Why Bush Should be Impeached [Archive] - Page 7 - Theology Forum

BillyBob

July 15th, 2004, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by aikido7

All right. Once again: He has turned a budget surplus into a $500 billion deficit.

If the government is operating a surplus, we are being over taxed.

He has lowered the taxes for corporations and the upper classes of America at the expense of all of us.

Get your facts straight for a change and stop repeated the communist mantra you read [Skeptic's wacky posts].
:sozo: Everybody who pays taxes got a tax cut.

Oh, yeah--after lying to the whole world

What lie????

he turned Iraq into a terrorist magnet.

Iraq was already a terrorist magnet. :doh:

And not only has he successfully let American corporations to dramatically increase their pollution, he is enabling corporate interests to rip timber out of sacred wilderness areas.

Good!!!!!!! Trees are a renewable recourse. Lumber companies are supposed to harvest trees! Don't you live in a house?

And did I mention that 10% of Americans--conservative estimate here-- are out of work?

LIAR! The unemployment rate is 5.6%. Also, 2 million jobs have been added to the work force in that last year! Those are facts my commie friend, look them up!

Corporations have exported many, many middle-class jobs.

Actually, they have exported the crappy jobs that most Americans don't want.

If he is a uniter, not a divider, I would sure like to see the evidence.

None of the statements you have made are accurate.

He has divided our country as never before

No, he has defended our country. It's you commies who are dividing it.

and successfully driven our oldest allies away.

:baby: Who needs 'em?? They aren't our allies if they take sides with the enemy!!! :doh:

I guess he HAS united the terrorists, though.

Good, that should make them easier to kill.

He has not upheld the U.S. Constitution. Parts of it have been broken or gutted or ignored--thanks to the Patriot Act. He has broken his oath to uphold the goals and spirit of the document as well. Even many conservatives and members of his own party are extremely worried about this.

Oh, and by the way, for you John McCain admirers, he sponsored the legislation that allowed almost unlimited visas to foreign workers allowing them to come over here on our soil and take our jobs.

I don't have the time or space to list all of his lies and law-breaking. I am amazed how ignorant people still wish to be about this guy. [/QUOTE]

BillyBob

July 15th, 2004, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

By Saudi citizens mostly, none of whom had any connection to Iraq.

Actually, Mohamed Atta [leader of the 9-11 terrorists] had met with Iraqi intelligence.

In response, George II allowed numerous Saudi officials and oil plutocrats including his families business associates the bin-Ladens to leave on 9.12.04 without being questioned or anything.

Wrong! George had nothing to do with them leaving. Also, they didn't leave until air traffic was 'ungrounded', I believe it was the 14th.

Yet all flights were allegedly grounded that day.

See above.

He declared the war over. Lie.

He said the war on terrorism would likely last for decades. That is exactly what this war is about and GW was exactly right. No lie here folks, nothing to see, please move along.

He declared that WMD's had been found. Lie.

There has been a steady stream of them being found since we went into Iraq. Plus, you don't know what he has found that he is waiting for the right time to tell you!! :bannana:

Zakath

July 16th, 2004, 07:48 AM

I've got a pet reason why Bush should be publicly chastised:

... for mis-using the Justice Department and police forces to restrict the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.

Trespass charges dropped against Bush protestors
Charleston WV (AP) - Trespassing charges against two people who wore anti-Bush T-shirts to the president's July 4 rally at the West Viriginia Capitol were dropped Thursday because a city ordinance did not cover trespassing on state grounds.

Nicole and Jeff Rank of Corpus Christi, Texas, were remoed from the event in restraints after taking off an outrer layer of clothes to reveal homemade T-shirts that had President Bush's name with a slash through it and the words "Love America, Hate Bush" on the back.

... Nicole Rank, 30, who was doing environmental work for the Federal Emergency Management Agency... was released from her position after her arrest without getting another assignment.
Summary: a federal employee was fired from her federal job for protesting against the President (violation of the Hatch Act).

"We certainly did not expect to be arrested for expressing our freedom of expression," Jeff Rank said.

He said they were not protesting int any other way than simply wearing the shirts and did not say anything.

Law enforcement officers told the couple to take the shirts off, cover them or get out.

When they refused and sat down, they were arrested. They then stood and accompanied the police, said Charleston Mayor Danny Jones.

... Jones said the city officers who filed the trespassing charges were acting under direction of the Secret Service...

... Charles Bopp, a spokesman for the Secret Service in Washington, D.C., said his agency did not direct the arrest...

Source: The Journal News, Friday, July 16, 2004

Summary: two U.S. citizens were arrested on public property for refusing to cover up a message critical fo the U.S. presdient when ordered to do so by law enforcement officials allegedly on order of the federal Secret Service.

This is merely another in a string of incidents where federal law enforcement officals order local law enforcement to "protect" the President from seeing protestors who do not agree with him while trampling on the civil rights of citizens...

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt

Gerald

July 16th, 2004, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by BillyBob
:sozo: Everybody who pays taxes got a tax cut. And a tax cut's a tax cut, no matter how small... :chuckle:

Gerald

July 16th, 2004, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by Zakath
I've got a pet reason why Bush should be publicly chastised:

... for mis-using the Justice Department and police forces to restrict the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.

Summary: a federal employee was fired from her federal job for protesting against the President (violation of the Hatch Act).Aw, look on the Bright Sideâ„¢, Z; there are places in this world where they would've just had her taken out and shot... ;)

Summary: two U.S. citizens were arrested on public property for refusing to cover up a message critical fo the U.S. presdient when ordered to do so by law enforcement officials allegedly on order of the federal Secret Service.See above. Remember, no matter how bad you've got it, it can always get worse... ;)
This is merely another in a string of incidents where federal law enforcement officals order local law enforcement to "protect" the President from seeing protestors who do not agree with him while trampling on the civil rights of citizens...It could be for the protestors' protection. After all, El Jefe has a reputation for taking a very dim view of those who disagree with him...
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt Somehow, I think the current Administration pays more heed to quotes from Machiavelli...

BillyBob

July 16th, 2004, 09:04 AM

You are welcome to send more of your money to the government at any time, Gerald. How much should I put you down for?

Gerald

July 16th, 2004, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by BillyBob
You are welcome to send more of your money to the government at any time, Gerald. How much should I put you down for? I thought you didn't speak to people with gay avatars.

Let me know when mine makes a pass at you.

:chuckle:

BillyBob

July 16th, 2004, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Gerald

I thought you didn't speak to people with gay avatars.

Are you kidding? Those are the guys I post to the most!! :D

[That's how it all started with a certain poster whose former smilie was :aikido:]

Let me know when mine makes a pass at you.

:chuckle:

I think he just did.

Gerald

July 16th, 2004, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by BillyBob
I think he just did. That's pretty interesting. Let me know a computer generated image of a Plasticine puppet can do that...

(The voices in your head are getting rowdy again...)

:chuckle:

BillyBob

July 16th, 2004, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Gerald

That's pretty interesting. Let me know a computer generated image of a Plasticine puppet can do that...

He's a Palestinian? :shocked:

(The voices in your head are getting rowdy again...)

:chuckle:

There are so many of them.

Zakath

July 16th, 2004, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by BillyBob

He's a Palestinian? :shocked:It appears that :BillyBob: needs new glasses... :chuckle:

HerodionRomulus

July 16th, 2004, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Zakath

As a wise old Jedi master once said, "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view." ;)

Aw, c'mon HR. Not even Dubbya was foolish enough to do that, was he? :shocked:

Straight from the horses........

WhiteHouse.gov "We found the weapons of mass destuction...." (http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html)

But his sycophants will claim that is a biased website or something......

:kookoo:

Zakath

July 16th, 2004, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

Straight from the horses........

WhiteHouse.gov "We found the weapons of mass destuction...." (http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html) May 29,2003... Oh, you mean here...

THE PRESIDENT: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

Hmm. Which laboratories might those be? The ones that Powell had the nifty computer generated slides to sell the UN on the need for war? Iraq: Failing to Disarm US State Dept. Briefing 2-5-2003 (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/pix/events/secretary/2003/17314.htm)

The same ones he backtracked on four weeks later:

Washington - US Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged late on Friday that pre-war information he gave the United Nations on Iraq's mobile biological weapons laboratories to justify the US-led war on Iraq did not appear "solid" any longer.

Before the war, Powell presented the United Nations with data proclaiming to prove that Iraq was engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction.

"Now it appears not to be the case, that it was that solid," Powell told reporters.
Source: Powell doubts mobile lab data (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1507921,00.html)

Or was it the "evidence" that former CIA Director called the VP to warn him not to use and Cheney used it anyway?
In May 2003, the CIA said it had found two suspicious trucks in northern Iraq. The agency later backtracked, but some Bush administration officials continued to cite the discovery as supporting the prewar intelligence.

As recently as January, Vice President Dick Cheney referred to the trucks as "conclusive" proof that Iraq was producing weapons of mass destruction. But CIA Director George Tenet later testified to Congress that he had called Cheney to warn him that the evidence was in doubt.
Source: Powell: Prewar intel on Iraq labs was â€˜inaccurateâ€™ Some information said â€˜deliberatelyâ€™ misleading (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4997766/)

But his sycophants will claim that is a biased website or something......

:kookoo: :darwinsm:

I think they ought to at least brief Bush before they let him in front of the press...

On Fire

July 16th, 2004, 12:16 PM

And then there's the Demo-commies ignoring 46% of their constituents.

46% of the Demo-commie Constituents: We are against gay marriages and think they should be illegal!

Demo-commie Sinator #1: What? What was that? Did you hear something?

Demo-commie Sinator #2: Uhhhhh....nope.....nope.....nope.....didn't hear a thing.

Demo-commie Sinator #1: That's funny....I thought I heard my re-election chances going down the drain.

Gerald

July 16th, 2004, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by AtheistsSuck

And then there's the Demo-commies ignoring 46% of their constituents.

46% of the Demo-commie Constituents: We are against gay marriages and think they should be illegal!

Demo-commie Sinator #1: What? What was that? Did you hear something?

Demo-commie Sinator #2: Uhhhhh....nope.....nope.....nope.....didn't hear a thing.

Demo-commie Sinator #1: That's funny....I thought I heard my re-election chances going down the drain. Those constituents can grow a collective backbone and vote in someone who will follow their wishes...

On Fire

July 16th, 2004, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Gerald

Those constituents can grow a collective backbone and vote in someone who will follow their wishes...

You know an honest Demo-commie?

Gerald

July 16th, 2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by AtheistsSuck
You know an honest Demo-commie? Pointing a gun at someone's head generally keeps them honest...

On Fire

July 16th, 2004, 02:35 PM

Did you say gun control?

Gerald

July 16th, 2004, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by AtheistsSuck
Did you say gun control? I did indeed.

If you can't control your gun, it isn't very useful now, is it...?

On Fire

July 16th, 2004, 02:39 PM

True.

HerodionRomulus

July 16th, 2004, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Zakath

I think they ought to at least brief Bush before they let him in front of the press...

Good idea, but prolonged exposure to coke and booze tends to erode the attention span.

It is better to just put it verbatim on the teleprompter then have him practice reading for a few weeks, it's not that hard---heck if Bonzo could out act the adulterous Reagan, anything is possible.

:bannana: :jump: :zakath: :doh:

Gerald

July 16th, 2004, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by HerodionRomulus
It is better to just put it verbatim on the teleprompter then have him practice reading for a few weeks, it's not that hard...One of the best Republican tricks I've seen is Bush giving a speech while Cheney drinks a glass of water...

On Fire

July 16th, 2004, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

Good idea, but prolonged exposure to coke and booze tends to erode the attention span.

So THAT'S what Clinton's problem was.

It is better to just put it verbatim on the teleprompter then have him practice reading for a few weeks, it's not that hard---heck if Bonzo could out act the adulterous Clinton, anything is possible.

:bannana: :jump: :zakath: :doh:

Are you calling Monica a monkey?

Zakath

July 16th, 2004, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Gerald

One of the best Republican tricks I've seen is Bush giving a speech while Cheney drinks a glass of water... :chuckle:

Gerald

July 16th, 2004, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by AtheistsSuck
Are you calling Monica a monkey? If the shoe fits.

Say, isn't Monica your mother's name...?

:chuckle:

HerodionRomulus

July 17th, 2004, 12:03 PM

Get it right. Learn to read.

"Adulterous Reagan"

Bonzo was one of his more famous co-stars.

Delmar

July 17th, 2004, 02:52 PM

I can hardly wait for 2008 so Aikido7 and Skeptic can end this thread and lie about other conservatives.

BillyBob

July 17th, 2004, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

"Adulterous Reagan"

Do you have a problem with adultery? How do you feel about rape?

Bonzo was one of his more famous co-stars.

Some other famous co-stars: Monica Lewinski, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willy.....[I can't remember all the names of the women Clinton raped, I bet he can't either]

Delmar

July 17th, 2004, 11:17 PM

Juanita Brodrick

BillyBob

July 18th, 2004, 10:12 AM

Thanks Delmar, there are so many of them.

HerodionRomulus

July 19th, 2004, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by BillyBob

Do you have a problem with adultery? How do you feel about rape?

Some other famous co-stars: Monica Lewinski, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willy.....[I can't remember all the names of the women Clinton raped, I bet he can't either]

Christ was quite clear and unambiguous in denouncing divorce and adultery, yet conservatives are quite eager to excuse Reagan for this sin.

Your attempts to make it about Clinton just show that Bonzo had more intelligence.......

BillyBob

July 19th, 2004, 05:42 PM

No, I am just checking to see if you are willing to be consistent.

Skeptic

July 19th, 2004, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by deardelmar

I can hardly wait for 2008 so Aikido7 and Skeptic can end this thread and lie about other conservatives. I will no longer advocate for Bush's impeachment, after this November.

Former Presidents cannot be impeached. :chuckle:

However, if the unthinkable happens and Bush somehow squeaks out a victory. I will be here with even greater determination to oust Bush. He is responsible for sending our brave sons and daughters into battle unnecessarily, as well as the deaths of many hundreds of them and many thousands of innocent Iraqi people.

The fact that Bush has not yet been impeached makes me very concerned about what our government has become.

:mad:

BillyBob

July 19th, 2004, 06:09 PM

Hey Skeptic, haven't you heard? Saddam was seeking uranium. Saddam was a terrorist. Saddam ignored UN Resolutions. Britain agreed that Saddam should be removed and actively participated in his removal.

You don't have a leg to stand on, would you like a chair?

PS. John Kerry agreed that Saddam should be removed, so who are you going to vote for, Ralph Nader? :darwinsm:

HerodionRomulus

July 19th, 2004, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by BillyBob

No, I am just checking to see if you are willing to be consistent.

You mean do I think Pres Clinton was wrong to commit adultery with Monica, of course.
:doh:

But it's just as wrong for Reagan, or Rush, or Gingrich or Barr.

How do you feel about those adulterers.

HerodionRomulus

July 19th, 2004, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by BillyBob

Do you have a problem with adultery? How do you feel about rape?

Some other famous co-stars: Monica Lewinski, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willy.....[I can't remember all the names of the women Clinton raped, I bet he can't either]

And how many of these "rapes" resulted in a conviction?
"You can't rape the willing."

True rape, such as the horrid heterosexual atrocity of Judges 19 is wrong.
:help:

BillyBob

July 19th, 2004, 07:54 PM

BillyBob

July 19th, 2004, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

And how many of these "rapes" resulted in a conviction?

Ah, so a lack of conviction means the rape never happened? I'll remind you that Clinton was found guilty of 'Obstruction of Justice' and fined over $850,000 as well as being disbarred.

"You can't rape the willing."

Are you suggesting that these women were all willing? They say otherwise. Who would you choose to believe, a proven psychopathic liar or an innocent victim?

True rape, such as the horrid heterosexual atrocity of Judges 19 is wrong.
:help:

Happy to see that you are willing to call Clinton's atrocities, 'wrong'. I can think of a few more emphatic adjectives, however.

HerodionRomulus

July 19th, 2004, 08:20 PM

Limbaugh, Mr. Drug Abusing Big Mouth adulterer who piously castigates everyone else.

If they say they were raped, then they should go to the cops. He's out of office, he has no immunity.
They should (forgive me--can't resist) put their money where their mouth is.

BillyBob

July 19th, 2004, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

Limbaugh, Mr. Drug Abusing Big Mouth adulterer who piously castigates everyone else.

Rush Limbaugh isn't running for office.

If they say they were raped, then they should go to the cops.

Oh, you mean they should have a trial? Sorta like the one that Paula Jone's won??!!!

[ He's out of office, he has no immunity.

Who's going to prosecute him?

They should (forgive me--can't resist) put their money where their mouth is.

Just don't don't put that cigar in your mouth! :shocked:

Delmar

July 19th, 2004, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

You mean do I think Pres Clinton was wrong to commit adultery with Monica, of course.
:doh:

But it's just as wrong for Reagan, or Rush, or Gingrich or Barr.

How do you feel about those adulterers. What office does Gingrich still hold. Barr is gone too is he not? I don't think Rush was elected to anything and as for Regan cheating on his first wife have you never heard of second chances? changing your ways that kind of thing? Do you really think he cheated on Nancy? Do you really think Clinton is now faithfull and true?

HerodionRomulus

July 20th, 2004, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by deardelmar

What office does Gingrich still hold. Barr is gone too is he not? I don't think Rush was elected to anything and as for Regan cheating on his first wife have you never heard of second chances? changing your ways that kind of thing? Do you really think he cheated on Nancy? Do you really think Clinton is now faithfull and true?

Holding office is not the point, besides Barr and Gingrich were well into their multiple divorces while still in office.

If Reagan changed his way he should have gone back to Jane Wyman.

He was a continual practicing adulterer, at least according to Christ.

"He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
Mark 10:11f NRSV

If you divorce and remarry while #1 is still alive, then it is adultery---practicing adultery.
Jane Wyman is still alive, so he lived much of his life, and all of his governorship and Presidency as an ADULTERER.

I await your condemnation of him for this sin which according to the OT required the death penalty.

BillyBob

July 20th, 2004, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

Holding office is not the point, besides Barr and Gingrich were well into their multiple divorces while still in office.

So?

If Reagan changed his way he should have gone back to Jane Wyman.

:darwinsm:

He was a continual practicing adulterer, at least according to Christ.

"He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
Mark 10:11f NRSV

That easy for Mark [Jesus] to say, he was never married to Jane Wyman. :chuckle:

If you divorce and remarry while #1 is still alive, then it is adultery---practicing adultery.
Jane Wyman is still alive, so he lived much of his life, and all of his governorship and Presidency as an ADULTERER.

I await your condemnation of him for this sin which according to the OT required the death penalty.

More wacky theology. :down:

Hey, wait a minute. Ronald Reagan isn't the President, George Bush is! :doh:

BillyBob

July 20th, 2004, 05:03 PM

Hey Herod, I have a gift (https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/july04.cfm) for you. :D

aikido7

July 20th, 2004, 05:40 PM

Bush will be impeached because of the rape

...of the American people, our country and our constitution!

BillyBob

July 21st, 2004, 07:02 AM

Nope.

HerodionRomulus

July 21st, 2004, 08:18 AM

So, when a favorite idol is an adulterer, it can be excused, but when it's someone you don't like, it's a great evil.
Guess morals do depend on circumstance?

Can you folks define HYPOCRITE?

This just shows the the moral decline of the GOP. One of the principle points of opposition to Nelson Rockefeller for the nomination in 64 was the fact that he had divorced and remarried. Yet 12 years later, not one peep was heard about Reagan who was also a practicing adulterer.
Guess that makes the GOP another godless secular humanist party---the only difference is they can mouth insincere Christian jargon in a sincere manner and the gullible accept it without question.

BB: Not whacky theology, just a plain and unambiguous reading of the text.

BillyBob

July 21st, 2004, 09:01 AM

Herod, if you are going to claim that a divorced man who is remarried is committing adultery against his former wife, the you are drinking 'wacky water'.

I suppose there is no difference between Reagan who is 'committing adultery by getting remarried', and Clinton who is married to Hillary but having dalliances with numerous harlots?

HerodionRomulus

July 21st, 2004, 10:43 AM

I hate to sound like some of these brainless fundamentalists on this board, but.......

Yes, no different, at least according to Jesus in Mark. The text makes it hard to ignore the fact that Christ said
No divorce
and
divorce and remarriage while the prior spouse is alive is adultery.

What rationale do you use to consider it whacky and how can it be rationalized.

And even more important:

How dare you call Coors "whacky water." What do you know? You probably think PBR is gourmet cuisine.
:mad:

BillyBob

July 21st, 2004, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

I hate to sound like some of these brainless fundamentalists on this board, but.......

You usually don't.

Yes, no different, at least according to Jesus in Mark. The text makes it hard to ignore the fact that Christ said
No divorce
and
divorce and remarriage while the prior spouse is alive is adultery.

OK, what about when Paul said a believer can divorce an unbeliever? [I have no idea what Reagan's conditions were during hos marriage, other than he was a practicing Christian] Regardless of that, I don't subscribe to it, so I see a HUGE difference between Bill Clinton's adultery and Reagan's second marriage.

What rationale do you use to consider it wacky and how can it be rationalized.

It would seem wacky to most people. It is also legal in this country to get divorced and remarried.

And even more important:

How dare you call Coors "wacky water." What do you know? You probably think PBR is gourmet cuisine.
:mad:

No, Coors Light is my main staple.

Gerald

July 21st, 2004, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by BillyBob
Coors Light is my main staple. That explains a lot...

:chuckle:

HerodionRomulus

July 21st, 2004, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by BillyBob

You usually don't.

thank you

It would seem wacky to most people. It is also legal in this country to get divorced and remarried.

Ah, but I'm attempting to get a response from the whackos here who insist on a strict literal interpretation and promote a civil government based on "biblical principles"
So far, there is a crashing silence when confronted with unpleasant truths which interfere with their fantasies of theological totalitarianism.

No, Coors Light is my main staple.

So, there is intelligent life in Bellevue.
But why Light? That will keep the carbs down and you won't have the done-lapped beer belly which is mandatory for men in Nashville. :eek:

aikido7

July 21st, 2004, 07:59 PM

"The Bush tax cuts benefit all Americans but reserve the greatest percentage for the lowest income families."

Bush said that during the campaign.

But according the OMB Director Mitch Daniels, "averages can be misleading." Yup.

Over 50 million households (36 per cent) get NO benefit from Bush's plan, either because they pay no federal tax or they are among 10 million low income singles without children or income from dividends or capital gains.

What kind of man could defend the fact that more than a third of households would get zero benefit from a plan declared to help "all"?

Despite the political disclaimers, Bush's program grossly favored the already wealthiest Americans...The Bush cuts were larger...in percentage terms for the highest-income brackets than middle and low-income quintiles.

[The Bush tax cuts) go to wealtheir Americans. I would like to see some of that redistributed more heavily to middle-income and low-income Americans.

--JOHN McCAIN

BillyBob

July 21st, 2004, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by aikido7

Over 50 million households (36 per cent) get NO benefit from Bush's plan, either because they pay no federal tax

OK, if I have to explain this, there is something seriously wrong with you.

BillyBob

July 21st, 2004, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by HerodionRomulus
So, there is intelligent life in Bellevue.

Yes, Mrs. BillyBob is actually quite brilliant.

But why Light? That will keep the carbs down and you won't have the done-lapped beer belly which is mandatory for men in Nashville.

[I've noticed]

No, I drink light beer because I can drink more of it! :bannana:

aikido7

July 21st, 2004, 11:18 PM

Over 50 million households (36 per cent) get NO benefit from Bush's plan, either because they pay no federal tax or they are among 10 million low income singles without children or income from dividends or capital gains.

Bush: "The Bush tax cuts benefit all Americans but reserve the greatest percentage for the lowest income families."

Yeah--explain away.

Delmar

July 22nd, 2004, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by aikido7

"The Bush tax cuts benefit all Americans but reserve the greatest percentage for the lowest income families."

Bush said that during the campaign.

But according the OMB Director Mitch Daniels, "averages can be misleading." Yup.

Over 50 million households (36 per cent) get NO benefit from Bush's plan, either because they pay no federal tax or they are among 10 million low income singles without children or income from dividends or capital gains.

What kind of man could defend the fact that more than a third of households would get zero benefit from a plan declared to help "all"? Not true. I pay no federal income tax and I got the Bush "refund" I did pay payroll taxes but the truth is that the earnd income tax credit that I got back was more than the payroll taxes I paid in each of the last two years. The Idea that the rich got all the benifit is just a lie.

aikido7

July 23rd, 2004, 01:21 AM

If you can give me ONE instance of when or where Bush has ever broken with the big-business community, I would like to further explore your logic that flies in the face of Bush's promise to help everyone with his tax cuts.

We're not talking about your income tax credit. We're talking about how tax cuts at the top gave you the same percentage of your total earnings that wealthy people got.

Thirty-six percent of Americans got nothing from his plan.

Maybe you run in different circles. When someone lies beaten on the road to Jerhico, you might look for an instant, but you definitely cross to the other side of the highway.

aikido7

July 23rd, 2004, 01:48 AM

In-kling n.
A slight hint or indication.
A slight understanding or vague idea or notion.

The Day Before The 9-11 Commission Report Is To Be Made Public, Bush Again Reminded The Country:

"â€¦had we had any inkling, whatsoever, that terrorists were about to attack our country, we would have moved heaven and Earth to protect America."

On August 6, 2001, Bush Received A Warning That Terrorists Wanted To Attack Our Country:

On August 6, 2001 while vacationing in Crawford Texas, Bush was given a briefing titled â€œBin Ladin Determined To Strike in US.â€?

That same summer, the intelligence community received threats such as â€œThere will be attacks in the near future.â€? When questioned three years later about those reports, Bush refused to explain what he did in response, offering only that he â€œwas satisfied that some of the matters were being looked into.â€?

BillyBob

July 23rd, 2004, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by aikido7

In-kling n.
A slight hint or indication.
A slight understanding or vague idea or notion.

The Day Before The 9-11 Commission Report Is To Be Made Public, Bush Again Reminded The Country:

"â€¦had we had any inkling, whatsoever, that terrorists were about to attack our country, we would have moved heaven and Earth to protect America."

On August 6, 2001, Bush Received A Warning That Terrorists Wanted To Attack Our Country:

On August 6, 2001 while vacationing in Crawford Texas, Bush was given a briefing titled â€œBin Ladin Determined To Strike in US.â€?

That same summer, the intelligence community received threats such as â€œThere will be attacks in the near future.â€? When questioned three years later about those reports, Bush refused to explain what he did in response, offering only that he â€œwas satisfied that some of the matters were being looked into.â€?

In 1998, Clinton was given a report stating that Bin Laden was planning to hijack American airplanes.

Bill Clinton refused to arrest bin Laden on more than one occassion, even when bin Laden was offered to him by the Sudanese government.

Bin Laden had been terrorizing the US the entire 8 years of Clinton's Presidency, yet Clinton did nothing.

You are recklessly politicizing the war on terror. The result will be many more casualties.

You suck.

BillyBob

July 23rd, 2004, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by aikido7

If you can give me ONE instance of when or where Bush has ever broken with the big-business community,

Why should he? Business is what fuels our economy, dumbass.

The democrat party is just as intertwined with big business as the Republican Party, dumbass.

I would like to further explore your logic that flies in the face of Bush's promise to help everyone with his tax cuts.

Tax cuts help people who pay taxes. If you don't pay taxes, then you are already being helped by the government not taking some of your hard earned money.

We're not talking about your income tax credit. We're talking about how tax cuts at the top gave you the same percentage of your total earnings that wealthy people got.

You libs are permanantly stuck in the mire of jealousy and envy. :aikido:

You make me puke! :vomit:

Thirty-six percent of Americans got nothing from his plan.

So? Why are you libs/commies so interested in government handouts? Don't you have a job?

Maybe you run in different circles.

Yes, I hang out with intelligent, articulate people.

When someone lies beaten on the road to Jerhico, you might look for an instant, but you definitely cross to the other side of the highway.

Only if it was you lying there.

:sozo: You are an idiot!

aikido7

July 23rd, 2004, 10:21 AM

Yes, I hang out with intelligent, articulate people.

1. "dumbass"
2. "dumbass"
3. "You make me puke."
4. "You are an idiot."
5. "you suck."

Good Lord.

...the stupidity....the stupidity.

BillyBob

July 23rd, 2004, 11:14 AM

That's it?

Nice rebuttal. :rolleyes:

I guess you are just trying to change the subject.....as usual. :down:

One Eyed Jack

July 23rd, 2004, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by aikido7
We're not talking about your income tax credit. We're talking about how tax cuts at the top gave you the same percentage of your total earnings that wealthy people got.

People with lower incomes get to keep a greater percentage of their earnings. in fact, if their income is low enough, they get to keep it all. What's the problem?

Thirty-six percent of Americans got nothing from his plan.

Are you suggesting the government should give them money to make up for the fact that they couldn't pay less than zero percent of their earnings?

One Eyed Jack

July 23rd, 2004, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by BillyBob

Why should he? Business is what fuels our economy, dumbass.

The democrat party is just as intertwined with big business as the Republican Party, dumbass.

Come on, BillyBob. I don't want to see you get banned again. Don't let these idiots provoke you so.

So? Why are you libs/commies so interested in government handouts?

Laziness would be my guess.

drbrumley

July 23rd, 2004, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

People with lower incomes get to keep a greater percentage of their earnings. in fact, if their income is low enough, they get to keep it all. What's the problem?

Bush isn't helping him I guess.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Are you suggesting the government should give them money to make up for the fact that they couldn't pay less than zero percent of their earnings?

That's EXACTLY what he is suggesting. Typical LIBERAL< COMMUNIST garbage, get something for nothing.

BillyBob

July 23rd, 2004, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Come on, BillyBob. I don't want to see you get banned again.

Me either. I guess 'dumba$$' isn't an acceptable word, eh? It seemed perfect for the occasion. :chuckle:

Don't let these idiots provoke you so.

I'm not provoked so much as frustrated. The idea that people who don't pay taxes in the first place should get money back when the government initiates a tax cut is ludicrous.

How can anybody not understand this????? :doh:

Laziness would be my guess.

Mine, too.

Delmar

July 23rd, 2004, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by aikido7

If you can give me ONE instance of when or where Bush has ever broken with the big-business community, I would like to further explore your logic that flies in the face of Bush's promise to help everyone with his tax cuts.

We're not talking about your income tax credit. We're talking about how tax cuts at the top gave you the same percentage of your total earnings that wealthy people got.

Thirty-six percent of Americans got nothing from his plan.

Maybe you run in different circles. When someone lies beaten on the road to Jerhico, you might look for an instant, but you definitely cross to the other side of the highway. Why shouldn't they get more back they paid much more in the first place. I have a friend who got more back and went out and hired more people. How does that hurt the poor, commie?

Delmar

July 24th, 2004, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

So, when a favorite idol is an adulterer, it can be excused, but when it's someone you don't like, it's a great evil.
Guess morals do depend on circumstance?

Can you folks define HYPOCRITE?

This just shows the the moral decline of the GOP. One of the principle points of opposition to Nelson Rockefeller for the nomination in 64 was the fact that he had divorced and remarried. Yet 12 years later, not one peep was heard about Reagan who was also a practicing adulterer.
Guess that makes the GOP another godless secular humanist party---the only difference is they can mouth insincere Christian jargon in a sincere manner and the gullible accept it without question.

BB: Not whacky theology, just a plain and unambiguous reading of the text. If a marrige has been destroyed by adultery is it still a marrage or has it been destroyed?

BillyBob

July 24th, 2004, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by aikido7

If you can give me ONE instance of when or where Bush has ever broken with the big-business community,

Why should he? Business is what fuels our economy.

The democrat party is just as intertwined with big business as the Republican Party.

I would like to further explore your logic that flies in the face of Bush's promise to help everyone with his tax cuts.

Tax cuts help people who pay taxes. If you don't pay taxes, then you are already being helped by the government not taking some of your hard earned money. What do you suggest, take money from one person and give it to another? Sounds like communism to me....

We're not talking about your income tax credit. We're talking about how tax cuts at the top gave you the same percentage of your total earnings that wealthy people got.

You libs are permanantly stuck in the mire of jealousy and envy. :aikido:

Thirty-six percent of Americans got nothing from his plan.

So? Why are you libs/commies so interested in government handouts? Don't you have a job?

Maybe you run in different circles.

Yes, I hang out with intelligent, articulate people.

When someone lies beaten on the road to Jerhico, you might look for an instant, but you definitely cross to the other side of the highway.

Only if it was you lying there.

Delmar

July 25th, 2004, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by aikido7

Maybe you run in different circles. When someone lies beaten on the road to Jerhico, you might look for an instant, but you definitely cross to the other side of the highway. I had not noticed this last paragragh! and that it was directed at me. aikido7 you are a LIAR and a SCOUNDREL!

aikido7

July 25th, 2004, 09:15 PM

Paranoia strikes deep;
Into your life it will creep;
It starts when you're always afraid....

BillyBob

July 25th, 2004, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by aikido7

Paranoia strikes deep;
Into your life it will creep;
It starts when you're always afraid....

....especially when your favorite movie is 'Zoro, The Gay Blade.

aikido7

July 25th, 2004, 09:35 PM

What divides your America is authenticity, not something hard and measurable like, say ECONOMICS.

Heaven forbid.

While commie liberals suck down lattes, drive show-off European cars, trying to reform the world, you humble, humble people go about your unpretentious business, eating down-home foods, vacationing in the Ozarks, whistling while you work, feeling comfortable about who you are and knowing you are secure under the watch of George W. Bush--a man you love as your own.

You are being had. As you fret about abortion and gay marriage and "values," the very values economic science keeps track of are taking your way of life away. You will forever cast votes for an economic order that undercuts your way of life and keeps you busy with issues that can never be legislated away or "solved."

As long as frat boys, lawyers, CEOs and "the businesses that fuel our economy" keep convincing you that they speak on your behalf you just won't see it. The GOP right has managed to agitate and scare the citizens of our heartland into consistently voting against their own best interests.

It's about time someone started telling the truth about it.

In "Farenheit 9/11" Bush is shown at a black-tie GOP fundraiser, surrounded by the rich and powerful.

"It's nice to be here among the haves--and the HAVE MOREs," Bush cracks.

The audience erupts in moneyed laughter.

"Some people call you THE ELITE," he smirks. "I call you my POLITICAL BASE."

yuk, yuk.

Bush used Ken Lay's private jet during the 2000 campaign. The secret energy meeting organized by **** Cheney was poised to name Lay America's Secretary of the Treasury.

Too bad Bush was forced to pick Paul O'Neil. He quit and wrote an interesting book.

Delmar

July 26th, 2004, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by aikido7

In "Farenheit 9/11" Bush is shown at a black-tie GOP fundraiser, surrounded by the rich and powerful.

"It's nice to be here among the haves--and the HAVE MOREs," Bush cracks.

The audience erupts in moneyed laughter.

"Some people call you THE ELITE," he smirks. "I call you my POLITICAL BASE."

yuk, yuk.

"Farenheit 9/11" uncovered the scandal that Bush asked rich people for money and made them feel comfortable with humor ! Who would you invite to a high dollar fund raiser you mope? So he jokes about it big deal.

Delmar

July 26th, 2004, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by aikido7

Paranoia strikes deep;
Into your life it will creep;
It starts when you're always afraid.... What does that have to do with your assertion that I would leave a bleeding man lying in a ditch? Your only evidence being the fact that I think rich people should not have a higher % of their money stolen from them then poor people.

BillyBob

July 26th, 2004, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by aikido7

It's about time someone started telling the truth about it.

In "Farenheit 9/11"

Geez Aikido, you're starting to sound like a brainwashed, MM kool aid drinking shill. If you want to be taken half way seriously, try quoting from a source other than a Michael Moore film.

Bush is shown at a black-tie GOP fundraiser, surrounded by the rich and powerful.

So? Are you going to pretend that the dems don't go to black tie fundraisers?

"It's nice to be here among the haves--and the HAVE MOREs," Bush cracks.

What exactly is your problem with that remark? I imagine it would be nice to be among successful people. Why do you guys so vehemently despise success?

The audience erupts in moneyed laughter.

Moneyed laughter? What the hell does moneyed laughter sound like? Is that the same sound John Kerry makes when Teresa tells a joke about all the middle class democrats who are about to vote against their best interests?

Some people call you THE ELITE," he smirks. "I call you my POLITICAL BASE."

Nothing wrong with that. You are exhibiting class envy, again. Typical commie. Need I remind you that Michael Moore is a multi millionaire? Do you see the hypocrisy yet??

Bush used Ken Lay's private jet during the 2000 campaign. The secret energy meeting organized by **** Cheney was poised to name Lay America's Secretary of the Treasury.

So?

Zakath

July 26th, 2004, 12:31 PM

More "protecting" Bush from seeing those who disagree with him...
Free speech zonesâ€™ getting crowded

CONSIDER HOW weird itâ€™s getting.

Recently in La Crosse, Wis., ticket-holders in line to hear the President speak had to unbutton their shirts before they could get inside, baring any secret opinions lurking next to their hearts. Good thing, too. A mom and three boys who harbored antiwar sentiments almost got into the rally.

â€œI was wearing a white T-shirt (with an antiwar message) underneath a black button down shirt,â€? Sandra McAnany writes on the Madison Independent Media Center Web site, â€œand when the lady who was checking IDs saw the white collar, she asked me to unbutton my shirt. As she saw the writing on (it), she hollered for security.â€?

Some guy in a green jacket â€œcame over and grabbed the tickets from my hand. He said, â€˜We donâ€™t want people like you hereâ€™ and ripped my tickets in half.â€?

McAnany, her three sons and one of their friends (who was, in fact, pro-Bush) were shooed off to the free speech zone, behind the concrete barriers and the 12-foot-high Waste Management trucks.

Free speech zones! Yeah, theyâ€™re over there by the Dumpsters, well out of Presidential and, perhaps even more importantly, media eyeshot. Everywhere the Worldâ€™s Most Despised Human goes, the Secret Service gets there first, sweeping protesters out of the way, hustling them off in handcuffs (if necessary)...

[url=http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showfast.html?article=41342[Source]

At a recent Bush appearance in Charleston, the capital of West Virginia, two people were arrested for wearing T-shirts with the words "Love America - Hate Bush" and refusing to leave the public property on which they and hundreds of other citizens were standing.

Another interesting wrinkle, entry was denied to the Republican campaign rally unless you had a ticket, for which you had to apply in advance and were required to furnish your name, addresses, birth date, birthplace and Social Security number.

Why does the Bush Administration want the social security numbers of people attending political rallies? :think:

Apparently foreign governments are eager to cooperate with "information control" efforts of the White House. When Bush visited Italy in June, the electric company cut power to two radio stations that were just about to broadcast coverage of anti-Bush rallies. Fascinatingly enough, those were the only two media outlets that lost power that night... :think:

...While Bush's secret police (er, Secret Service) are ordering the sequestering and arrest of law-abiding citizens, some people want to focus our attention on a bunch of sand pounders in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Anything to divert attention from the real problem... the Taliban has fled Afghanistan and looks to be occupying the White House.

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself
does not become a monster."

:shocked:

HerodionRomulus

July 26th, 2004, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Zakath

Apparently foreign governments are eager to cooperate with "information control" efforts of the White House. When Bush visited Italy in June, the electric company cut power to two radio stations that were just about to broadcast coverage of anti-Bush rallies. Fascinatingly enough, those were the only two media outlets that lost power that night... :think:

Not a surprise considering that Italian Duce, er President Berlusconi owns over 90% of the broadcast media in the country.

Zakath

July 26th, 2004, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

Not a surprise considering that Italian Duce, er President Berlusconi owns over 90% of the broadcast media in the country. Sort of a plutocratic government instead of the old fashioned fascist, eh? ;)

HerodionRomulus

July 27th, 2004, 08:24 AM

Indeed.
Italy has media plutocrats, the US has petroleum plutocrats.
It's all corporatism, a fancy name for traditional fascism.

Zakath

July 27th, 2004, 09:18 AM

Petroleum plutocracy... has a certain alliterative ring to it. :chuckle:

HerodionRomulus

July 27th, 2004, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Zakath

Petroleum plutocracy... has a certain alliterative ring to it. :chuckle:

Yeah, I love Euphony and stuff like that.

"Promulgating poisonous propaganda"

"Pulpit pounder in a gown"

"pedantic preachers"

:chuckle:

Zakath

July 27th, 2004, 09:58 AM

Boy-buggering, bombastic bible beaters

crafty criminal cassocked clerics

adulterous astucious apostle

aikido7

July 27th, 2004, 11:58 PM

FREE GOP TALKING POINTS

"safe" and "safer."

George Bush used the words 7 times in a 45-minute speech recently.
When enough people believe it--and "repetition brings conviction"--we will be out of Iraq.

The noble and righteous hunt for the butcher of 3,000 Americans in New York and D.C. gets off easy because the administration was too busy pursuing its irrelevant war against Iraq. And then seeing that irrelevant and optional war mishandled to such a degree that:

1) Al Qaida got an opportunity to catch a breather post-Afghanistan and reorganize, and
2) filled terrorism recruitment offices with a flood of new and willing recruits.

But hey! We're SAFER!

Bitter Americans will go to the polls in Novermber...

Delmar

July 28th, 2004, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by aikido7

FREE GOP TALKING POINTS

"safe" and "safer."

George Bush used the words 7 times in a 45-minute speech recently.
When enough people believe it--and "repetition brings conviction"--we will be out of Iraq.

The noble and righteous hunt for the butcher of 3,000 Americans in New York and D.C. gets off easy because the administration was too busy pursuing its irrelevant war against Iraq. And then seeing that irrelevant and optional war mishandled to such a degree that:

1) Al Qaida got an opportunity to catch a breather post-Afghanistan and reorganize, and
2) filled terrorism recruitment offices with a flood of new and willing recruits.

But hey! We're SAFER!

Bitter Americans will go to the polls in Novermber... most of the really bitter Americans are in Boston this week.

Zakath

July 28th, 2004, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by deardelmar

most of the really bitter Americans are in Boston this week. Do you mean the folks standing outside the convention protesting? :chuckle:

Delmar

July 28th, 2004, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Zakath

Do you mean the folks standing outside the convention protesting? :chuckle: Funny but no.

aikido7

July 28th, 2004, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Zakath:

Do you mean the folks standing outside the convention protesting?

Answered by deardelmar: Funny but no.

Logical. The "bitter" people INSIDE the Democratic convention are being protested by the agreeable and gratified peopleOUTSIDE the convention!

Zakath

July 28th, 2004, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by aikido7

Logical. The "bitter" people INSIDE the Democratic convention are being protested by the agreeable and gratified peopleOUTSIDE the convention! That view makes about as much sense as most political arguments around here... ;)

aikido7

July 28th, 2004, 01:19 PM

Some political arguments make more sense than others.

This political vision draws on a lifetime of experience among God-fearing people of this country. The American left has always given a voice to our common code of this nation's civic necessities:

Get back to authentic Christian teaching.
Protect the social compact.
Defend the powerless.
Maintain government as a necessary force for good.

The Republican tax cutters and shysters seem to believe that human misery is total fiction. But I have seen it and lived among it.

It is real.

Delmar

July 28th, 2004, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by aikido7

Logical. The "bitter" people INSIDE the Democratic convention are being protested by the agreeable and gratified peopleOUTSIDE the convention! Many of whom are even further to the left than Kerry and are mad that they won't let them on TV

BillyBob

July 28th, 2004, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by aikido7

Some political arguments make more sense than others.

This political vision draws on a lifetime of experience among God-fearing people of this country. The American left has always given a voice to our common code of this nation's civic necessities:

Get back to authentic Christian teaching.

What rock do you live under? Most liberals hate Christianity and see it as an 'imposing force'.

Protect the social compact.

I'd rather compact the socialists. [in a trash compactor.]

Defend the powerless.

Like defending the powerless Iraqi people who were brutalized by a tyrannical despot? Oh wait, the Republicans did that! :doh:

Maintain government as a necessary force for good.

You guys hate the military! You guys are afraid to use the military! Go crawl back under your rock......:slither:

The Republican tax cutters and shysters seem to believe that human misery is total fiction.

No, they believe that socialism is the wrong way to correct the problem. Big Difference! :doh:

But I have seen it and lived among it.

:Church Lady Voice: Isn't that special.

It is real.

So was the fact that Saddam was a terrorist who needed to be removed from power.

aikido7

July 29th, 2004, 03:25 PM

Most liberals love Christianity until it begins hijacking Jesus and behaving as "an imposing force."

"The Social Contract" is a phrase that is easily made fun of, but has its legal roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition, as does the ideal to "defend the powerless."

If we truly had a political history of defending the powerless in America, we would not have had to invade Iraq to force democracy on the Iraqi people. We would have had our act together.

Our military should be for our protection against our enemies. When our military is being fascist and being out-of-bounds abusive, it must be stopped. Forget your tired phobias against socialism and communism.... If we cannot figure out how to take care of people by democratic means, then democracy must be admitted to be a failure.

Your sarcasm is noted, but I really feel I have been blessed to live among the poor. It wasn't until JFK campaigned in West Virginia in 1960 and saw the poverty there first-hand that he really began to develop his "rich boy" persona toward formation of a social conscience.

So was the fact that Saddam was a terrorist who needed to be removed from power.

...THAT would have been a nice fact to bring up...

...AS THE REASON OUR SOLDIERS HAD TO DIE IN IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

BillyBob

July 29th, 2004, 03:58 PM

JFK was quite Conservative compared to todays democrats. He rallied for tax cuts, for example and gave a great speech as to the need for them, especially when the economy is slow.

Oh, by the way, Kennedy used West Virginia as a means to steal the 1960 election....

aikido7

July 29th, 2004, 05:23 PM

When religion starts acting like an "imposing force"--whether by Christians or Moslems or Branch Dividians, Americans deal with them.

Your left turn onto Kennedy was not a "change of subject" because we all need to realize Kennedy was really seen as an extremist. If you loved Kennedy (and there were many) or if you hated him(and there were many) you could understand why he was killed.

West Virgina revealed his heart, not his politics. We are all aware of how he unwittingly slammed the poor and the blacks.

BillyBob

July 29th, 2004, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by aikido7

When religion starts acting like an "imposing force"--whether by Christians or Moslems or Branch Dividians, Americans deal with them.

What force did the Branch Davidians impose?

Your left turn onto Kennedy was not a "change of subject"

I didn't introduce Kennedy into this debate, you did! :bang:

because we all need to realize Kennedy was really seen as an extremist. If you loved Kennedy (and there were many) or if you hated him(and there were many) you could understand why he was killed.

I'd like to hear more about 'Kennedy's extremism'.

West Virgina revealed his heart, not his politics. We are all aware of how he unwittingly slammed the poor and the blacks.

Of course, he was a Massachusetts Democrat.

Hey, John Kerry is a Massachusetts Democrat, too! :noway:

aikido7

July 29th, 2004, 05:47 PM

What force did the Branch Davidians impose?

Forced un-American and un-Christian beliefs on the rest of us, forced illegal weapons into a peaceful community, forced sex on young children.

All those things turned out to be lies, but because we thought they were true at the time, we are not responsible.

I'd like to hear more about 'Kennedy's extremism'

Wanted a nuclear test ban treaty, actually acknowledged other countries have the same basic values that we do, wanted to destroy the CIA and "scatter it to the winds," called the CEOs of big steel "SOBs," sent U.S troops to stand against state's rights in Alabama, ordered his press secretary to find out why there were not any black faces in the Inagural Parades of the Coast Guard contingnet. Had a pretty extreme sex drive.

BillyBob

July 29th, 2004, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by aikido7

All those things turned out to be lies, but because we thought they were true at the time, we are not responsible.

So you are saying that as long as the government thinks there is certain activity going on, it has the right to act based on that supposed activity even if it turns out to be false and the government should not be held responsible?

Hmmmm....reminds me of a certain President and his invasion of Iraq. Of course, the difference is that Bush's intel was accurate.

Wanted a nuclear test ban treaty, actually acknowledged other countries have the same basic values that we do, wanted to destroy the CIA and "scatter it to the winds," called the CEOs of big steel "SOBs," sent U.S troops to stand against state's rights in Alabama, ordered his press secretary to find out why there were not any black faces in the Inagural Parades of the Coast Guard contingnet. Had a pretty extreme sex drive.

Sounds like a democrat to me.

aikido7

July 30th, 2004, 02:44 AM

Your "Hmmm" has too many "m's" And you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.

aikido7

July 30th, 2004, 03:36 AM

"When Nobel laureates, a vast majority of the scientific community, and a host of current and former diplomats, intelligence operatives, and military officials line up against you, it becomes increasingly difficult to characterize the opposition as fringe wackos."

--Ron Reagan

Delmar

July 30th, 2004, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by aikido7

"When Nobel laureates, a vast majority of the scientific community, and a host of current and former diplomats, intelligence operatives, and military officials line up against you, it becomes increasingly difficult to characterize the opposition as fringe wackos."

--Ron Reagan ALL COMMIES

BillyBob

July 30th, 2004, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by aikido7

Your "Hmmm" has too many "m's" And you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.

Translation: "Yep, you got me again. I have no response, no where to run, nowhere to hide so I'll change the subject as usual and throw in some stupid bit about appearance, letters and your Mom."

aikido7

July 30th, 2004, 02:07 PM

nowhere

not "no where."

You're still ugly and your mother continues to dress you funny.

BillyBob

July 30th, 2004, 02:10 PM

See above.

drbrumley

July 30th, 2004, 03:06 PM

You guys are trying to justify "Iraq is unnecessary" because that's the only hope you have of getting Bush out of office. You clearly think Afghanistan was okay, but you think this Iraq war is all illegal and there was no reason to go there and so you want to come up with these things that you have to grasp at straws with to somehow suggest that Iraq wasn't necessary, that Bush did an illegal war for Halliburton and oil or whatever it is, some cockamamie example or excuse, conspiracy kook theory you people come up with. (sigh) The fact of the matter is, we were attacked on 9/11. Saddam Hussein was unfinished business. He was required to do certain things under terms of surrender with the United Nations and the United States after the first Gulf War, (1991 Ceasefire Breached) and he not only didn't do them, he thumbed his nose at us, and continued to expand on his weapons programs and kicked inspectors out of the country.

The only responsible thing to do was to take care of this potential gathering threat in the aftermath of 9/11. It would have simply been irresponsible to ignore this, totally irresponsible, and now people are trying to say, well, this sort of dispels any notion of preemptive action. It better the damn well not, because preemptive action is what the whole business of intelligence gathering is based on, and I know that's been damaged, but this is a totally responsible action -- and I can't believe you people on the left. I thought you cared about oppression. I thought you cared about being tyrannized. I thought you cared about people being murdered in concentration camps and jailed and tortured. I thought you cared about that. I thought you cared about people being dumped in mass graves.

I can't find any liberal that's happy about the liberation of the Iraqi people. I can't find any liberal that thinks it's a good thing that's happened here. If I listen to you all, it's almost like you just assume Saddam would still be in power and that his torture chambers and rape rooms still be open and the mass graves still being dug and filled. I don't understand you people. "Weapons of mass destruction" was by no means the only reason offered for taking Saddam Hussein out. You know, the real question here is not, "Why did Bush do what he did?" There's another equally as interest question: "Why did Saddam do what he did?" Look where he is compared to where he was. Saddam Hussein had 20 palaces, a labyrinth of underground tunnels. He had the life of Riley. He had his two sons running around terrorizing, torturing people; he had the rule of the roost; he was getting a nonstop supply of cigars from Fidel Castro. He was smoking them out there in public. He was raping women wherever he wanted, he was roasting lamb. He had the life of Riley. He's now in that 12-by-12 foot cell.

If he didn't have any of this stuff, what in the hell was he doing? and the only theory that's been advanced is, "Well, he, he thought he had 'em, too, but his people were lying to him." I'm sorry, we have to do better than that. We have to do better. He's listening to somebody who told him Bush wouldn't do what Bush did. He put his trust in the French. He put his trust in the Germans. He put his trust in all these people he had been bribing with his oil-for-food program. You know, you guys, you want to look at the scandal of the illegal Iraq war, and you want to turn the nation's defense over to the United Nations. I would love for you people to have one ounce of interest in the corruption at the UN and the incompetence at the UN and the inability of the UN to do anything.

Two genocides under the UN's watch: Rwanda and one going on in Sudan right now, and you don't care! All you want to do is say, "There was no danger in Iraq. We shouldn't have gone, and Bush and Cheney and Halliburton are a bunch of criminals." Bush and Cheney and Halliburton haven't murdered anybody; they don't have torture rooms; they don't have mass graves, none of this stuff. You people just continually amaze me. You tell me I'm the one making a stretch? You tell me I'm the one that's in a mode of desperation? I think it's just the exact opposite. I think you people are the in midst of a crackup. I think your whole world view is crumbling in front of your very eyes. You saw the nation love and adore Ronald Reagan. That wasn't supposed to happen. That had to really bother you. Now you see success in the Middle East. Now you see an economy roaring back because of tax cuts. Now you see the American people happy about their future and they're optimistic and that just isn't what you need to get your power back.

It boggles the mind the way you people have structured yourselves. Bad news for the country is good news for you. Good news for the country makes you feel bad. It doesn't make sense to me, in a political sense or a human sense -- and this opposition to Bush; the things you come up with him about him, about being a neophyte and a dummy and n SOB and a corrupt -- it's baseless. Gary Trudeau, whatever his name is, the Doonesbury guy. Some interview in some New York magazine; it might be New Yorker, New Yorker, whatever, but he went to Yale with Bush, and so in this interview Trudeau is talking what an idiot Bush was and how he was a "controlling social animal," and that's what his real strength was, was assembling people to do his diabolical deeds because he had this controlling personality, and it's dangerous that somebody like (that is president.) Well, one of them ends up as a cartoonist and one of them ends up the president of the United States, and we listen to the cartoonist tell us about the man who ended up as president!

Nobody elected the cartoonist. The president was elected. Everything here is 180-degrees out of phase. You want to believe a bunch of enemies of this country. You want to align with people like Chirac in France? Believe me, he is no friend and no ally of this country, and I'll tell you what's going on in Europe, but I'm a little long here -- and Kerry had better understand it, because this is something I don't understand. Kerry -- just by virtue of who he is and his charisma, his personality -- is going to be able to get the French and the Germans on board with us whenever we want to go into some country to protect ourselves? Bah, humbug, because the entire interests of Europe have deviated from those of the United States. We're still interested in the whole concept of the sovereign nation state. The Europeans are aligning themselves into the European Union. They are into world internationalism and they want to run it.

The French are in a battle with the Germans to run the European Union. They're into an internationalist world government of sorts with them at the seat of power. They're not interested in helping our sovereignty; they're not interested in helping us. It doesn't matter whether Kerry is president, Bush president or whatever, because our interests and theirs no longer coincide because theirs are not the interests of a sovereign nation state. Theirs are the interests in becoming leadership of a coalition of nations that they hope to rule the world with -- and I don't mean in a mad scientist kind of way. I'm talking about, you know, geopolitical politics here and strategery, and this is why they oppose us. It's not because they don't like Bush. That's not the way nations make decisions! The French are not going to sacrifice their best interests because they like this lug head from Massachusetts. They're going to continue to do what they think is in their best interests, and right now the U.S. is not in their best interests, and they're just a bunch of ingrates for thinking that. But they are what they are; we have to deal with it. You people, you don't know how good you have it compared to how bad it would be if somebody irresponsible had been in the seat of power these last four years.

Zakath

July 30th, 2004, 03:17 PM

I think Billybob and Aikido should either "get a room". They sound like an old married couple.

Maybe they should just turn off their hearing aids.
:chuckle:

BillyBob

July 30th, 2004, 03:58 PM

Aikido started it! :noid:

Zakath

July 30th, 2004, 03:59 PM

Yup. Just like an old married couple... :chuckle:

BillyBob

July 30th, 2004, 03:59 PM

That was quite a post, Doc!

Zakath

July 30th, 2004, 04:01 PM

Ya like that one? I gotta million of 'em. :ha:

Gerald

July 30th, 2004, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by drbrumley
You clearly think Afghanistan was okay...
:: raises hand ::

I don't. Afghanistan did not pose a clear and present danger to the United States. There was no compelling reason to attack them.

The fact of the matter is, we were attacked on 9/11. Saddam Hussein was unfinished business.And what better way to take care of that "unfinished business" than to imply like crazy that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks?
The only responsible thing to do was to take care of this potential gathering threat in the aftermath of 9/11.The Soviet Union was a "potential gathering threat" for decades. Would you have supported pre-emptive action against them?
I thought you cared about oppression. I thought you cared about being tyrannized. I thought you cared about people being murdered in concentration camps and jailed and tortured. I thought you cared about that. I thought you cared about people being dumped in mass graves.Why should I care? They weren't Americans.
If I listen to you all, it's almost like you just assume Saddam would still be in power and that his torture chambers and rape rooms still be open and the mass graves still being dug and filled.Why should that bother you? It isn't like Americans are getting that treatment.
Look where he is compared to where he was. Saddam Hussein had 20 palaces, a labyrinth of underground tunnels. He had the life of Riley. He had his two sons running around terrorizing, torturing people; he had the rule of the roost; he was getting a nonstop supply of cigars from Fidel Castro. He was smoking them out there in public. He was raping women wherever he wanted, he was roasting lamb. He had the life of Riley.It's good to be the king (apologies to Mel Brooks). He's now in that 12-by-12 foot cell.And both his sons are dead. Sucks to be him. :yawn:
Two genocides under the UN's watch: Rwanda and one going on in Sudan right now, and you don't care!Why should I care? It isn't happening to Americans.

BillyBob

July 30th, 2004, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Gerald

:: raises hand ::

::slaps hand::

I don't. Afghanistan did not pose a clear and present danger to the United States. There was no compelling reason to attack them.

Other than the fact that Afghanistan was the base of operations for Osama and Al Queda. Those were the guys who flew planes into our buildings, in case you forgot.

And what better way to take care of that "unfinished business" than to imply like crazy that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks?

Nope, nobody did that.

The Soviet Union was a "potential gathering threat" for decades. Would you have supported pre-emptive action against them?

They were not responsible for terroristic activities against the US. As far as I know, they didn't try to assasinate a US President, either. Unless you think they were behind JFK's assasination.

Why should I care?

You shouldn't, you don't care about anything.

drbrumley

July 30th, 2004, 05:33 PM

"Here's the part of Staff Statement 15 that the press decided Americans didn't need to hear about, as reported by the Commission under the heading 'Al-Qaeda Today.' [Quote:] 'Since the September 11 attacks and the defeat of the Taliban, Al-Qaeda's funding has decreased significantly. The arrests or deaths of several important financial facilitators have decreased the amount of money Al-Qaeda has raised and increased the costs and difficulty of raising and moving that money. 'Some entirely corrupt charities are now out of business, with many of their principals killed or captured, although some charities may still be operating and providing support to Al-Qaeda.

"'Moreover, it appears that the Al-Qaeda attacks within Saudi Arabia in May and November 2003 have reduced - perhaps drastically â€“ Al-Qaeda's ability to raise funds from Saudi sources. Both an increase in Saudi enforcement and a more negative perception of Al-Qaeda by potential donors have cut its income.' And the good news for America...doesn't end there. In the same section, Staff Statement 15 notes: 'Prior to 9/11, Al-Qaeda was a centralized organization which used Afghanistan as a war room to strategize, plan attacks, and dispatch operatives worldwide.' But now, says the Commission, 'Bin Laden's seclusion (has) forced operational commanders and cell leaders to assume greater authority; they are now making the command decisions previously made by him.'"

"So, in other words, whether dead or alive, the prime mover behind the September 11th attacks has been taken out of commission with operational authority handed over to allies of convenience like Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi."

aikido7

August 1st, 2004, 07:17 AM

General Tommy Franks says he never thought the U.S. could be out of
Iraq in a year. Five years, he says, is a realistic timeline. "It takes time to solve problems when you're talking about 25 to 26 million people," Franks said.

The biggest surprise for him was that they've found no weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the "reason we went to war."

Hmmm. I thought it was because Iraq had WMD programs. Oh yeah--that sound-bite came later as more and more people became skeptical of finding the WMDs themselves.

It was really "to free the Iraqi people." Wait--THAT talking point would not work either in a country suddenly infected with terrorists and the pent-up frustrations of a country occupied--not "liberated."

The reason was really because we had to do away with "a brutal dictator." But after arab war-lords captured Saddam and "released" him to coalition forces, most of us found out what we could see coming all along: One brutal dictator in custody. Nine hundred American dead. Thousdands of Iraqi citizens dead. Families on both sides devastated.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-30-2004/0002222112&EDATE=

HerodionRomulus

August 2nd, 2004, 09:18 AM

Cuba has been a threat for years, Cuba attempted to assasinate American leaders, Cuba sponsored terrorism and violent revolution throughout the Americas and Africa, and sent their own troops to foment revolution.

We could easily overwhelm their military.

Why didn't we liberate those non-free and oppressed Cubanos?

O wait---no oil. :doh:

Gerald

August 2nd, 2004, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by BillyBob
::slaps hand::
:: Sends heavily armored agents to shoot BillyBob's dog ::

They were not responsible for terroristic activities against the US.
Possession of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, along with the means to deliver them; financing and coordinating subversive activities worldwide, even on US soil. Sounds like "terroristic activities" to me.

Or maybe US leadership was too chicken for a stand-up fight...
You shouldn't, you don't care about anything. Correction: I don't care about anything that isn't me or mine... :chuckle:

BillyBob

August 2nd, 2004, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Gerald

:: Sends heavily armored agents to shoot BillyBob's dog ::

::Put's 'Kevlar Doggie Sweater' on dog:: :dog:

::Places sniper outside Gerald's front door:: :dead:

Possession of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, along with the means to deliver them; financing and coordinating subversive activities worldwide, even on US soil. Sounds like "terroristic activities" to me.

Having weapons does not automatically make a 'Terrorist nation'.

Or maybe US leadership was too chicken for a stand-up fight...

Or maybe the US played it's cards just right and avoided a worldwide nuclear war. :think:

Correction: I don't care about anything that isn't me or mine... :chuckle:

Same thing.

Gerald

August 2nd, 2004, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by BillyBob
::Put's 'Kevlar Doggie Sweater' on dog:: :dog:
:: equips agents with armor-piercing explosive rounds ::
::Places sniper outside Gerald's front door:: :dead: :: sniper is detected by proximity field and devoured by a swarm of nanobots ::
Having weapons does not automatically make a 'Terrorist nation'.Wouldn't want the US to get tarred with that brush, hmm...? :think:
Or maybe the US played it's cards just right and avoided a worldwide nuclear war. :think:The US wouldn't have had to "play its cards right" if Truman had grown a backbone and knocked the Soviets out of the running in 1945. He had atom bombs and Stalin didn't...

BillyBob

August 2nd, 2004, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Gerald

:: equips agents with armor-piercing explosive rounds ::

::Runs over agents with my new Hummer:: :dead:

:: sniper is detected by proximity field and devoured by a swarm of nanobots ::

::Reminds nanobots of Asimov's '3 Laws of Robotics', they devour Gerald's car instead::

Wouldn't want the US to get tarred with that brush, hmm...? :think:

Exactly!

The US wouldn't have had to "play its cards right" if Truman had grown a backbone and knocked the Soviets out of the running in 1945. He had atom bombs and Stalin didn't...

Things would be quite different today if Truman had...:think:

drbrumley

August 2nd, 2004, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by aikido7

General Tommy Franks says he never thought the U.S. could be out of
Iraq in a year. Five years, he says, is a realistic timeline. "It takes time to solve problems when you're talking about 25 to 26 million people," Franks said.

The biggest surprise for him was that they've found no weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the "reason we went to war."

Hmmm. I thought it was because Iraq had WMD programs. Oh yeah--that sound-bite came later as more and more people became skeptical of finding the WMDs themselves.

It was really "to free the Iraqi people." Wait--THAT talking point would not work either in a country suddenly infected with terrorists and the pent-up frustrations of a country occupied--not "liberated."

The reason was really because we had to do away with "a brutal dictator." But after arab war-lords captured Saddam and "released" him to coalition forces, most of us found out what we could see coming all along: One brutal dictator in custody. Nine hundred American dead. Thousdands of Iraqi citizens dead. Families on both sides devastated.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-30-2004/0002222112&EDATE=

Man, why don't you liberal slime balls tell the whole story. Here, I will tell you what Gen. Franks said.

NEW YORK, July 30 /PRNewswire/ -- Retired Gen. Tommy Franks, who led U.S.
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, says he never thought the U.S. could be out of
Iraq in a year. Five years, he says, is a realistic timeline. "It takes time
to solve problems when you're talking about 25 to 26 million people," Franks
tells PARADE magazine for this Sunday's issue, noting that Iraq has to dig
itself out of a "30-year hole."
Franks, 59, who retired from the military in July 2003, had a lot to say
in this exclusive interview with PARADE, his first national interview since
leaving command:

* The biggest surprise for him was that they've found no weapons of mass
destruction (WMD), the "reason we went to war." He says multiple
Middle Eastern leaders, including Jordan's King Abdullah and Egypt's
Hosni Mubarak, told Franks that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
In January 2003, Mubarak said point blank to Franks, "Saddam has
WMD-biologicals, actually-and he will use them on your troops."

* Franks and his warplanners expected 150,000 additional international
troops to help with peacekeeping operations. They never materialized.

* Franks singles out White House Counter-terrorism Czar Richard Clarke as
never providing him with "a single page of actionable intelligence" and
of engaging in mostly wishful thinking. Franks also believes the U.S.
invested too much in electronic spy surveillance and not enough in
spies. "We can't send a Princeton-educated New York lawyer to
infiltrate al-Qaeda. To get information, we have to marry the devil or
at least employ him. You have to deal."

* Franks steered clear of Israel while he was a U.S. military commander
and openly told Arab leaders that he was sympathetic to their issues.
"For years," he tells PARADE, "I had told my Arab friends that I had
'no Israeli visa' in my passport. This was an unofficial way of
letting them know that I understood their side of the story."

* Franks was disappointed that the Iraqis initially chose looting and
insurgency over pulling together to rehabilitate their country --
immediately coming out to guard museums, weapons depots, etc.

* Franks describes contentious battles among the military service chiefs
over his warplans for Afghanistan and how he told his civilian bosses
in the Pentagon that he wanted "to be left the hell alone" to run the
Iraq war.

* Franks openly rebuts and takes issue with the long-standing "Powell
doctrine" of over-whelming military force. Powell criticized Franks'
warplans for Iraq, drawing his ire.

* Franks believes the world is "far safer" without Saddam Hussein. Asked
about Osama bin Laden, he says that, unlike Saddam, who was hated in
Iraq, tens of thousands of Arab families would happily take Osama in as
their hero. Franks believes Osama will be caught eventually, "even
though we don't have enough sources on the ground."

Skeptic

August 2nd, 2004, 08:20 PM

Never again should we act on merely what informants say regarding suspected threats or WMD. Never again should we rely on merely a consensus of the beliefs of intelligence agencies, world leaders, or politicians (Democrat, Republican, etc.) regarding the existence of significant or imminent threats.

There is NO substitute for actual clear, hard, uncontroversial, empirical evidence of a threat, when it comes to deciding when or whether to use massive military force that could result in the deaths of thousands.

No country has the moral right to use military force merely because it feels or suspects it is threatened based on hearsay. Without clear hard uncontroversial evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat, there is no moral justification.

Preemptive wars to prevent an "emerging threat" or "future threat" from materializing are NOT morally justifiable.

BillyBob

August 2nd, 2004, 09:35 PM

I see, so allowing a dictator to develop WMD and promote terrorism then wait for him to attack us is more moral than preventing him from doing so in the first place?

No thanks! :nono:

Skeptic

August 3rd, 2004, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by BillyBob

I see, so allowing a dictator to develop WMD and promote terrorism then wait for him to attack us is more moral than preventing him from doing so in the first place? One reason why preemption is wrong is that it is very dangerous to give that kind of power to any one county - especially the most powerful country on the planet. When the only information about a suspected threat from another sovereign nation is in the form of hearsay or possible lies, distortions and exaggerations, as opposed to hard evidence, the probability of mistakenly using military force to stop a threat where no threat existed in the first place is too high. When thousands of lives are at stake, on either side, it is wise to have clear hard uncontroversial evidence of a threat before using massive military force. It is foolish and wrong to rush in, invade, and destroy thousands of lives in the absence of such clear hard evidence.

When there is hard evidence of a possible "emerging threat", but one which has not yet materialized, the thing to do is to beef up nonmilitary options, as well as intelligence collection and covert activity, to prevent such threats from becoming a reality. But when massive military force is used to prevent possible future threats from becoming a reality, such invading governments risk too much when they could be mistaken. On the one hand, they risk the lives of those they are invading. On the other, they risk loosing the support of their own citizens, not to mention allied nations in the world. This is what happened when Bush invaded Iraq.

Also, the potential for abuse of such awesome power - yes, even by the great allegedly benevolent United States - is always present. Such potential for abuse of power is amplified when the government is given the legal power to engage in preemptive wars either by its own citizens or by the international community. This is why there are international laws against such preemptive uses of military power, and why there has been such a long history (until Bush arrived on the scene) of refraining from such preemption by the U.S.

Personally, I am as much, if not more, afraid of having an American government (which definitely has massive numbers of WMD) assume the awesome power to strike other sovereign nations preemptively, than I am of nations that pose some vague alleged "emerging threat".

Skeptic

August 6th, 2004, 11:41 AM

The debate on the moral virtues, or lack thereof, of preemption is central to the future of our civilization.

On Fire

August 6th, 2004, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
....nonsense....

And tell us again why you're not on the National Security Council?

Oh, that's right, you're a commie.

Rolf Ernst

August 6th, 2004, 12:35 PM

Bush said earlier this week that Saddam should have been taken out of power even if he didn't have WMD. Bush believes Saddam's human rights abuses were sufficient cause to remove him.

I know that those who PROFESS Christ will still back Bush even though his policies are those of a fascist dictator--just as there were those in Germany that were willing to give Hitler support. Bush makes a show of religion, and modern Christianity is so insipid that that is all that is required. Pre-emptive war is okay as long as Bush waves a Bible on Sunday. War which kills multi-thousands is okay as long as Bush quotes some scripture between his bursts of profanity.

WHY IS IT? It is not like they could not type in a websearch for Skull and Bones to see what the "Brotherhood of Death," (their REAL name) has a done through history. Oh, the indolence, and smug apathetic complacency of those who PROFESS to be Christian! Will they EVER wake up? Will they ever learn enough about what is REALLY going on to be sorry for the part they are playing in allowing the name of Christ to be misrepresented by Bush? Not likely!!

And all the while they mindlessly scrape and bow before Bush, a REAL Christian, a REAL constitutionalist, Michael Peroutka of the Constitution party, is ignored by them. What else could we expect of a so-called church which has become nothing more than a social club?

Here is a look at the future--Bush is an out of control Skull and Bones Fascist. If he or his neocon cohorts were really interested in defending this country against terrorism, they would first quit inciting the Arab/Islamic world to greater hatred of Americans by pulling American troops out of foreign lands. Then, he would secure our borders. Thousands of middle-eastern men are crossing our southern border. But Bush won't do that. He will keep wasting the lives of American soldiers with fascist moves against sovereign nations. That way, he can incite the world to hatred of both America and the Christ whom he greatly misrepresents.

Then when their fury is sufficiently great against us, those other nations--China, Russia, Germany and others-- can sweep in against American citizens to kill and destroy. Those of us who resist will be executed for insurgency against the New World Order, and those who continue to follow Bush will have to adapt to the third world status which the globalists have envisioned for us for years. But their social club which meets under the steeple will no longer be legal. THEN THEY might BEGIN TO WAKE UP.

drbrumley

August 6th, 2004, 02:28 PM

Let's see,

I know that those who PROFESS Christ will still back Bush even though his policies are those of a fascist dictator--just as there were those in Germany that were willing to give Hitler support. Bush makes a show of religion, and modern Christianity is so insipid that that is all that is required. Pre-emptive war is okay as long as Bush waves a Bible on Sunday. War which kills multi-thousands is okay as long as Bush quotes some scripture between his bursts of profanity.

Comparing Bush to Hitler doesn't help you. That's almost equating nazism with conservatism. Nazism was liberal to the core. so your equation between Bush and Hitler stands on no merit.

Skeptic

August 7th, 2004, 02:16 AM

=====================================
"The great mass of people ... will more easily
fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.
Especially if it is repeated over and over."
--- Adolf Hitler, 1925

"Let us pray in this hour that nothing can divide us,
and that God will help us against the Devil!
Almighty Lord, bless our fight!"
--- Adolph Hitler, 1930

"An evil exists that threatens every man,
woman and child of this great nation.
We must take steps to ensure our domestic
security and protect our homeland."
--- Adolf Hitler, 1933
=====================================

HerodionRomulus

August 9th, 2004, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by drbrumley

Let's see,

Comparing Bush to Hitler doesn't help you. That's almost equating nazism with conservatism. Nazism was liberal to the core. so your equation between Bush and Hitler stands on no merit.

And comparing liberals to Hitler is equally invalid.

Or do you consider Martin Luther King (Sr., Jr., or III) a Nazi?

On Fire

August 9th, 2004, 02:38 PM

SENTENCES AND SHORT DIALOGUES INCORPORATING NAMES OF COUNTRIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
By Michael Degnan

"IRAN eight miles this morning."

"I'm on crutches because I got in JORDAN a basketball game."

"You coming to the party tomorrow night?"
"YEMEN."

"We're headed to IRAQ concert."

"ISRAEL Madrid going to release David Beckham?"

"That carny game was a waste of money!"
"Yeah, EGYPT us."

"You got a 179 on the LSATs? OMAN you're an *******."

"I bet we're going to invade SYRIA next."

drbrumley

August 9th, 2004, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

And comparing liberals to Hitler is equally invalid.

Or do you consider Martin Luther King (Sr., Jr., or III) a Nazi?

I dont say liberals are nazi's.

They are communists.

Big difference. Both pathetic.

drbrumley

August 9th, 2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic

=====================================
"The great mass of people ... will more easily
fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.
Especially if it is repeated over and over."
--- Adolf Hitler, 1925

"Let us pray in this hour that nothing can divide us,
and that God will help us against the Devil!
Almighty Lord, bless our fight!"
--- Adolph Hitler, 1930

"An evil exists that threatens every man,
woman and child of this great nation.
We must take steps to ensure our domestic
security and protect our homeland."
--- Adolf Hitler, 1933
=====================================

And this is supposed to support your socialistic posts how?

Balder

August 9th, 2004, 02:56 PM

Jesus was a long-haired radical socialist Jew.

When you think about it, it's actually hilarious that Republicans and right-wing rednecks regularly pray to someone like this!

On Fire

August 9th, 2004, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Balder

Jesus was a long-haired socialist Jew.

When you think about it, it's actually hilarious that Republicans and right-wing rednecks regularly pray to someone like this!

Yeah, I bet they laugh their way to heaven.

Balder

August 9th, 2004, 03:01 PM

Maybe. But I bet if you met him in a supermarket nowadays, you'd whisper to your wife about what an evil socialist loser the guy was.

Probably hang 'im again if you had the chance.

drbrumley

August 9th, 2004, 03:04 PM

Now Balder,

The apostles practised a form of communism (a good form of). But Im sure you dont know why.

Balder

August 9th, 2004, 03:09 PM

Because they had to be satisfied with stealing from the Romans' olive trees rather than getting to drive the latest Lexus chariot?

But seriously, if you admit that there is a good form of communal or "socialist" social organization, why the hate campaign against all liberals ... many of whom espouse ideals that are closer to the early apostles' way of life than any corporatist rightwingers ever get?

drbrumley

August 9th, 2004, 03:16 PM

How do you figure?

When the libs want to STEAL my money and give it to someone else, thats good? When I work hard for my money and they insist on taxing 50% of it, thats good?

When you know the difference between what the Apostles did and how it is today, then talk to me about communism.

Balder

August 9th, 2004, 03:23 PM

What do you think was good about the way the Apostles/early Christians did things?

Skeptic

August 9th, 2004, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by drbrumley

And this is supposed to support your socialistic posts how? "The great mass of people ... will more easily
fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.
Especially if it is repeated over and over."
--- Adolf Hitler, 1925

Hitler's insight into mass psychology explains Bush's strategy of repeating over and over the lie that Iraq posed a serious threat to America. Makes me wonder whether Bush's policies are, in part, informed by Hitler's ideas.

"Let us pray in this hour that nothing can divide us,
and that God will help us against the Devil!
Almighty Lord, bless our fight!"
--- Adolph Hitler, 1930

Bush claims to be a uniter, not a divider. Yet, it is his black & white, "evil vs good" rhetoric that has helped divide America. One of Bush's justification for his unjust and unnecessary invasion of Iraq, which unnecessarily killed 10,000 innocent people, is the presumption that God is on America's side in its fight against the "axis of evil."

"An evil exists that threatens every man,
woman and child of this great nation.
We must take steps to ensure our domestic
security and protect our homeland."
--- Adolf Hitler, 1933

Bush's strategy is similar to Hitler's. Win support by instilling widespread fear of an "evil" threat against America. The greater the public fear, the more likely Bush can push through his semi-police-state policies that take away our civil liberties in the name of "homeland security."

BillyBob

August 9th, 2004, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Balder
But seriously, if you admit that there is a good form of communal or "socialist" social organization, why the hate campaign against all liberals ... many of whom espouse ideals that are closer to the early apostles' way of life than any corporatist rightwingers ever get?

There is a simple answer to that question.

The Apostles were arranging communes which were elective, not mandatory. They were not sponsored by any government and were not imposed.

Liberals in the US are just the opposite.

Balder

August 10th, 2004, 01:04 PM

BB, if you would become a liberal and participate in developing "socialist" programs that would actually help people in a positive, less corruptible and abusable way, then it wouldn't be "by force" anymore, would it?

Gerald

August 10th, 2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by BillyBob
The Apostles were arranging communes which were elective, not mandatory.True. You could join their little club or burn in hell.

Some choice. :rolleyes:

Skeptic

August 20th, 2004, 05:33 PM

This thread has over 11,000 views!

Keep'em coming.

========================
Published on Thursday, August 19, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

How Dick Cheney Got Away With $35 Million Right Before the Government Launched a Probe into Halliburton

by Jason Leopold

Itâ€™s obvious that no mainstream news reporter has the gumption to seriously question Vice President Dick Cheneyâ€™s ethics when he was chief executive of Halliburton, the oil-field services company that is currently embroiled in a scandal with the Pentagon due to its questionable accounting practices related to its work in war-torn Iraq.

Pity those journalists because this is the stuff Pulitzerâ€™s are made of. Whatâ€™s even more remarkable is that thereâ€™s reams of documents in the public domain showing how Cheney cooked the books when he was CEO of Halliburton, which makes the vice president look like Ken Layâ€™s twin brother. The evidence is beginning to collect dust. To tell the story of how Cheneyâ€™s Halliburton used accounting sleight of hand to fool investors all you need to do is connect the dots, which is what this story will do.

Letâ€™s start with a bit of old news. A couple of weeks ago Halliburton agreed to pay a $7.5 million fine to settle a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission probe related to a 1998 change in the way Halliburton accounted for construction revenue.

The commission says the undisclosed accounting change caused Halliburton's public statements regarding its income in 1998 and 1999 to be materially misleading, boosting Halliburtonâ€™s profits on paper by $120 million.

â€œIn the absence of any disclosure, the investing public was deprived of a full opportunity to assess Halliburton's reported income - more particularly, the precise nature of that income, and its comparability to Halliburton's income in prior periods,â€? according to the commission.

Cheney was CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000. The SEC said Cheney cooperated with the agencyâ€™s investigation and as such he wasnâ€™t penalized for his role in the charade. No big surprise there. All five of the SEC commissioners were appointed by President Bush. Dozens of the administrationâ€™s crimes have gone unpunished in the past three years. But dig a little more and youâ€™ll see just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Cheney has said publicly that he was unaware of Halliburtonâ€™s accounting machinations while he was CEO of the company. His Sgt. Schultz defense has been used before by the likes of Gary Winnick of Global Crossing, Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco, John Regas of Adelphia and Ken Lay of Enron, all of whom have been prosecuted by the Justice Department for cooking the books at their respective companies.

A story in the July 22, 2002 issue of Newsweek sets the record straight and proves that Cheney knew full well that Halliburton was engaging in accounting trickery to boost its stock and standing on Wall Street and he should be held accountable just like those other corporate evildoers.

In an interview with two of Newsweekâ€™s reporters, Halliburton CEO David Lesar defended his companyâ€™s bookkeeping and said that former CEO Dick Cheney was aware of the firm's accounting methods. Lesar says â€œCheney knew that the firm was counting projected cost-overrun payments as revenues, â€œThe vice president was aware of who owed us money, and he helped us collect it,â€? Lesar told Newsweek.

Wendy Hall, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, said at the time that â€œthe vice president was aware we accrued revenue on unapproved claims in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.â€?

By the way, those â€œgenerally accepted accounting principlesâ€? is what Enron used to cook its books and is why the companyâ€™s top two leaders have been charged with a whole of range of crimes by the Justice Department.

Just as disturbing is the fact that Cheney had now defunct auditor, Arthur Anderson, which unraveled in 2002 after the company was found guilty of obstruction of justice for destroying documents related to its role in the Enron debacle, approve Halliburtonâ€™s accounting methods. Cheney was so grateful to Anderson that he agreed to appear in a promotional video for Anderson and spoke glowingly about the company for going above and beyond routine audits for Halliburton.

â€œOne of the things I like that they do for us is that, in effect, I get good advice, if you will, from their people based upon how we're doing business and how we're operating, over and above the, just sort of the normal by-the-books audit arrangement,â€? said Cheney in the 1996 tape.

In a separate but equally corrupt act of corporate malfeasance, a French judge is pouring over evidence to determine whether Cheney may have been responsible under French law for at least one of four bribery payments exchanged between a Halliburton subsidiary and Nigerian officials to obtain contracts for liquefied natural projects. Under French law, â€œthe head of a company can be charged with 'misuse of corporate assets' for bribes paid by any employee - even if the executive didn't know about the improper payments.â€? The U.S. Justice Department is also investigating the issue.

As if that werenâ€™t enough to toss the vice president and his boss out of office, the Justice Department is also investigating whether Halliburton violated sanctions that prohibit U.S. corporations and businesses from engaging in commercial, financial, or trade transactions with Iran while Cheney headed the company. For the record, Cheney personally lobbied Congress in 1996 to lift those sanctions and when Congress denied the request Halliburton opened a Cayman Island subsidiary so it could do business in Iran by skirting U.S. law.

In July 2004, a federal grand jury issued a subpoena to Halliburton seeking information about its work in Iran. Government officials told the Washington Post such cases are referred to Justice only when there is evidence "intentional or willful" violations have occurred.

The Washington Post summed up Cheneyâ€™s tenure at Halliburton this way on July 16, 2002 following revelations that the vice president made a $35 million windfall from his sales of Halliburton stock, right before the companyâ€™s share price crashed on the announcement that it was being investigated by a grand jury related to the company overbilling the federal government for its work at Fort Ord in California (which also took place under Cheneyâ€™s watch), an issue that is identical to current charges that the company has overbilled the government for its work in Iraq.

â€œThe developments at Halliburton since Cheney's departure leave two possibilities: Either the vice president did not know of the magnitude of problems at the oilfield services company he ran for five years, or he sold his shares in August 2000 knowing the company was likely headed for a fall.â€?

Either way, the more evidence that surfaces related to Cheneyâ€™s role at Halliburton the more it becomes clear that the vice president is unfit to serve a second term in the White House.

Jason Leopold is the former Los Angeles bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires where he spent two years covering the energy crisis and the Enron bankruptcy. He just finished writing a book about the crisis, due out in December through Rowman & Littlefield.

========================

BillyBob

August 20th, 2004, 06:28 PM

I remember exactly why Cheney sold his Haliburton stock, he was pressured by the liberal media to do so and he complied in order to not have a conflict of interest between his Vice Presidency and his business holdings!

Geez, you guys are never satisfied! Need I remind you about the 'Elk Hill' scandal (http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS9-00MQC/9-28-2000.1.html) in which Al Gore owned a million dollars worth of stock in a company [Occidental Oil] that Bill Clinton sold government property to?

aikido7

August 21st, 2004, 09:39 AM

remember exactly why Cheney sold his Haliburton stock, he was pressured by the liberal media to do so and he complied in order to not have a conflict of interest between his Vice Presidency and his business holdings!

I'm sure it all looks good on paper, BillyBob.
And you're so right. It IS all about Clinton. Thanks so much for keeping us on track.

aikido7

August 21st, 2004, 09:42 AM

Bush's strategy is similar to Hitler's

Skeptic, how dare you compare Bush to Hitler. In his first three years of power, Hitler had not invaded a single country.

Bush has already invaded two.

And Bush does not have a mustache.

aikido7

August 21st, 2004, 09:51 AM

http://www.counterpunch.org/

The fact that Cheney receives hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from Halliburton yet is in some mysterious manner not associated with Halliburton cuts no ice in downtown Baghdad, or anywhere else, for that matter. The Iraqis realize they have been taken for a humiliating ride, and that the vice-president of the United States is personally involved in their degradation. The best thing that multi-millionaire Cheney could have done for his country was to say that he wouldn't take Halliburton's million dollars. ("Cheney's financial disclosure filings with the Office of Government Ethics listed $205,298 in deferred salary payments made to him by Halliburton in 2001 and another $162,393 in 2002. The filings indicated that he was scheduled to receive more payments in 2003, 2004, and 2005.") Rather he should have announced that he would forfeit it in the interests of personal honor and America's dignity. He doesn't need the money, after all, being already a very wealthy man. But he is also a stubborn, dark and nasty-minded creep to whom the very notion of backing down from a morally indefensible position smacks of personal surrender rather than a pragmatic and honorable decision. In this he epitomizes the entire Bush administration ethos, right down to the rotten core of its basic moral cowardice.

BillyBob

August 21st, 2004, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by aikido7

I'm sure it all looks good on paper, BillyBob.
And you're so right. It IS all about Clinton. Thanks so much for keeping us on track.

Translation: "You got me there. Since I don't have a single point in which I can dispute your post I will try my standard technique of misdirection and hope that nobody notices."

BillyBob

August 21st, 2004, 12:52 PM

Clinton-Gore Appears to have Authorized the Sale of Elk Hills Naval Petroleum to Gore's Friends at Occidental

Talk Show Challenge Leads to Interesting Find on Gore's Occidental Petroleum Stock

By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsources.com)

September 28, 2000

Early this morning I was Mark Edward's guest on Take Back Our Country on KDWN in Las Vegas, NV to talk about my recent article that outlined the incredibly cozy relationship between Al Gore and Occidental Petroleum. During the show I was reading from a presentation made September 6, 2000 by Occidental's president, Dr. Dale Laurance at a CEO energy conference in which he reported the incredible profits from the company's acquisition of the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserves in 1998.

While I was on the air, a caller challenged me to explain why the Republican Congress wasn't just as guilty as Al Gore in selling the Reserve to Gore's friends at Occidental Petroleum. That prompted me to search for the authorization of Congress that Charles Lewis from the Center of Public Integrity and author of The Buying of the President 2000, said had been voted on. He also said that there was competitive bidding and 22 bids were received. So far, I have found no evidence of a bill passed by Congress authorizing the sale, although one was introduced. It never got out of committee.

However, Laurance reported that Occidental DID acquire Elk Hills:

"With the recent acquisition of Altura, we are now the largest oil producer in the state of Texas. The Altura properties complement our other holdings in the Permian Basin, which have been consolidated as Oxy Permian.

"In California we have assembled a large portfolio of exploration and production acreage since our acquisition of Elk Hills in 1998."

Two years ago Occidental acquired the proven oil reserve at Elk Hills in California for a mere $3.67 billion, which is about $78,085 an acre. That's an incredibly low price for proven oil wells. The transaction, made as part of what we've been told was one of Gore's "reinventing government" plans, sold the oil land to a very old and dear friend of Al Gore's, and a company in which he owns a large amount of stock. In fact, in 1992 the value of stock owned by Al Gore's family in Occidental Petroleum Stock was listed at $680,000.

On January 26, 1996, Senator Dale Bumpers of Arkansas introduced a bill, HR 1530, to create a Government corporation to own and operate the Naval Petroleum Reserves, and Naval Oil Shale Reserves and prepare for the privatization of the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum reserve. The bill did not get out of Committee.

On March 5, 1996, an executive communication to the House of Representatives, stated:

"2175. A letter from the Secretary of Energy, transmitting notification of the Department's intention to contract the sale of Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1, also known as the Elk Hills Reserve without providing for the use of competitive procedures; to the Committee on National Security

So far, that was the only reference to the actual procedures of the sale that I have been able to find in Congressional records. The Environmental Impact study required by law before the transaction, was written by ICF Kaiser International, which had, on its board of director's, Al Gore's campaign manager, Tony Coelho.

In June Al Gore brought up the fact that oil companies were making quite a bit of money and linked George W. Bush to the problem of higher gas prices, accusing him of "being a good friend to oil and gas companies," because oil companies, especially small, independent oil producers, contributed to Bush's campaign. Somehow, the people were encouraged to believe, that made Bush responsible for the increase in gas prices at the pump. Gore called for an "investigation."

While the "investigation" never actually amounted to anything, my own investigation has certain uncovered some interesting facts, which Mark Edwards' listeners found fascinating.

It seems that Occidental Petroleum, which is the largest oil producer in Texas, not the small independents that George W. Bush has worked with, has gone from a profit of $36 million in the fourth quarter of 1998 when they purchased Elk Hills, the largest transfer of public property to a private company in US history, to $557 million in the second quarter of 2000. The profit increase for Occidental Petroleum from that helpful little bit of "reinventing government" was 1547% in 6 quarters, or 18 months.

Laurance reported this month that:

"Elk Hills is a major acquisition which we completed in early 1998. By the end of this year we expect cumulative free cash flow, after accounting for capital expenditures, to rise to an estimated $1.2 billion - at current strip prices."

Ot

her areas of interest, where Occidental Petroleum has acquired or is poised to acquire oil and natural gas wells, include Colombia, Indonesia and Libya. Of the Indonesian property Laurance said,

"Another example of a transitional asset is the giant Tangguh gas project in Indonesia, which has the potential to become a core asset. This is the premier natural gas project in Asia. The project is supported by 14.5 trillion cubic feet of proved reserves. Oxy's share is 2.3 trillion cubic feet. These reserve additions will more than double Oxy's worldwide gas reserves to 4.2 trillion cubic feet."

In June, ABC reported:

June 19 - "Citing evidence of rapidly rising profits, Vice President and presidential candidate Al Gore said big oil companies should be more aggressively investigated for price gouging and colluding, as gas prices are hitting record highs across the country.

" 'I think its time for a much broader investigation,' Gore told ABCNEWS in an interview today.

" 'I just learned that soon the figures will be announced that the big oil companies' profits have gone up 500 percent in the first part of this year, just at the time when these prices are going sky high in the Midwest. I think that justifies a much broader investigation into possible collusion, price gouging and antitrust violations,' he said.

"Gore's comments come as U.S. motorists are fuming over having to pay more than $2 per gallon, roughly double what it was a year ago."

The media, of course, didn't think to investigate Al Gore and his ties with Occidental Petroleum. Occidental Petroleum profits went from $65 million in March of 1999 when the Clinton-Gore administration began bombing Yugoslavia to $557 million in July 1999.

The caller on the Mark Edwards show asked me if the Republicans weren't just as "guilty" as Al Gore, since they approved the huge military bill that Charles Lewis said enabled Occidental to purchase the Elk Hill Naval Petroleum Reserve.

The answer to that is "no." First, so far I haven't been able to find any bill voted on by members of Congress that authorized the sale of Elk Hill Naval Petroleum Reserve. The bill introduced by Dale Bumpers in January 1996 never passed. The huge defense appropriations bill H.R.3230 which was introduced April 1996 by Rep. Spence has no provision for the sale of Elk Hill oil rights and property. . It's only provision allows for the sale of the OIL from Elk Hill at 90% of the world market price.

The only authorization I can find for the sale of the entire facility came from the Executive branch - not Congress. The Clinton-Gore Administration appears to have merely INFORMED Congress, and those messages are read usually when there's rarely more than a half-dozen members present, not ASKED congress. Whatever transpired, there was no debate in Congress on the subject and no approval BY Congress for the sale to Occidental that I can find. Apparently it was done entirely within the Executive Branch, just as was the case in the 1920s in the Teapot Dome scandal.

So, what we have is the largest transfer of public land to a private party in the history of the United States taking place at the same time the same administration has seized huge amounts of land for "memorials" - some of which was land with valuable minerals and oil shale on them.

There was no member of Congress, with the possible exception of Sen. Dale Bumpers, who seemed to be within the circle of those making the deal. Republican members of congress did not own large amounts of Occidental Stock and, besides, I can find no record of a vote on the subject of the transfer of Elk Hills to Al Gore's friends at Occidental.

Perhaps during the debate next week a couple of questions on this could be asked Al Gore on this subject. Like, "Mr. Gore, you and your family have had a long association with Occidental Petroleum, since your father was a member of its board of directors. Could you tell us exactly who authorized the sale of the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum reserve's 47,000 acres to Occidental for only $3.67 billion?

BillyBob

August 21st, 2004, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by aikido7

http://www.counterpunch.org/

The fact that Cheney receives hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from Halliburton yet is in some mysterious manner not associated with Halliburton cuts no ice in downtown Baghdad, or anywhere else, for that matter. The Iraqis realize they have been taken for a humiliating ride, and that the vice-president of the United States is personally involved in their degradation. The best thing that multi-millionaire Cheney could have done for his country was to say that he wouldn't take Halliburton's million dollars. ("Cheney's financial disclosure filings with the Office of Government Ethics listed $205,298 in deferred salary payments made to him by Halliburton in 2001 and another $162,393 in 2002. The filings indicated that he was scheduled to receive more payments in 2003, 2004, and 2005.") Rather he should have announced that he would forfeit it in the interests of personal honor and America's dignity. He doesn't need the money, after all, being already a very wealthy man. But he is also a stubborn, dark and nasty-minded creep to whom the very notion of backing down from a morally indefensible position smacks of personal surrender rather than a pragmatic and honorable decision. In this he epitomizes the entire Bush administration ethos, right down to the rotten core of its basic moral cowardice.

You've got to be kidding! Cheney made an astonishingly paltry amount from Haliburton and you guys are accusing him of being corrupt? Your article says Cheney 'receives hundreds of thousands of dollars a year' and then goes on to report that Cheney only made $162,393 in one year. Do you see the deliberate misdirection and all out deception here??? No...no...no? Michael Moore would be proud. :aikido:

If it's corruption you're looking for, go investigate Terry McAweful and his miraculous earnings of 17 million with a measly $100,000 investment in Global Crossing. :doh:

Or maybe Hillary's $100,000 windfall from a $1,000 investment in, what was it, cattle futures? :doh:

Oh, and let's not forget 'White Water' where Clinton's 2 business partners ended up in prison. :doh:

aikido7

August 21st, 2004, 01:16 PM

then goes on to report that Cheney only made $162,393 in one year. Do you see the deliberate misdirection and all out deception here???

Do you see your superficial reading and your jump to erroneous conclusions? Cheney did not MAKE only that $162,000! That little amount was paid to him by Haliburton.

Cheney is a millionaire.

And it's not only Clinton's fault, but Hillary's and McAllif's as well. Why don't you sue Adam and Eve? They started all this.

--------------------------------------------------

"I'm the commander--see. I don't need to explain--I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

BillyBob

August 21st, 2004, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by aikido7

Do you see your superficial reading and your jump to erroneous conclusions? Cheney did not MAKE only that $162,000! That little amount was paid to him by Haliburton.

I am simply quoting your article. Maybe you should read them before you post them.

Cheney is a millionaire.

Yes, he is worth somewhere around 75 million! Good for him. Do you have a point, or are you just throwing out a few random thoughts?

And it's not only Clinton's fault, but Hillary's and McAllif's as well. Why don't you sue Adam and Eve? They started all this.

Ah, I can always tell when you have no point to make, you start to ramble nonsensically.

Skeptic

August 21st, 2004, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by aikido7

Skeptic, how dare you compare Bush to Hitler. In his first three years of power, Hitler had not invaded a single country.

Bush has already invaded two.

And Bush does not have a mustache. Please accept my humble apology.

:chuckle:

HerodionRomulus

August 21st, 2004, 05:02 PM

I would be quite happy to make "only...$162,393 in one year" but the greedy and immoral are never happy, regardless of how much they steal.

BillyBob

August 21st, 2004, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

I would be quite happy to make "only...$162,393 in one year" but the greedy and immoral are never happy, regardless of how much they steal.

So now it has become immoral to earn a measly $162,000 a year?

Typical commie. :down:

If you would be happy to earn that much in a year, then why do you berate another man for earning the same amount? Is it OK for you to earn that much but not Cheney?

Sounds extremely hypocritical. Of course, that is the basis of liberalism.

BillyBob

August 21st, 2004, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic

Please accept my humble apology.

No.

aikido7

August 22nd, 2004, 02:48 PM

WHY BUSH SHOULD BE I M P E A C H E D

First off, it will have to happen in his second term. Impeachment is a long process.

Secondly, here are a few reasons.... And remember, it takes awhile for the truth to come out. Since liars are not like the rest of us, they usually forget their original lies, since they build their present lies on a long, pathetic foundation of them.

If the media and American citizens don't get Bush, history will...

To illustrate just how out of touch the President has been on national security issues, consider the summer before 9/11, while Bush received warnings of an imminent terrorist (not ICBM) attack, he actually threatened to veto an urgent request to shift $800 million from missile defense into critical counter-terrorism programs.

KEEPING AMERICA SAFER? RIGHT!!!!!!

So Bush has not only failed to safeguard vulnerable terrorist targets at home, he has actively blocked government initiatives to safeguard the most dangerous materials that could be used in a terrorist attack.

To those who keep informed about all of this, nothing new.

According to the nonpartisan Working Group on Community Right-to-Know, the Bush administration has blocked an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiative to impose security measures for extremely hazardous chemicals stored at power plants across the country. So 3.5 million people living near these non-nuclear power plants continue to face the danger that a terrorist attack could send a cloud of toxic and lethal gas into their neighborhoods.

Opposition from chemical manufacturers has derailed a bill in Congress, the Chemical Security Act, which would have required facilities using the most dangerous chemicals to consider safer technologies and use them where practicable.

NO SURPRISE: Since 2000, the chemical industry has donated more than $17 million to President Bush and Republican congressional candidates.

They have also given more than $6 million in soft money to the Republican National Committee.

Let's forget about protecting us from terrorism, though, since it doesn't seem that important to Bush.

Recently, President Bush said he is working to restore, improve and protect millions of acres of wetlands.

But the Bush administration has actually done the reverse. It is no surprise to me and millions of others, but those who think Bush has restored honor and decency to the White House might be surprised.

As the Washington Post reports, the Bush administration "has allowed developers to drain thousands of acres of wetlands under a policy adopted last year." The study, which documents the administration policy, was conducted by four nonpartisan environmental watchdog groups and based on documents acquired through the Freedom of Information Act.

Bush's interpretation of a 2001 Supreme Court decision has ensured that developers are allowed to run roughshod over previous efforts to protect fragile wetlands.

When President Bush visited Michigan last week and said something like, "We've got to use our resources wisely, like water. It starts with keeping the Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes," I had to laugh.

Of course he attacked Kerry for supposedly equivocating on the issue, and said, "My position is clear: We're never going to allow diversion of Great Lakes water."

FLIP-FLOP ALERT!!!!!!!!!!

According to The Associated Press in July of 2001, "Bush said he wanted to talk to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien about piping [Great Lakes] water to parched states in the west and southwest."

Even though many experts sasid that it would set a bad precendent, Bush said something like a lot of people don't really need the water but "when you head South and West, we do need it."

SEE HOW THIS GUY OPERATES? ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WATER-CUTS to the POOR!.

Delmar

August 22nd, 2004, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by aikido7

If the media and American citizens don't get Bush, history will...

I'm quite sure your version of history says that Reagan was the 2nd worst president in US history next to Bush.

aikido7

August 22nd, 2004, 03:08 PM

I'm quite sure your version of history says that Reagan was the 2nd worst president in US history next to Bush.

I guess you are allowed to change the subject if you are bankrupt of ideas and arguments. Reagan was optimistic and made us feel good about being Americans.

Bush is just a bummer. And a liar.

Back on track now:

August 20th, 2004 6:19 pm

Bush Met by Protest in Traverse City, Michigan

On August 16th, 2004, George's campaign brought him to Traverse City, Michigan. He told the people of Michigan that the local economy is improving and that he "will never allow diversion of Great Lakes water.â€?

If he is doing so much to protect the Great Lakes and the local economy really is improving, why was his motorcade route lined with hundreds of protesters?

â€œPeople up here like a plainspoken fella,â€? said Bush.

deardelmar, read the FLIP-FLOP ALERT again in Post #1702.

And check out this video of the protest, shot by Ken Atkins:

http://ventingmedia.com/bush04/index_pd_lg.html

aikido7

August 22nd, 2004, 03:22 PM

One more reason of many:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/bushattack.php

Delmar

August 22nd, 2004, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by aikido7

As the Washington Post reports, the Bush administration "has allowed developers to drain thousands of acres of wetlands under a policy adopted last year." The study, which documents the administration policy, was conducted by four nonpartisan environmental watchdog groups and based on documents acquired through the Freedom of Information Act.

"nonpartisan" environmental watchdog groups blamed a "conservative" now that is a shock!

Bush's interpretation of a 2001 Supreme Court decision has ensured that developers are allowed to run roughshod over previous efforts to protect fragile wetlands. So you're saying the courts make the laws and the president interprets them?
When President Bush visited Michigan last week and said something like, "We've got to use our resources wisely, like water. It starts with keeping the Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes," I had to laugh.

Of course he attacked Kerry for supposedly equivocating on the issue, and said, "My position is clear: We're never going to allow diversion of Great Lakes water."

FLIP-FLOP ALERT!!!!!!!!!!

According to The Associated Press in July of 2001, "Bush said he wanted to talk to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien about piping [Great Lakes] water to parched states in the west and southwest."

Even though many experts sasid that it would set a bad precendent, Bush said something like a lot of people don't really need the water but "when you head South and West, we do need it."

SEE HOW THIS GUY OPERATES? ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WATER-CUTS to the POOR!.

Sounds to me like the Bush proposed an idea. Someone explained to him why it was a bad idea and he learned from it! That's just horrible!

Delmar

August 22nd, 2004, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by aikido7

I guess you are allowed to change the subject if you are bankrupt of ideas and arguments. Reagan was optimistic and made us feel good about being Americans.

You brought up how history is going to treat Bush. How is it changing the subject to ask your view of how history treats another "conservative" president. You side step the question well enough with the "optimistic" line but do you or do you not think Regan was a lousy President.

BillyBob

August 22nd, 2004, 04:21 PM

Hey Delmar, it is a standard tactic of liberals to accuse Conservatives of the exact things the liberals themselves are guilty of.

Delmar

August 22nd, 2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by BillyBob

Hey Delmar, it is a standard tactic of liberals to accuse Conservatives of the exact things the liberals themselves are guilty of.

Can you believe that guy tried to get me off his trail by saying...Originally posted by aikido7
Reagan was optimistic and made us feel good about being Americans. You know darn well evrey time Reagan made a speech he was turning purple and shouting LIAR LIAR LIAR!!!

BillyBob

August 22nd, 2004, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by deardelmar You know darn well evrey time Reagan made a speech he was turning purple and shouting LIAR LIAR LIAR!!!

I don't know how old Aikido is, he may not have been following politics during the Reagan Administration. Most of what I know about Reagan is stuff I have learned after Reagan was out of office. I do remember liking the man, though.

Delmar

August 22nd, 2004, 05:05 PM

a lot of people I saw turning purple and shouting LIAR LIAR LIAR!!! when Regan spoke didn't follow pollitics. They just knew conservatives wanted to cut taxes for the rich starve children and "rape the earth" !

aikido7

August 23rd, 2004, 12:19 AM

lot of people I saw turning purple and shouting LIAR LIAR LIAR!!! when Regan spoke didn't follow pollitics. They just knew conservatives wanted to cut taxes for the rich starve children and "rape the earth" !

If they actually thought that conservatives just want to cut taxes and felt that the rich starve children and "rape the earth," I might get purple, too.

Wouldn't you as well, deardelmar? Can you be honest and consider what I have said?

That's why getting across real facts is so much better than insulting or mocking someone. And the only reason I know this is that I have done (and DO!) the same thing myself.

Delmar

August 23rd, 2004, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by aikido7

If they actually thought that conservatives just want to cut taxes and felt that the rich starve children and "rape the earth," I might get purple, too.

Wouldn't you as well, deardelmar? Can you be honest and consider what I have said?

That's why getting across real facts is so much better than insulting or mocking someone. And the only reason I know this is that I have done (and DO!) the same thing myself. Unless they need to be mocked you commie!

Skeptic

August 23rd, 2004, 05:36 PM

Bush, always forward thinking:

Video: Forward thinking (http://www.depresident.com/gallery/media/bush-harm.mov)

Skeptic

October 7th, 2004, 05:53 PM

====================
Published on Wednesday, October 6, 2004 by JuanCole.com
Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bremer: Deserting a Sinking Ship
by Juan Cole

How to understand the sudden outbreak of candor among Bush administration officials (or former officials) about Iraq in the past couple of days?

In the vice presidential debate on Tuesday evening, Dick Cheney said, "I have not suggested there's a connection between iraq and 9/11." Well, maybe not in so many words, but Cheney hinted around about this sort of thing relentlessly.

E.g. consider this from an appearance on Meet the Press:

"Cheney: "If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." [NBC, Meet the Press, 11/14/03]

It is hard to read this statement in any other way than that Cheney mistakenly thought Iraq was the "geographic base" of al-Qaeda. So why is Cheney backtracking now? It is because before, he could get away with saying these things despite their falsehood, because no one was seriously challenging him and the press did not want to get out ahead of a major political figure. But now it is the election season, such that the press can always find a legitimate counter-voice. In this situation where you cannot depend on a monopoly over official information, it starts to become dangerous to lie outright, because you know an opponent will call you on it and maybe weaken your credibility.

On Monday, remarks of L. Paul Bremer were released AP reports that he said of the looting in April-May 2003,

"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," Bremer said during an address to an insurance group. It released a summary of his remarks in Washington. "We never had enough troops on the ground," Bremer said, while insisting that he was "more convinced than ever that regime change was the right thing to do."

CNN notes some backtracking:

"Bremer attempted to clarify his comments in a statement released Tuesday, saying his remarks referred only to "the situation as I found it on the ground, when I arrived in Baghdad in May 2003, and when I believed we needed either more Coalition troops or Iraqi security forces to address the looting."

The problem is that a statement like "we never had enough troops on the ground," if it is what he said, cannot possibly refer only to May, 2003. It seems to be a more honest evaluation of Bremer's year in Iraq.

Bremer's remark clearly puts the blame for the Iraq quagmire squarely on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, the two architects of the new Pentagon policy of "small force wars." Both were harsh to Gen. Shinseki for daring to suggest that pacifying Iraq would require 300,000 troops. Actually, this is already a low estimate. Calculating on the basis of the situation in the Balkans, some security specialists at the National Security Council estimated in spring of 2003 that 500,000 troops would be needed. In contrast, Rumsfeld forced the Joint Chiefs of Staff to accept an invasion force of only 100,000, which was good enough to win the war but not enough to secure the peace.

Why did Bremer speak out now in the middle of the election season? It may just have been an error of judgment on his part. He was speaking to an insurance association in West Virginia, and may not have intended his remarks to become public. As for the substance of his original statement, it is clearly an attempt on his part to begin shifting some of the blame for the Iraq debacle from himself onto other players, chiefly Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Bremer's place in history, not to mention any future career in Washington, depends on his ability to convince analysts that he was not principally at fault for how things went bad in Iraq.

I remember there being rumors that Bremer pressed Washington for more troops in summer of 2003, to no avail, so he could be settling scores on that rebuff.

Then there was this amazing admission by Rumsfeld at a news conference:

QUESTIONER: My name is Glenn Hutchins. Mr. Secretary, what exactly was the connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda?

RUMSFELD: I tell you, I'm not going to answer the question. I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over the period of a year in the most amazing way. Second, there are differences in the intelligence community as to what the relationship was. To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.

Why did Rummy suddenly have this episode fo conscience? It may well be a sign of a rift with the Neoconservatives in the Pentagon. They made him look like a fool, and he seems happy to repudiate them. I suspect he is setting up the Neonservatives to take the fall, after the election, when he will ask for their resignations. And it won't be pro forma.

Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan
====================

aikido7

October 16th, 2004, 02:53 AM

Unless they need to be mocked

unbelievable.

Jesus--please deliver me from your followers.

Frank Ernest

October 16th, 2004, 04:36 AM

"Jesus--please deliver me from your followers. "

John 9:39-41

HerodionRomulus

October 18th, 2004, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

"Jesus--please deliver me from your followers. "

John 9:39-41

As usual, the context is ignored so that the meaning can be perverted to match the poster's lust for hatred and despite.

Jesus was speaking to the religious leaders who felt that they alone were correct and were willing to use both verbal and physical violence to enforce conformity to their opinion.
Sound familiar?

If you want a passage to implement into your lifestyle try this:
"....Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;...." I Cor 6:4f NRSV

Gerald

October 18th, 2004, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by HerodionRomulus
If you want a passage to implement into your lifestyle try this:
"....Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;...." I Cor 6:4f NRSV They tried that, but gave up because it wasn't working...

Skeptic

November 2nd, 2004, 03:58 AM

Is there still time to impeach Bush? :confused:

Frank Ernest

November 2nd, 2004, 04:53 AM

"Stop the lies about war and terrorism!!"

Vote for Bush!

Skeptic

November 2nd, 2004, 05:38 AM

Bush is such a liar, his pants are on fire!

Vote for Kerry! :thumb:

BillyBob

November 2nd, 2004, 05:55 AM

:banana: VOTE FOR BUSH!!!!! :banana:

Gerald

November 2nd, 2004, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by BillyBob

:banana: VOTE FOR BUSH!!!!! :banana: How much will you pay me? :greedy: :greedy:

BillyBob

November 2nd, 2004, 01:11 PM

How many times will you vote?

Skeptic

December 28th, 2004, 05:44 PM

Just because most Americans have been hoodwinked by the right-wing fear mongers in our government and culture, and just because it is unlikely to happen, given the right-wing make-up of Congress, all of the reasons I cited earlier in this thread for why Bush should be impeached still holds true.

BillyBob

December 28th, 2004, 05:58 PM

:yawn:

Skeptic

December 28th, 2004, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by BillyBob

:yawn: Tired of hearing it? Tough. Get used to it. I can't think of one President who deserves more to be impeached than Bush!

Frank Ernest

December 28th, 2004, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic

Tired of hearing it? Tough. Get used to it. I can't think of one President who deserves more to be impeached than Bush!

:darwinsm:

Commie.

Skeptic

December 28th, 2004, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Commie. Fascist.

BillyBob

December 28th, 2004, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
I can't think of one President who deserves more to be impeached than Bush!

Bill Clinton.........

Frank Ernest

December 28th, 2004, 06:28 PM

:skeptic: = commie traitor

keypurr

December 28th, 2004, 10:49 PM

Tired of hearing it? Tough. Get used to it. I can't think of one President who deserves more to be impeached than Bush!

I AGREE, IMPEACH BUSH.

titan

December 29th, 2004, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic

I can't think of one President who deserves more to be impeached than Bush!

Generally, in order to be impeached one must first commit a crime. (Not just something Skeptic and his buddies think is wrong, but an actual illegal act.) Like perjury or obstruction of justice for instance. Murder would also qualify. Sending troops to fight an undeclared war which was authorized by Congress would not qualify.

Just for fun a partial list of presidents more deserving of impeachment than Bush follows. (An asterisk * is added if they actually should have been impeached, otherwise they are just "more deserving")

Bill Clintion , perjury, obstruction of justice*
Ronald Reagan, probably did know about Iran Contra IMO
Richard Nixon, watergate*
LBJ, cowardice unbecoming a president (Listen to his Vietnam era tapes, He did not believe we could win the war!?!? but sent in extra troops anyway.)
JFK, sleeping with East German spy, illegal drug use, Bay of Pigs*
Warrren Harding, teapot dome scandal
Teddy Roosevelt, invasion of foreign country for purpose of building his favorite canal
Grover Cleveland, various union busting military deployments
U.S. Grant, larcenies too numerous to mention
Abe Lincoln, illegal suspension of habeas corpus
Andrew Jackson, ignoring Supreme Court decision against Indian removal act (Trail of Tears)*

And while I would disagree, I would think Skeptic would want Truman to be impeached more than Bush. Skeptic complains that Bush has murdered Iraqi civilians. Sane people have to wonder how he could imagine that the accidental killing of civilians in Iraq could be worse than the purposeful nuking of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Titan

HerodionRomulus

December 29th, 2004, 01:56 PM

Obvious differences between Japan and Iraq is that Iraq did not attack the US without warning.
The US did not seek conflict with Japan, knowing that the European war was more than enough. Bush planned to conquor Iraq at least as early as Jan 21 2001.
Japan was warned about the bombings ahead of time in an effort to force their surrender and avoid more death. Bush planned to annex Iraq ( or at least it's oil) regardless.

BillyBob

December 29th, 2004, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

Obvious differences between Japan and Iraq is that Iraq did not attack the US without warning.

Iraq had been supporting terrorism for at least a decade, the US one of the main targets.

The US did not seek conflict with Japan, knowing that the European war was more than enough. Bush planned to conquor Iraq at least as early as Jan 21 2001.

Bush planned to remove Saddam and the Bathist regime.

Japan was warned about the bombings ahead of time in an effort to force their surrender and avoid more death.

Bush gave Saddam ample warning and even an opportunity to avoid war altogether, Saddam declined.

Bush planned to annex Iraq ( or at least it's oil) regardless.

:darwinsm:

Skeptic

December 29th, 2004, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by BillyBob

Bill Clinton......... I could care less whether a President lies to the American people about his sex life.

But when a President lies about the reasons for invading a country, during which tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children die unnecessarily, THIS I care about!!

BillyBob

December 29th, 2004, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic

I could care less whether a President lies to the American people about his sex life.

Ah, so a President lying to a judge is OK with you? A President obstructing justice is OK with you? A President denying a citizen a fair trial is OK with you?

But when a President lies about the reasons for invading a country, during which tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children die unnecessarily, THIS I care about!!

Yeah, we all get it. You are fine with a President who is a pathological liar but you don't like a President who protects US citizens and it's allies.

We get it, Skeptic, we get it. :rolleyes:

BillyBob

December 29th, 2004, 10:06 PM

Let me ask you this, CommieBoy:

When Bill Clinton stood in front of Congress and the American public and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", did he have 17 UN Resolutions proclaiming the same thing?

When Bill Clinton perjured himself in front of a judge and denied a woman a fair trial, did he have a unified, multi-latteral force behind him as well as a dozen years of Intelligence from many countries concurring with him?

When a Judge fined Bill Clinton almost a million dollars and disbarred him, did he have the backing of the rest of the free world because they knew he was doing what is best for freedom, democracy and the safety of humanity?

Skeptic

December 29th, 2004, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by titan

Generally, in order to be impeached one must first commit a crime. (Not just something Skeptic and his buddies think is wrong, but an actual illegal act.) Like perjury or obstruction of justice for instance. Murder would also qualify. Sending troops to fight an undeclared war which was authorized by Congress would not qualify. Perhaps there should be more reasons for impeachment than the Constitutions allows.

Bush: obstruction of international justice.
Bush: probably did know Iraq had no WMD, IMO.
Bush: recklessness unbecoming a president (He actually believed he could win the war in Iraq! He sent in extra troops to die unnecessarily anyway.)
Bush: illegal drug use, Invasion of Iraq.
Bush: prison abuse scandal (what did he do about it?)
Bush: invasion of foreign country for purpose of building his own political and economic capital, as well as that of his right-wing buddies.
Bush: unnecessary military deployments to invade Iraq.
Bush: supporting the Patriot Act; saying nothing when most members of sign it without even reading it.
Bush: ignoring international law

And while I would disagree, I would think Skeptic would want Truman to be impeached more than Bush. Skeptic complains that Bush has murdered Iraqi civilians. Sane people have to wonder how he could imagine that the accidental killing of civilians in Iraq could be worse than the purposeful nuking of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I think the nuking of Japanese cities at the end of WWII was wrong.

Frank Ernest

December 30th, 2004, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic

Perhaps there should be more reasons for impeachment than the Constitutions allows.

Bush: obstruction of international justice.
Bush: probably did know Iraq had no WMD, IMO.
Bush: recklessness unbecoming a president (He actually believed he could win the war in Iraq! He sent in extra troops to die unnecessarily anyway.)
Bush: illegal drug use, Invasion of Iraq.
Bush: prison abuse scandal (what did he do about it?)
Bush: invasion of foreign country for purpose of building his own political and economic capital, as well as that of his right-wing buddies.
Bush: unnecessary military deployments to invade Iraq.
Bush: supporting the Patriot Act; saying nothing when most members of sign it without even reading it.
Bush: ignoring international law
:yawn:

I think the nuking of Japanese cities at the end of WWII was wrong.
You would have preferred several hundreds of thousands of American and aliied casualties in a land invasion? Cool!

On Fire

December 30th, 2004, 08:55 AM

NEWSFLASH!!! Not only has Bush NOT been impeached....he's been RE-ELECTED!

BillyBob

December 30th, 2004, 09:02 AM

Here's another News Flash:

:sozo: Bill Clinton WAS Impeached!!!!

titan

December 31st, 2004, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by logos_x

I think the nuking of Japanese cities at the end of WWII was wrong.

So does this mean you think Truman should be ahead of Bush in the impeachment sweepstakes? If not, why not?

Address Jackson too if you will. The trail of tears was heap bad medicine, and he blatantly ignored a Supreme Court ruling to boot. "John Marshal made this law, let him enforce it."

How about them there pro-slavery presidents? Were they better than Bush too?

Titan

Frank Ernest

December 31st, 2004, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by titan

So does this mean you think Truman should be ahead of Bush in the impeachment sweepstakes? If not, why not?
Truman never did anything impeachable. I think he exercised very poor (typically lie-beral) judgment in dealing with the Korean War. Ending World War II with complete and total victory was good.

Address Jackson too if you will. The trail of tears was heap bad medicine, and he blatantly ignored a Supreme Court ruling to boot. "John Marshal made this law, let him enforce it."
Every President is gong to make unpopular decisions. That does not necessarily result in impeachable offenses. If you're curious about the Trail of Tears, read the history written by the Creeks and Cherokees, not the 20th-century lie-beral socialist pap.

How about them there pro-slavery presidents? Were they better than Bush too?

Titan
Now, don't bring that up! It causes severe brain-burn among lie-berals.

aikido7

December 31st, 2004, 02:48 PM

Visualize a special prosecutor

titan

January 1st, 2005, 03:39 AM

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Truman never did anything impeachable. I think he exercised very poor (typically lie-beral) judgment in dealing with the Korean War. Ending World War II with complete and total victory was good.

Every President is gong to make unpopular decisions. That does not necessarily result in impeachable offenses. If you're curious about the Trail of Tears, read the history written by the Creeks and Cherokees, not the 20th-century lie-beral socialist pap.

Now, don't bring that up! It causes severe brain-burn among lie-berals.

I agree with you on Truman.

I am trying to see if Skeptic is an actual liberal pacifist or just pathological Bush-hater. If he believes the principles he has used to justify impeaching Bush, then he will have to admit other presidents have been more at odds with those principles. Bush is neither the most conservative nor the most hawkish president ever.

I haven't read much new stuff on Jackson, but I have read Cherokee accounts of the removal and Crockett's autobiography.
Jackson does not come off particularly well from either of these sources. Crockett portrays him as a petty tyrant and I tend to agree. He did flat out disobey a Supreme Court ruling, and publicly dared the Supreme Court to do anything about it. The Court was weaker then. Nowadays, such actions would certainly be considered impeachable offenses.

titan

Frank Ernest

January 1st, 2005, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by titan

I agree with you on Truman.
Alrighty!

I am trying to see if Skeptic is an actual liberal pacifist or just pathological Bush-hater. If he believes the principles he has used to justify impeaching Bush, then he will have to admit other presidents have been more at odds with those principles. Bush is neither the most conservative nor the most hawkish president ever.
:skeptic: is probably both and he won't admit to anything more than his constant broken-record screed.

I haven't read much new stuff on Jackson, but I have read Cherokee accounts of the removal and Crockett's autobiography.
Jackson does not come off particularly well from either of these sources. Crockett portrays him as a petty tyrant and I tend to agree. He did flat out disobey a Supreme Court ruling, and publicly dared the Supreme Court to do anything about it. The Court was weaker then. Nowadays, such actions would certainly be considered impeachable offenses.

titan
Not really. The courts were instituted as the weakest of the three main branches of government. Jackson pointed out that the Supreme Court had no business overturning acts of the legislature and no enforcement power. No, Jackson was not the nicest of guys, but he did hold Constitutionally to the power of the Executive to enforce the acts of Congress and the separation of powers. Wasn't a big believer in Marbury v. Madison (1802) either.

What he did then would be impeachable now? I strongly doubt it. The Supreme Court is an appelate court and can neither impose nor enforce criminal sanctions. Nor would the congress come off very well attempting to impeach a President for doing what congress authorized him to do, regardless of how the Supremes felt about it.