Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Decker on June 04, 2009, 02:05:48 PM
-
In summary, the Bush administration knew they could not lie to the entire Congress and about something as serious as war (with Iraq). So they took the following measures:
-they first limited who would see intelligence to 8 people.
-they made sure that Bush loyalists were counted among those 8.
-a special group in the DOD called the Office of Special Plans was created to "find" evidence on Iraq and these very same people also briefed members of Congress (the 8 members of Congress)
-a special group was created in the White House to lie to the American people called the White House Iraq Group.
-the torture program was created to "fix the facts" around the "policy" to go to war with Iraq and those false confessions were used to brief the gang of 8 members of Congress.
-and they lied to the same 8 people about what the torture program was and its purpose. So worried was Cheney about controlling this flow of information that he personally stepped in to brief the gang of 8, as we now know.
As you can see, this is premeditated and a conspiracy to lie the nation into war. Torture was merely one of the mechanisms through which this was accomplished. This is the very definition of high crimes.
http://www.atlargely.com/atlargely/2009/06/control-of-the-lie-cheney-torture-and-the-iraq-war.html
This sort of conspiracy is the kind of shit that organized criminals do.
Occasionally I still run into people who believe Iraq was a threat b/c of hidden WMDs.
Let’s hope we continue down this road to flesh out the matter and see justice served.
-
Let me ask you this.Do you think the Bush administration went to Iraq for oil?I dont.I think Cheney wanted to force democracy down their throats so Isreal would be protected.I think Bush actually believed[and believes]that by fighting for Isreal,he could bring about the coming of Christ quicker.Thats just my take,but I think the two of them are nuts!I also think Obama is under a false impression.
There will be no getting along with Iran,Iraq etc.Not when you have nuts there who are hell bent on killing jews.
-
Bush is no longer the President..ur failure and shitbag appeaser is in charge.
-
What?? This reminds me of the old Japanese soldier whose submarine washed up on Gilligan’s Island and didn't realize WWII was over. :)
There is no more Bush Administration. The war's major offensives are done. WMDs are ancient history.
-
Let me ask you this.Do you think the Bush administration went to Iraq for oil?I dont.I think Cheney wanted to force democracy down their throats so Isreal would be protected.I think Bush actually believed[and believes]that by fighting for Isreal,he could bring about the coming of Christ quicker.Thats just my take,but I think the two of them are nuts!I also think Obama is under a false impression.
There will be no getting along with Iran,Iraq etc.Not when you have nuts there who are hell bent on killing jews.
I don't care what the motive was for the invasion. It doesn't matter for proving criminal culpability.
But to answer your question, there are billions and billions of reasons the invasion happened. Oil is just a small justification that coincidentally benefits the country.
-
Ur bitching about this...Barry is sinking us into debt, we bought GM...we bailed banks...on and on and on...and ur posting this crap? Bush derangement syndrome at its worst.
-
Bush is no longer the President..ur failure and shitbag appeaser is in charge.
Is it customary in this country to be soft on crime?
Is pretending nothing wrong happened OK b/c the perpetrator shares your political affiliation?
That's not how the legal system rolls.
-
What?? This reminds me of the old Japanese soldier whose submarine washed up on Gilligan’s Island and didn't realize WWII was over. :)
There is no more Bush Administration. The war's major offensives are done. WMDs are ancient history.
Is it customary in this country to be soft on crime?
Is pretending nothing wrong happened OK b/c the perpetrator shares your political affiliation?
That's not how the legal system rolls.
-
Is it customary in this country to be soft on crime?
Is pretending nothing wrong happened OK b/c the perpetrator shares your political affiliation?
That's not how the legal system rolls.
Depends on where the crime takes place and who is in charge.
Straw man question.
Dude you're going to get an ulcer. You never got over the fact Bush won in 2000 and haven't gotten over the fact he's no longer president. Not healthy.
-
Depends on where the crime takes place and who is in charge.
Straw man question.
Dude you're going to get an ulcer. You never got over the fact Bush won in 2000 and haven't gotten over the fact he's no longer president. Not healthy.
Not a straw man question.
Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.
In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that. The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man
How is the allegation of the Bush Adm. lying to Congress a straw man argument?
Bush/Cheney cause death and suffering for millions of people.
Apparently when faced with horrible facts like that, you roll over to catch some well-deserved rest.
I don't work that way.
-
Not a straw man question.
Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.
In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that. The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man
How is the allegation of the Bush Adm. lying to Congress a straw man argument?
Bush/Cheney cause death and suffering for millions of people.
Apparently when faced with horrible facts like that, you roll over to catch some well-deserved rest.
I don't work that way.
This equals straw man:
Is pretending nothing wrong happened OK b/c the perpetrator shares your political affiliation?
Nothing "wrong" happened. So the premise is wrong. There was no "perpetrator" either. And I don't have a political affiliation.
So . . . saying I am condoning a crime because someone shares my political affiliation = straw man.
-
This is starting to get comical. Bush did not lie to get us into war. EVERYONE thought Saddam Hussein had WMD. Bill Clinton thought he had the weapons, Madeline Albright thought he had the weapons, Putin thought he had them, Tony Blair thought he had them. Saddams own generals thought that he had them, and that is where the intelligence agencys were getting the info from. He used them before and when he was invaded he still had the infrastructure to be able to produce the weapns again within a short 5 weeks. 30 years from now this whole "no WMD" subject will be regarded as such a trivial notion.
-
This is starting to get comical. Bush did not lie to get us into war. EVERYONE thought Saddam Hussein had WMD. Bill Clinton thought he had the weapons, Madeline Albright thought he had the weapons, Putin thought he had them, Tony Blair thought he had them. Saddams own generals thought that he had them, and that is where the intelligence agencys were getting the info from. He used them before and when he was invaded he still had the infrastructure to be able to produce the weapns again within a short 5 weeks. 30 years from now this whole "no WMD" subject will be regarded as such a trivial notion.
Hey are you my gimmick? :D I've said this many times. Completely agree.
-
WMDs are ancient history.
There are lots of families around the world who still suffer to this day because of that "ancient history" misunderstanding.
-
Cry me a river.
-
This equals straw man:
Nothing "wrong" happened. So the premise is wrong. There was no "perpetrator" either. And I don't have a political affiliation.
So . . . saying I am condoning a crime because someone shares my political affiliation = straw man.
I repeat, that is not a straw argument. Why? B/c you argue nothing. You only deny.
Everyone has a political affiliation except for Beach Bum. The fascists, nihilists, socialists, etc. and the new entry into that paradigm - the Beach Bummists.
Nothing wrong happened? Oh I don't know, there seems to be a bit of contention about Iraq, torture, domestic spying, lying to congress, war profiteering, etc.
NOthing to see here according to Beach Bum.
Cheney admits to the crime of waterboarding in a national interview.
Beach Bum sees no problem.
A federal crime and a war crime is admitted and Beach Bum says, "nothing to see here".
5,000 dead soldiers, 100,000 dead Iraqis, 3 million displaced people, a ruined country, and 700 billion dollars gone b/c Bush ordered the attack based on...nothing.
Even though that occupation is still current, Beach Bum seems to think it's ancient history b/c Bush has been out of office for over 5 months.
In fact, it reminds him of the old Japanese soldier whose submarine washed up on Gilligan’s Island and didn't realize WWII was over.
That's a good episode. That's just like people accusing the Bush administration of war crimes.
And you have the stones to say I'm throwing out Straw Men arguments?
(http://apublicdefender.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/facepalm.jpg)
-
This is starting to get comical. Bush did not lie to get us into war. EVERYONE thought Saddam Hussein had WMD. Bill Clinton thought he had the weapons, Madeline Albright thought he had the weapons, Putin thought he had them, Tony Blair thought he had them. Saddams own generals thought that he had them, and that is where the intelligence agencys were getting the info from. He used them before and when he was invaded he still had the infrastructure to be able to produce the weapns again within a short 5 weeks. 30 years from now this whole "no WMD" subject will be regarded as such a trivial notion.
The WMD inspectors on the ground my have 'thought he had them" as well.
But, with their inspections, they found nothing to justify an attack.
On one hand we have your thoughts and estimates of WMDs in Iraq. In the other hand, we have WMD inspectors's cold hard facts that there are no wmds.
Are you trying to tell me that basing a war on uncorroborated estimates somehow justifies the invasion?
I hope that's not what you're saying.
-
The majority of Americans are for waterboarding and or keeping Gitmo open....nobody cares Decker. But should we go after Bush, lets go after Obama for stealing all our tax dollars. Lets make sure we nail his ass for all the unconstitutional...spend ing programs he has either passed or wants to pass. Nobody cares.....
-
The majority of Americans are for waterboarding and or keeping Gitmo open....nobody cares Decker. But should we go after Bush, lets go after Obama for stealing all our tax dollars. Lets make sure we nail his ass for all the unconstitutional...spend ing programs he has either passed or wants to pass. Nobody cares.....
Waterboarding is illegal.
The nation wants waterboarding? I don't think so.
AS for Gitmo, the fact that most of the Congress did not want to close it b/c we'd have relocated some of the detainees in US prisons shows me how rock bottom stupid our leaders are.
We have biggest most expensive and secure prisons on the planet....but we don't want those bad guys here...they might get out and attack us with box cutters.
Nobone is stealing your tax dollars. Obama has done nothing unconstitutional.
I wish I could say the same of the Bush adiministration. But that's impossible in light of Iraq, torture, domestic spying, etc.
Plenty of people care about the Bush administration's crimes. Don't confuse your apathy with the intentions of others. This will not go away any time soon.
-
Bush is no longer the President..ur failure and shitbag appeaser is in charge.
Perhaps a review of the chain of command is in order.
-
It doesn't matter that Bush is no longer in charge. He and his administration still committed high crimes, I don't just believe it, I know it just like many other people here. So just because he is no longer in power we shouldn't prosecute? Decker is right 100% on this issue.
This is actually one issue that truly PISSES ME OFF about Obama. His whole "let the past be the past" bullshit. He should be investigating the crimes that our own administration committed over the last eight years. We can't let things just go away.
-
eheheheh Decker tearing it up again!
-
It doesn't matter that Bush is no longer in charge. He and his administration still committed high crimes, I don't just believe it, I know it just like many other people here. So just because he is no longer in power we shouldn't prosecute? Decker is right 100% on this issue.
This is actually one issue that truly PISSES ME OFF about Obama. His whole "let the past be the past" bullshit. He should be investigating the crimes that our own administration committed over the last eight years. We can't let things just go away.
No crime has been committed. What part of that don't you understand?
Furthermore, the reason Obama has backed off is because, if nothing else, he knows he can't go after Bush and Cheney without having his girl, Nancy Pelosi (along with a whole lot of other DEMOCRATS) do the perp-walk right behind them.
-
I repeat, that is not a straw argument. Why? B/c you argue nothing. You only deny.
Everyone has a political affiliation except for Beach Bum. The fascists, nihilists, socialists, etc. and the new entry into that paradigm - the Beach Bummists.
Nothing wrong happened? Oh I don't know, there seems to be a bit of contention about Iraq, torture, domestic spying, lying to congress, war profiteering, etc.
NOthing to see here according to Beach Bum.
Cheney admits to the crime of waterboarding in a national interview.
Beach Bum sees no problem.
A federal crime and a war crime is admitted and Beach Bum says, "nothing to see here".
5,000 dead soldiers, 100,000 dead Iraqis, 3 million displaced people, a ruined country, and 700 billion dollars gone b/c Bush ordered the attack based on...nothing.
Even though that occupation is still current, Beach Bum seems to think it's ancient history b/c Bush has been out of office for over 5 months.
In fact, it reminds him of the old Japanese soldier whose submarine washed up on Gilligan’s Island and didn't realize WWII was over.
That's a good episode. That's just like people accusing the Bush administration of war crimes.
And you have the stones to say I'm throwing out Straw Men arguments?
(http://apublicdefender.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/facepalm.jpg)
I deny some of the nonsense (when I feel like it); ignore most. I only deny and engage when it's entertaining.
Everyone has a political affiliation? O Rly? Are you joking? (Hard to tell on the internet.)
Yes, nothing but straw men arguments.
You're a tad late on the whole war thing. It's done. Bush is gone. Maybe you should get some Bush toilet paper or something. Might help you deal with the Bush hatred.
There will be no prosecution for war crimes, save some fools in some foreign country who attempt some circus proceedings. He's off on the lecture circuit, making his millions like every former president.
-
No crime has been committed. What part of that don't you understand?
Furthermore, the reason Obama has backed off is because, if nothing else, he knows he can't go after Bush and Cheney without having his girl, Nancy Pelosi (along with a whole lot of other DEMOCRATS) do the perp-walk right behind them.
Yeah, sure thing buddy, an administration LYING to Congress and the American people for the reason for war. The outright ignoring of the warnings of 9/11 should fall under extreme negligence of responsibility. Patriot Act, the list goes on and on.
Do a little reading...can someone post up that quote that Bush said about Osama Bin Laden and how he didn't care where he was?
HH6...isn't that our mission? You're former Commander in Chief said he didn't care.
I don't care who does the "perp walk". The point is NOBODY is above the law and Bush and Cheney clearly thought they were. If Pelosi or other Dems have committed crimes then prosecute them too. I don't like Pelosi as much as the next person, but I haven't read or heard of any allegations of any illegal activity that she has been a part of.
-
You guys really dont have anything better to do, do you?
I heard a rumor that Bush faked the moon landing also. ::)
Why dont you guys organize a protest march on Jupiter? More people their will give a shit about what you're whining about on this message board.
-
It is pretty fucking ironic how the Bush/Cheney administration managed to kill more Americans than Osama bin Laden did on 9/11.
-
::)
It's pretty fucking ironic that a dipshit like you would make such an asinine comment. Way more people have died of influenza in this country in the past few years than died on 9/11 also. Congrats on a useless point, observation and stunning display of stupidity. Of course we all know that Bush deliberately killed thousands of Americans while he was president. He also used CIA weather manipulation to kill the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
At least the two or three brain cells you possess didn't prompt you to suggest 9/11 was an inside job.( Which is shocking)
-
::)
It's pretty fucking ironic that a dipshit like you would make such an asinine comment. Way more people have died of influenza in this country in the past few years than died on 9/11 also. Congrats on a useless point, observation and stunning display of stupidity. Of course we all know that Bush deliberately killed thousands of Americans while he was president. He also used CIA weather manipulation to kill the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
At least the two or three brain cells you possess didn't prompt you to suggest 9/11 was an inside job.( Which is shocking)
So intentional criminal killings equate with deaths attendant to disease?
Rush tried that shit and it didn't work. Why do you think it'll work now?
You ought to get together with Beach Bum to discuss your methods of straw argumentation.
Why? B/c anyone pointing out the obvious illegal, immoral bullshit of the Bush administration is really crazy. Why if Bush lied this country to an illegal war, he must control the weather too.
Stupid liberals.
-
I deny some of the nonsense (when I feel like it); ignore most. I only deny and engage when it's entertaining.
Everyone has a political affiliation? O Rly? Are you joking? (Hard to tell on the internet.)
Yes, nothing but straw men arguments.
You're a tad late on the whole war thing. It's done. Bush is gone. Maybe you should get some Bush toilet paper or something. Might help you deal with the Bush hatred.
There will be no prosecution for war crimes, save some fools in some foreign country who attempt some circus proceedings. He's off on the lecture circuit, making his millions like every former president.
I think I've figured you out. Whomever you voted for is inviolable.
It wasn't that the Clinton impeachment was a farce by any measure.
It was a farce b/c YOU voted for him.
It's not that Bush illegally spied on americans, authorized torture and started a war.
Bush is wrongly accused b/c you voted for him.
You are the common denominator in all this.
Any fact or circumstance that may implicate or indict 'your man' is automatically baseless and, as such, a waste of time.
In fact, you accuse the accusers of partisanship, insanity or the like.
I've thoroughly failed you here.
-
The majority of Americans are for waterboarding and or keeping Gitmo open....
You really believe this? For every poll that agrees with you, I can find one that doesn't... So, if that's the case, then It's probably 50/50.
You're making it very cut and dry when it's not.
-
There are lots of families around the world who still suffer to this day because of that "ancient history" misunderstanding.
Yep, what a senseless comment.
-
I think I've figured you out. Whomever you voted for is inviolable.
It wasn't that the Clinton impeachment was a farce by any measure.
It was a farce b/c YOU voted for him.
It's not that Bush illegally spied on americans, authorized torture and started a war.
Bush is wrongly accused b/c you voted for him.
You are the common denominator in all this.
Any fact or circumstance that may implicate or indict 'your man' is automatically baseless and, as such, a waste of time.
In fact, you accuse the accusers of partisanship, insanity or the like.
I've thoroughly failed you here.
That's a lot of work, but as they say on the board, "fail." :D
Are you maintaining that everyone has a political affiliation?
-
That's a lot of work, but as they say on the board, "fail." :D
Are you maintaining that everyone has a political affiliation?
Oh no, my analysis is 'win'.
You're appalling and lazy acceptance of the evil wrought by 'your president' is the ultimate fail b/c you surrender that which is best for that which is worst - the constant engagement and revaluation of what is is replaced with the 'virtue' of hiding in your unassailable 'perfect' close-minded shell. Now that's an epic failure.
That's the irony.
Every human's political leanings can be categorized. Does that lock a person into a certain way of being? No. That's high school.
-
This is starting to get comical. Bush did not lie to get us into war. EVERYONE thought Saddam Hussein had WMD. Bill Clinton thought he had the weapons, Madeline Albright thought he had the weapons, Putin thought he had them, Tony Blair thought he had them. Saddams own generals thought that he had them, and that is where the intelligence agencys were getting the info from. He used them before and when he was invaded he still had the infrastructure to be able to produce the weapns again within a short 5 weeks. 30 years from now this whole "no WMD" subject will be regarded as such a trivial notion.
Since when is having WMDs a sufficient reason to invade, attack, & destroy a sovereign country that did nothing to you?
-
The majority of Americans are for waterboarding and or keeping Gitmo open....nobody cares Decker. But should we go after Bush, lets go after Obama for stealing all our tax dollars. Lets make sure we nail his ass for all the unconstitutional...spend ing programs he has either passed or wants to pass. Nobody cares.....
Obama isn't stealing your tax dollars. Bush already did that. Obama is just having the fed print more money. :D
-
No he's stealing our tax dollars in a way never seen in the US.
-
No he's stealing our tax dollars in a way never seen in the US.
Stealing?
He's using our tax dollars in a way you don't think is right.
-
I think I've figured you out. Whomever you voted for is inviolable.
It wasn't that the Clinton impeachment was a farce by any measure.
It was a farce b/c YOU voted for him.
It's not that Bush illegally spied on americans, authorized torture and started a war.
Bush is wrongly accused b/c you voted for him.
You are the common denominator in all this.
Any fact or circumstance that may implicate or indict 'your man' is automatically baseless and, as such, a waste of time.
In fact, you accuse the accusers of partisanship, insanity or the like.
I've thoroughly failed you here.
Yup, about sums BB up.
-
Stealing?
He's using our tax dollars in a way you don't think is right.
Yeah..stealing...where does it say anywhere we need to bail out anybody. Bush was wrong and this guy is worse.
-
Yeah..stealing...where does it say anywhere we need to bail out anybody. Bush was wrong and this guy is worse.
Where does it say we need 800 military bases garrisoned across the globe? How does that benefit the average American? I would call that theft as well.
-
Where does it say we need 800 military bases garrisoned across the globe? How does that benefit the average American? I would call that theft as well.
This is a valid point... It sure wasn't required before 1941.
-
This is a valid point... It sure wasn't required before 1941.
No, it wasn't that bad back then. The same man who was the butcher of Guatemala and the source of the 1953 Iran coup did have something to say about this:
-
Yeah..stealing...where does it say anywhere we need to bail out anybody. Bush was wrong and this guy is worse.
Where does it say bailing someone/thing out is stealing?
Don't let the propaganda run amok
-
Where does it say bailing someone/thing out is stealing?
Don't let the propaganda run amok
Government waste, whether overspending, bailouts or empire costs, is most certainly theft.
-
Government waste, whether overspending, bailouts or empire costs, is most certainly theft.
How so? Sounds like charity and incompetence to me.
-
No, it wasn't that bad back then. The same man who was the butcher of Guatemala and the source of the 1953 Iran coup did have something to say about this:
It was hatched under Truman.....
-
It was hatched under Truman.....
Sure, but Eisenhower went along with it.
-
How so? Sounds like charity and incompetence to me.
Please, Obama/Geithner is simply carrying forward Bush/Paulson started.
Read about what is going on with the Fed. Reserve. they know exactly what they are doing.
And yes, this is stealing.
-
Please, Obama/Geithner is simply carrying forward Bush/Paulson started.
Read about what is going on with the Fed. Reserve. they know exactly what they are doing.
And yes, this is stealing.
Again, can someone explain to me how this is "stealing."
And if it is stealing how come no one has been charged with theft/embezzlement?
-
Again, can someone explain to me how this is "stealing."
And if it is stealing how come no one has been charged with theft/embezzlement?
By printing more dollars like they are, they are devaluing the worth of the dollars you already have.
Literally, the dollar in your pocket is worth a lot less than it was even 200 days ago.
They are stealing the worth of your money by printing trillions of phoney money.
-
Since when is having WMDs a sufficient reason to invade, attack, & destroy a sovereign country that did nothing to you?
Quote for stupidity and insanity
-
By printing more dollars like they are, they are devaluing the worth of the dollars you already have.
Literally, the dollar in your pocket is worth a lot less than it was even 200 days ago.
They are stealing the worth of your money by printing trillions of phoney money.
that's theft? ???
NO.
That's a solution to a crisis that you don't agree with.
-
that's theft? ???
NO.
That's a solution to a crisis that you don't agree with.
That's your answer?
So the drug addict who is broke and tries to steal from my house is simply engaging in a solution to his problem that I dont agree with???
Its the same thing.
-
That's your answer?
So the drug addict who is broke and tries to steal from my house is simply engaging in a solution to his problem that I dont agree with???
Its the same thing.
No it isn't because Obama and the government can LEGALLY do what it is doing and they are in charge of it. The Drug addict can't.
-
No it isn't because Obama and the government can LEGALLY do what it is doing. The Drug addict can't.
Oh really????
Do you have a clue how the Federal Reserve operates????
-
Oh no, my analysis is 'win'.
You're appalling and lazy acceptance of the evil wrought by 'your president' is the ultimate fail b/c you surrender that which is best for that which is worst - the constant engagement and revaluation of what is is replaced with the 'virtue' of hiding in your unassailable 'perfect' close-minded shell. Now that's an epic failure.
That's the irony.
Every human's political leanings can be categorized. Does that lock a person into a certain way of being? No. That's high school.
I understand what you're trying to do. We have a need to label people. When we meet someone, we need to be able to determine whether they are male or female, their race, political affiliation, religious beliefs, educational level, etc. It helps many people with their own comfort zone. People can be somewhat insecure if they're unable to apply the appropriate label. I see it all the time. I try and avoid it, but I do it. Although I'm not nearly as extreme as you are when it comes to applying labels, etc.
That said, no everyone does not have a political affiliation.
-
Oh really????
Do you have a clue how the Federal Reserve operates????
Is anyone breaking the law?
-
Is anyone breaking the law?
Dude wake up, The Federal Reserve is not even accountable to the people you elected the Congress.
Read up on this.
-
Dude wake up, The Federal Reserve is not even accountable to the people you elected the Congress.
Read up on this.
I'm counting on you to make me aware.
Are they breaking laws?
-
I'm counting on you to make me aware.
Are they breaking laws?
There is no law that they follow. They are essentially lawless, literally.
-
There is no law that they follow. They are essentially lawless, literally.
So no laws are being broken? It is with in the administration's power and right to do what they are doing?
-
I understand what you're trying to do. We have a need to label people. When we meet someone, we need to be able to determine whether they are male or female, their race, political affiliation, religious beliefs, educational level, etc. It helps many people with their own comfort zone. People can be somewhat insecure if they're unable to apply the appropriate label. I see it all the time. I try and avoid it, but I do it. Although I'm not nearly as extreme as you are when it comes to applying labels, etc.
That said, no everyone does not have a political affiliation.
That's an interesting take. It has nothing to do with why I'm looking at you and your views.
I want to know why someone whom I regard as highly intelligent, eloquent and thoughtful would take as his own viewpoints that are un-american, un-christian and, let's face it, barbaric.
I'm insecure about a few things. Your political affiliation is not one of those things.
-
So no laws are being broken? It is with in the administration's power and right to do what they are doing?
Actually Obama is breaking bankruptcy laws with regards to bond holders and the SC agreed to hear the appeal.
-
The WMD inspectors on the ground my have 'thought he had them" as well.
But, with their inspections, they found nothing to justify an attack.
On one hand we have your thoughts and estimates of WMDs in Iraq. In the other hand, we have WMD inspectors's cold hard facts that there are no wmds.
Are you trying to tell me that basing a war on uncorroborated estimates somehow justifies the invasion?
I hope that's not what you're saying.
Ofcourse they found nothing!!!!! He wasnt allowing full inspections. What kind of a perfect liberal world do you live in???????????? We make decisions based on imperfect info all the time. We have to. And today Iraq is in much better shape than it was before the war. Sorry.
-
And today Iraq is in much better shape than it was before the war.
How? Because people can vote? Fuck them.
-
Waterboarding is illegal.
Oh please!!!!! Waterboarding terrorists is not illegal. If we wanted to we could line these people up and shoot them dead.
-
How? Because people can vote? Fuck them.
No, becuase there is no tyrant that can torture them just because they dont agree with him politically.
-
No, becuase there is no tyrant that can torture them just because they dont agree with him politically.
That was the best person to deal with those people.
Notice what happened when he left?
They will NEVER get along without someone bringing down the fist of hell on them.
-
This thread blows.
-
Ofcourse they found nothing!!!!! He wasnt allowing full inspections. What kind of a perfect liberal world do you live in???????????? We make decisions based on imperfect info all the time. We have to. And today Iraq is in much better shape than it was before the war. Sorry.
The Iraqis could be irritating but Blix insisted, in the long run, his inspectors were not denied access to any site.
http://www.thevillager.com/villager_46/atnyublix.html
Wrong Sir! The US does not start a war on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations. At least it didn't until Bush ordered the illegal invasion of Iraq.
I wonder how the million dead Iraqis feel about Iraq's great shape today?
Anyone can have an orderly country if an invading force has its foot on their collective throats. You do know that? Or do you believe the war was still justified on WMDs and Liberation?
-
::)
Deck, you really need to find something worthwhile to do with your life. May I recommend Euthanasia?
Most mainstream liberals dont even whine about Iraq anymore. Even Obama concedes Iraq is better off now than before. You have to let go. You sound like Al Bundy talking about the 4 touchdowns he scored in one game while he was playing for Polk High 30 years ago. You are a minority of one. Wake up. Nobody gives a shit about this thread or Iraq and the Bush administration.
Hope this helps.
-
::)
Deck, you really need to find something worthwhile to do with your life. May I recommend Euthanasia?
Most mainstream liberals dont even whine about Iraq anymore. Even Obama concedes Iraq is better off now than before. You have to let go. You sound like Al Bundy talking about the 4 touchdowns he scored in one game while he was playing for Polk High 30 years ago. You are a minority of one. Wake up. Nobody gives a shit about this thread or Iraq and the Bush administration.
Hope this helps.
You're wrong (and a little bit stupid).
-
::)
Deck, you really need to find something worthwhile to do with your life. May I recommend Euthanasia?
Most mainstream liberals dont even whine about Iraq anymore. Even Obama concedes Iraq is better off now than before. You have to let go. You sound like Al Bundy talking about the 4 touchdowns he scored in one game while he was playing for Polk High 30 years ago. You are a minority of one. Wake up. Nobody gives a shit about this thread or Iraq and the Bush administration.
Hope this helps.
You can't even help yourself and you're offering bromides to others?
You epitomize the average american. You have the sympathy and attention span of a right winger.
You are defined by your apathy and you revel in it.
You are what's wrong with this country.
You are the mindless consumer.
-
Also, Deck you really ought to look into having someone else write these quasi dramatic and absurdly weak one liners that you use to pepper those who disagree with you.
"You are defined by your apathy and you revel in it" "You are the mindless consumer"
This isn't open mike night at the local vegan coffee house. I don't think any major advertising companies or politicians seeking catchy slogans are going to come calling. Def Poetry Jam might be interested though ;D
Sorry Emily Dickinson, I dont think your penchant for overusing SAT words extends into the realm of witty one liners. It doesn't become you. Just a friendly tip :)
-
Also, Deck you really ought to look into having someone else write these quasi dramatic and absurdly weak one liners that you use to pepper those who disagree with you.
"You are defined by your apathy and you revel in it" "You are the mindless consumer"
This isn't open mike night at the local vegan coffee house. I don't think any major advertising companies or politicians seeking catchy slogans are going to come calling. Def Poetry Jam might be interested though ;D
Sorry Emily Dickinson, I dont think your penchant for overusing SAT words extends into the realm of witty one liners. It doesn't become you. Just a friendly tip :)
I've always thought that the rightwing was comprised of dullards or monied elites. We'll test you.
Do you really believe that I'm using SAT type words to embellish (oops, there I go again) my 'slogans'?
I'm sorry that an education and grammatical writing turn you off.
Now either you are driving around in a cadillac that the brothers would envy or you're one of the dullards.
In the mean time, I'll look into having someone else write these quasi dramatic and absurdly weak one liners that I pepper those who disagree with me.
Is that better?
-
See Deck- That's the difference between Right and Left; The left over complicates even the most simplistic and obvious truths. Your book smarts do not coincide with an ability to discern the main idea from a writing passage less than seven sentences in length.
My previous posting did not admonish your verbosity- It actually commended your expansive vocabulary.
My intent was to highlight the fact that using big words does not necessarily transform your average psuedointellectual on the internet into a riveting hybrid comprised of Steven Colbert and Maya Angelou.
While a witty quotation may prove nothing, a decidedly cringe inducing soliloquy directed at yours truly says plenty. Keep using big words, but leave the poetic license next to the Che Guevara hooded sweatshirt in your closet.
Capeche? ;)
-
Classic left approach: Complicate simple issues.
Classic right approach: Simplify complicated issues.
Classic moderate approach: Get it from both sides, give it to both sides. ;D
-
The Wizard of Oz= Get Bigs Walter Cronkite/ Tim Russert ;D
-
The Wizard of Oz= Get Bigs Walter Cronkite/ Tim Russert ;D
;D
-
"I've always thought that the rightwing was comprised of dullards or monied elite"
No wonder you are wrong 99% of time. Your entire premise is based on false notions, lies, distortions, and self deluded views on who you believe comprise the so called "right wing".
Decker, you are stuck in the 1950's and dont even realize it.