for the government to cover it's cronies.
4. It's not illegal to make money, and it probably isn't illegal for what Cheney is doing with his (dont think he is that involved with it, besides collecting profits) company otherwise he would be indictated. However, there is a difference between what is illegal and what is ethical or unethical for that matter. Haliburton received uncontested contracts to re-build Iraq as well as many other goverment projects. These projects are usually open to bid (that's where the government states what it needs and then contractors give them a cost, the lowest cost wins), these ones weren't. Without bidding out contracts, Haliburton pretty much had a monopoly in some respects as they had no competition, thus no need to lower their fees which would have diminished their profits. The bottom line is, it is wrong for Cheney to profit off of a war that he played a big role in creating.
5. This is probably one of the most important points. I strongly disagree with what you said but it isn't a surprise, nearly every Iraqi War supporter has said it in one way or another. Oh no, Sadaam was a horrible horrible person, look what he did to the people in his country, etc... I hate to break it to you, but what Sadaam did in Iraq is most likely nothing compared to other dictators or even compared to past ones. Did the United States go in and stop Stalin during the great purge, or when he systemically slaughtered citizens of satelite countries who would not conform? One of the big reasons we went to war was Weapons of Mass Destruction. Before the war, very few people believe that Iraq housed any of these, or even had the capability to produce them. Hell, to this date, not a single WMD has been found in Iraq. How did Bush respond?... "Whoops, I didn't know he didn't have them, I guess someone in my staff lied to me" and then nobody even questioned it. As far as Kim Jhong, he is by far a greater threat. Hundreds of thousands of people are being starved to death in North Korea. Why's that you may ask? Because Kim Jhong has decided to use all of the resources of the country to attempt to build a nuclear bomb and completely neglect his own citizens.
In conclusion, you two are completely wrong... But that's besides the point because none of this shit really matters anyhow. We don't live in a democracy, we have little to no power as far as politics are concerned in our country. We're left with two choices... Either suck it up and live as a slave (which is more or less the reality), or leave the country.
Actually he (xmedia) is working in iraq and kuwait at the moment. But he did get himself banned, he was bored and was shipping out. The money he is raking up tax free has me jealous.
But I sort of agree with you on the slavery issue. This country was built on slavery and for the most part western culture. Having served in wartime, and working in military complex the hypocrisy is even more glaring.
Fuck it, Blame it Springer, Jesse Jackson, or Michael Moore I guess. Accountability is taboo.
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 21, 2005, 05:02:00 PM
QUOTE
"All of us want to support the president when he's at war," Murtha said "But you can't support him when he won't change directions, won't listen."
BDT
BIG DUMB TEXAN...
Post by: xmedia2004 on November 28, 2005, 04:39:00 PM
QUOTE
In an Associated Press interview, former Powell chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson also said President Bush was "too aloof, too distant from the details" of postwar planning. Underlings exploited Bush's detachment and made poor decisions, Wilkerson said.
QUOTE
Wilkerson blamed Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and like-minded aides. He said Cheney must have sincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terror assaults, because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard."
Source
Post by: lordvader129 on January 08, 2006, 11:13:00 AM
QUOTE
Yeah, so I was reading over that Iraqi soldier thread and saw that you actually got her banned...
he got himself banned, i didnt even do anything
QUOTE
You may not argee with someone, but people should feel free to post their opinions in this forum as long as they are somewhat civil about.
that somewhat civil part was xmedia problem, and why he got banned
1: there ARE laws to prevent sale of guns to minors, however, if bubba's gunshop sells a shotgun to a 10 year old, bubba is the one held responsible, xmedia wants winchester (the company that makes the gun) to be held responsible, probably because they have more money
2: tax breaks and subsidies are 2 different things, if you want to start discussion subsidies to oil companies i agree with you, they shouldnt be given tax money outright
3:yeah, and its been going on forever, not a unique bush-ism like many people make it out to be
4:wars have always been about money, its like the governments business, lol, like saying bill gates has no money profitting from MS since he had a hand in making it
5:my uncle fought in the first gulf war, he witnessed firsthand saddams use of biological weapons against both his own people and american troops, in the meantime he has had ample time to destroy or hide them (not hard to do in half a million sq km of desert) my point is he is still accountable for past crimes
as for korea, yeah, they are a threat too, but they havent acted directly against america, besides, iraq was the easier target, and thats how things have always worked
but your right, this stuff is nothign new, its part of america, i wouldnt go so far as to say we are slaves, if we were you wouldnt be free to leave the country if you didnt liek it
Post by: PhatIrishBastard on January 08, 2006, 06:37:00 PM
QUOTE(hartwickhaloer @ Jan 8 2006, 11:03 AM) 
Yeah, so I was reading over that Iraqi soldier thread and saw that you actually got her banned...
You may not argee with someone, but people should feel free to post their opinions in this forum as long as they are somewhat civil about. But yeah, so I stumbled into here and see the 3 of you fighting...
On this point I think that she is correct and you guys are wrong. In fact, your attempt to rip apart her 5 points only made her points stronger.
1. I agree with her and gunmakers/sellers should be forced to attempt to limit access to minors. In fact, I think there needs to be an intelligence test before someone can buy a gun, but that's an entirely different point. My justification is if the Tobacco Industry has to do it, why shouldn't the Gun Industry do it as well? Tobacco kills people a lot slower and less definite than guns (i.e. Someone could smoke 2 packs a day for their entire life and get lucky and not die or get sick, however if someone gets shot with a gun, damage is always going to be caused).
2. So the only reason we gave tax breaks to the Oil Industry was to save money for the consumers? That's is so far away from the truth that one couldn't even see the truth. I'm currently a Junior, pursuing a major in Business Management and minors in Economics and Finance so I think I might have a better grasp on it than you would (that is unless you could post some evidence of what makes you qualified). Let's look at the situation... The US government is giving taxpayer money to the Oil Industry in order to save us more money at the pump? If that was their intentions wouldn't it be smarter for them to just put the money back in our pockets through a tax break, or even elminating federal taxes on gasoline? Obviously there were alterior motives and I would have to agree that lobbying as well as campaign contributions are a huge factor in it.
3. I don't really pay attention to fraud that much since it is a lot more difficult for us to correct that since it's pretty easy for the government to cover it's cronies.
4. It's not illegal to make money, and it probably isn't illegal for what Cheney is doing with his (dont think he is that involved with it, besides collecting profits) company otherwise he would be indictated. However, there is a difference between what is illegal and what is ethical or unethical for that matter. Haliburton received uncontested contracts to re-build Iraq as well as many other goverment projects. These projects are usually open to bid (that's where the government states what it needs and then contractors give them a cost, the lowest cost wins), these ones weren't. Without bidding out contracts, Haliburton pretty much had a monopoly in some respects as they had no competition, thus no need to lower their fees which would have diminished their profits. The bottom line is, it is wrong for Cheney to profit off of a war that he played a big role in creating.
5. This is probably one of the most important points. I strongly disagree with what you said but it isn't a surprise, nearly every Iraqi War supporter has said it in one way or another. Oh no, Sadaam was a horrible horrible person, look what he did to the people in his country, etc... I hate to break it to you, but what Sadaam did in Iraq is most likely nothing compared to other dictators or even compared to past ones. Did the United States go in and stop Stalin during the great purge, or when he systemically slaughtered citizens of satelite countries who would not conform? One of the big reasons we went to war was Weapons of Mass Destruction. Before the war, very few people believe that Iraq housed any of these, or even had the capability to produce them. Hell, to this date, not a single WMD has been found in Iraq. How did Bush respond?... "Whoops, I didn't know he didn't have them, I guess someone in my staff lied to me" and then nobody even questioned it. As far as Kim Jhong, he is by far a greater threat. Hundreds of thousands of people are being starved to death in North Korea. Why's that you may ask? Because Kim Jhong has decided to use all of the resources of the country to attempt to build a nuclear bomb and completely neglect his own citizens.
In conclusion, you two are completely wrong... But that's besides the point because none of this shit really matters anyhow. We don't live in a democracy, we have little to no power as far as politics are concerned in our country. We're left with two choices... Either suck it up and live as a slave (which is more or less the reality), or leave the country.
QUOTE
Yeah, so I was reading over that Iraqi soldier thread and saw that you actually got her banned...
You may not argee with someone, but people should feel free to post their opinions in this forum as long as they are somewhat civil about. But yeah, so I stumbled into here and see the 3 of you fighting...
On this point I think that she is correct and you guys are wrong. In fact, your attempt to rip apart her 5 points only made her points stronger.
You may not argee with someone, but people should feel free to post their opinions in this forum as long as they are somewhat civil about. But yeah, so I stumbled into here and see the 3 of you fighting...
On this point I think that she is correct and you guys are wrong. In fact, your attempt to rip apart her 5 points only made her points stronger.
Actually he (xmedia) is working in iraq and kuwait at the moment. But he did get himself banned, he was bored and was shipping out. The money he is raking up tax free has me jealous.
But I sort of agree with you on the slavery issue. This country was built on slavery and for the most part western culture. Having served in wartime, and working in military complex the hypocrisy is even more glaring.
Fuck it, Blame it Springer, Jesse Jackson, or Michael Moore I guess. Accountability is taboo.