Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on March 21, 2007, 07:28:50 AM
-
So listen up... ::)
Bush vows to resist subpoenas in clash over prosecutors
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070321/pl_afp/uscongresspoliticsjustice_070321081001
How many times does this make it that Bush wanted his side of the story told without being under oath ::)
-
If you guys only understood what joke your country is in the eyes of the rest of the world.
You can compell Clinton to testify under oath about whether he got a BJ from a Jew on Easter,
...but you can't compell Bush to testify under oath about matters of grave national importance? ::)
-
So listen up... ::)
Bush vows to resist subpoenas in clash over prosecutors
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070321/pl_afp/uscongresspoliticsjustice_070321081001
How many times does this make it that Bush wanted his side of the story told without being under oath ::)
Bloodbath Bush is clearly the worst Dictator errrrr President the country has EVER had.
-
Bloodbath Bush is clearly the worst Dictator errrrr President the country has EVER had.
-
If you guys only understood what joke your country is in the eyes of the rest of the world.
You can compell Clinton to testify under oath about whether he got a BJ from a Jew on Easter,
...but you can't compell Bush to testify under oath about matters of grave national importance? ::)
LOL, If you only understood that the majority of us could care less how the world looks at us. Who would be the first person Canada would call if you were getting attacked......I'll let you think about it
-
LOL, If you only understood that the majority of us could care less how the world looks at us. Who would be the first person Canada would call if you were getting attacked......I'll let you think about it
It probably wouldn't be America, ...they'd most likely be the ones doing the attacking, ...but it will be awhile.
-
It probably wouldn't be America, ...they'd most likely be the ones doing the attacking, ...but it will be awhile.
Yeah we will take your...hockey pucks?......geese?....snow and Ice?...hmmm we already took Alaska where all the oil is. I mean that is all America cares about. And what would it take us 3 or 4 days to over take canada and their fierce fighting forces! We would be home to watch football on sunday....
-
Yeah we will take your...hockey pucks?......geese?....snow and Ice?...hmmm we already took Alaska where all the oil is. I mean that is all America cares about. And what would it take us 3 or 4 days to over take canada and their fierce fighting forces! We would be home to watch football on sunday....
are you so stupid you don't know canada has a lot of oil?
fuck, you are retarded.
-
are you so stupid you don't know canada has a lot of oil?
fuck, you are retarded.
He's also too stupid to realize you got Alaska from Russia... not Canada. ::)
He's Bush's boy all right.
-
He's also too stupid to realize you got Alaska from Russia... not Canada. ::)
He's Bush's boy all right.
lol...No shit jackass....We just beat you to it, I mean since it attached to your country and all..
-
are you so stupid you don't know canada has a lot of oil?
fuck, you are retarded.
mm69, did you really not know that canada has oil and other nice resources?
Alberta's estimated oil reserves = 180 gigabarrels
This places Canada second only to Saudi Arabia.
-
mm69, did you really not know that canada has oil and other nice resources?
Alberta's estimated oil reserves = 180 gigabarrels
This places Canada second only to Saudi Arabia.
Awesome, when we are ready for it we won't have to expend much energy taking it
-
Yeah we will take your...hockey pucks?......geese?....snow and Ice?...hmmm we already took Alaska where all the oil is.
I'm still dumbfounded at just how wrong of a statement this is.
You didn't know that Canada has the second largest oil reserve in the world. Hell, you didn't know they had any oil at all.
I have to wonder just how ignorant you are on the OTHER topics you discuss here.
-
Awesome, when we are ready for it we won't have to expend much energy taking it
don't change the subject.
you didn't know canada had oil.
how can you miss something like that?
-
don't change the subject.
you didn't know canada had oil.
how can you miss something like that?
I didn't change the subject, I said good. Sorry I don't pay much attention to Canada other the Pam anderson, Carmen Electra, Shania, Tanya Memme etc....I know you know EVERYTHING!! lol See unlike you I don't pretend to know everything. I don't know about Canada's oil so I don't talk about it. Other than a few MASH episodes and Saving Private Ryan you don't know about how the military works. Maybe you should take my example and stick to what you know.
-
I didn't change the subject, I said good. Sorry I don't pay much attention to Canada other the Pam anderson, Carmen Electra, Shania, Tanya Memme etc....I know you know EVERYTHING!! lol See unlike you I don't pretend to know everything. I don't know about Canada's oil so I don't talk about it. Other than a few MASH episodes and Saving Private Ryan you don't know about how the military works. Maybe you should take my example and stick to what you know.
You jump into conversations about our wars of aggression for oil, and you claim to know what you're talking about.
You don't even know where the oil is, in the world.
When you claim the wars in the middle east aren't about oil, you have ZERO credibility. You don't know where the oil is, so you cannot see the connections between the bases, pipelines, and our invasion choices. You have shown yourself to be woefully lacking in a necessary area.
-
You jump into conversations about our wars of aggression for oil, and you claim to know what you're talking about.
You don't even know where the oil is, in the world.
When you claim the wars in the middle east aren't about oil, you have ZERO credibility. You don't know where the oil is, so you cannot see the connections between the bases, pipelines, and our invasion choices. You have shown yourself to be woefully lacking in a necessary area.
That's why he's so Pro-War. He's praying Bush doesn't lie, ...cause he needs all the help he can get.
-
You jump into conversations about our wars of aggression for oil, and you claim to know what you're talking about.
You don't even know where the oil is, in the world.
When you claim the wars in the middle east aren't about oil, you have ZERO credibility. You don't know where the oil is, so you cannot see the connections between the bases, pipelines, and our invasion choices. You have shown yourself to be woefully lacking in a necessary area.
LMAO!!!!! Like someone that creis conspiracy at EVERYTHING is credible!!!!! The war isn't just about oil except in your cray CT world
-
LMAO!!!!! Like someone that creis conspiracy at EVERYTHING is credible!!!!! The war isn't just about oil except in your cray CT world
What do you know about oil?
Judging from your performance earlier, very little...
-
Canada has oil? When do we invade? ::)
-
Canada has oil? When do we invade? ::)
we don't have to, silly.
north american union.
-
What do you know about oil?
Judging from your performance earlier, very little...
Lets look at 240s conspiracies that I have heard him say
1. Bush didn't go to vietnam because his daddy pulled strings...Proof? NONE
2. Bush won in 2004 because the election was rigged....proof? NONE
3. 9/11 was inside job...proof? NONE (see a pattern)
4. Bush sent us to war based on lies...proof? NONE
5. The war is a smokescreen so that we can build a pipeline...proof?......Do I really need to say
-
Lets look at 240s conspiracies that I have heard him say
1. Bush didn't go to vietnam because his daddy pulled strings...Proof? NONE
2. Bush won in 2004 because the election was rigged....proof? NONE
3. 9/11 was inside job...proof? NONE (see a pattern)
4. Bush sent us to war based on lies...proof? NONE
5. The war is a smokescreen so that we can build a pipeline...proof?......Do I really need to say
Wow... sound like a majority of the world are conspiracy theorists then.
I'm sorry I can't provide proof Bush kept Dubya from seeing service - the fact he went AWOL and was never prosecuted should help a bit.
2. If the repubs weren't SUING TO PREVENT THE VOTES FRO MBEING COUNTED, we'd be able to see this statistical anomaly of an election was wrong.
3. WTC7.
4. I can't prove a negative, dummy. He said there was a WMD program. We didn't find it. Onus of proof is on the one making the claim. He claimed WMD, let's see them.
5. Are you saying there is no pipeline being constructed? Seriously, you are saying that?
-
Lets look at 240s conspiracies that I have heard him say
1. Bush didn't go to vietnam because his daddy pulled strings...Proof? NONE
2. Bush won in 2004 because the election was rigged....proof? NONE
3. 9/11 was inside job...proof? NONE (see a pattern)
4. Bush sent us to war based on lies...proof? NONE
5. The war is a smokescreen so that we can build a pipeline...proof?......Do I really need to say
6. Government conspired to carry out Columbine.
7. Government conspired to carry out 93 WTC bombing.
8. Government conspired to bomb Oklahoma City federal building.
9. Timothy McVeigh not really executed.
10. And the granddaddy of them all: government faked the moon landing.
Did I miss anything?
-
So listen up... ::)
Bush vows to resist subpoenas in clash over prosecutors
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070321/pl_afp/uscongresspoliticsjustice_070321081001
How many times does this make it that Bush wanted his side of the story told without being under oath ::)
bush = a saddam in christian skin! ;D
-
6. Government conspired to carry out Columbine.
7. Government conspired to carry out 93 WTC bombing.
8. Government conspired to bomb Oklahoma City federal building.
9. Timothy McVeigh not really executed.
10. And the granddaddy of them all: government faked the moon landing.
Did I miss anything?
Fluoride in the water to turn people into commies
-
6. Government conspired to carry out Columbine.
7. Government conspired to carry out 93 WTC bombing.
8. Government conspired to bomb Oklahoma City federal building.
9. Timothy McVeigh not really executed.
10. And the granddaddy of them all: government faked the moon landing.
Did I miss anything?
and the alternative is..
the whole world is evil..and bush is a saint..
go ahead and apply occums razor to dat ;)
-
Fluoride in the water to turn people into commies
lol. That's no. 11.
Oh I forgot about anthrax. Government conspired to carry out those attacks. That would be 12.
And Bush Sr. being behind the attempted assassination of Reagan. 13.
-
and the alternative is..
the whole world is evil..and bush is a saint..
go ahead and apply occums razor to dat ;)
The alternative is common sense.
There is lots of evil in the world. Check out the pedophile thread I started last night.
-
Wow... sound like a majority of the world are conspiracy theorists then.
I'm sorry I can't provide proof Bush kept Dubya from seeing service - the fact he went AWOL and was never prosecuted should help a bit.
2. If the repubs weren't SUING TO PREVENT THE VOTES FRO MBEING COUNTED, we'd be able to see this statistical anomaly of an election was wrong.
3. WTC7.
4. I can't prove a negative, dummy. He said there was a WMD program. We didn't find it. Onus of proof is on the one making the claim. He claimed WMD, let's see them.
5. Are you saying there is no pipeline being constructed? Seriously, you are saying that?
So basically let me summarize...
1. No proof
2. No proof
3. No proof
4. still doesn't show he lied
5. I admit that it is being built, But you contend the war is only a smoke screen? Please
-
So basically let me summarize...
1. No proof
2. No proof
3. No proof
4. still doesn't show he lied
5. I admit that it is being built, But you contend the war is only a smoke screen? Please
Show me the proof...
There's that sticky subject of proof again. Yesterday you acted like asking for proof was some kind of Democratic trick yet today you seem to be inquiring about it without hesitation. Perhaps you've just changed your mind in the last 24 hours. ::)
Here comes the classic Dem line! "Please provide proof......"
-
There are a lot of delusional people on this board.
-
There's that sticky subject of proof again. Yesterday you acted like asking for proof was some kind of Democratic trick yet today you seem to be inquiring about it without hesitation. Perhaps you've just changed your mind in the last 24 hours. ::)
Yeah it was a little different when I said it. You guys are constantly slandering (a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report) without any facts to back it up. I say a scientist is smarter...that isn't slander. Not only that but I did oblige and provide proof, which you ignored anyhow. so what is your point?
-
Yeah it was a little different when I said it. You guys are constantly slandering (a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report) without any facts to back it up. I say a scientist is smarter...that isn't slander. Not only that but I did oblige and provide proof, which you ignored anyhow. so what is your point?
My point is you're a hypocrite. You can't cry about something one day and then do that same thing TWICE the next day. It makes you a hypocrite.
You proved nothing. In order to prove your claim you would have had to COMPARE the education backgrounds of ALL the scientists from BOTH sides. All you did was post the educational background of one scientist. Yes, you read that correctly one scientist. How you could possibly consider that proving your point is beyond reason.
::)
Nice touch giving the definition of slander.
-
The alternative is common sense.
There is lots of evil in the world. Check out the pedophile thread I started last night.
You posted child porn here :-\
:D
-
You posted child porn here :-\
:D
Oh that's rotten. I gotta watch what I say around here. :)
-
My point is you're a hypocrite. You can't cry about something one day and then do that same thing TWICE the next day. It makes you a hypocrite.
You proved nothing. In order to prove your claim you would have had to COMPARE the education backgrounds of ALL the scientists from BOTH sides. All you did was post the educational background of one scientist. Yes, you read that correctly one scientist. How you could possibly consider that proving your point is beyond reason.
::)
Nice touch giving the definition of slander.
You don't thikn it odd that I say this "smarter scientists know that the sun is causing global warming" and the only thing you choose to argue is the intelligence of the scientists? You didn't even try to support your stand on global warming? So fine, I'll say I don't know all the education backgrounds of the millions of scientists in the world (I bet 240 would know), and change it to the scientists that aren't jackasses realize the sun is causing global warming.....
-
Scientists on the right (thousands of them):
-motivated by lobby money from corporations and GOP.
-lack body of supporting evidence the other group has.
-prefer a 'wait and see' approach thru 2008.
-predominantly US based group.
-arose in last decade on behalf of corps to combat Gore's crusade
Scientists on the left (many more thousands of them):
-motivated by lobby money from DNC.
-possess a great deal of findings which do back their belief.
-want to act now to hold people accountable before 2008.
-findings of most world scientific groups do agree with their standpoint.
-have been around since the 60s studying this.
NEITHER group has proven their case nor disproven the other.
Global warming IS real, whatever the cause, and our coastlines will disappear this century, whatever the cause. Vast majority agree it is real- the only disagreement is the cause.
-
Scientists on the right (thousands of them):
-motivated by lobby money from corporations and GOP.
-lack body of supporting evidence the other group has.
-prefer a 'wait and see' approach thru 2008.
-predominantly US based group.
-arose in last decade on behalf of corps to combat Gore's crusade
Scientists on the left (many more thousands of them):
-motivated by lobby money from DNC.
-possess a great deal of findings which do back their belief.
-want to act now to hold people accountable before 2008.
-findings of most world scientific groups do agree with their standpoint.
-have been around since the 60s studying this.
NEITHER group has proven their case nor disproven the other.
Global warming IS real, whatever the cause, and our coastlines will disappear this century, whatever the cause. Vast majority agree it is real- the only disagreement is the cause.
I agree it is real, just not man made....
-
You don't thikn it odd that I say this "smarter scientists know that the sun is causing global warming" and the only thing you choose to argue is the intelligence of the scientists? You didn't even try to support your stand on global warming? So fine, I'll say I don't know all the education backgrounds of the millions of scientists in the world (I bet 240 would know), and change it to the scientists that aren't jackasses realize the sun is causing global warming.....
The jury is still out on Global Warming. Many scientists believe man had a hand in it and many don't believe man had a hand in it. All I'm saying is it's an important issue and too early to be choosing sides simply for partisan reasons.
I don't know what the truth is, and neither do you.
But I do know that you're a hypocrite. And I would never make such an asinine statement as one side's scientists are more intelligent than the other sides. ::)
Face the facts, I asked you to prove something you claimed and instead of proving it you cried like a little girl.
You're a blowhard hypocrite and from what I can tell not particularly bright. Certainly not bright enough to have real discussions on important issues.
Here's yet another beauty courtesy of you, "the scientists that aren't jackasses realize the sun is causing global warming....."
Yep, I'd say the moniker "hypocritical blowhard" fits you perfectly.
-
The jury is still out on Global Warming. Many scientists believe man had a hand in it and many don't believe man had a hand in it. All I'm saying is it's an important issue and too early to be choosing sides simply for partisan reasons.
I don't know what the truth is, and neither do you.
But I do know that you're a hypocrite. And I would never make such an asinine statement as one side's scientists are more intelligent than the other sides. ::)
Face the facts, I asked you to prove something you claimed and instead of proving it you cried like a little girl.
You're a blowhard hypocrite and from what I can tell not particularly bright. Certainly not bright enough to have real discussions on important issues.
Here's yet another beauty courtesy of you, "the scientists that aren't jackasses realize the sun is causing global warming....."
Yep, I'd say the moniker "hypocritical blowhard" fits you perfectly.
Tell me this cardio. The only scientific fact in the global warming debate is that the temperature of the sun is hotter than in the past. That isn't a theory, they can actually measure that. The other side has all theories, nothing they can factually measure. So really I would say my side was smarter. I mean they can see the evidence in front of their faces.....So call me all the names you want...You libs do that everytime you can't support yout side of the issue.
-
Tell me this cardio. The only scientific fact in the global warming debate is that the temperature of the sun is hotter than in the past. That isn't a theory, they can actually measure that. The other side has all theories, nothing they can factually measure. So really I would say my side was smarter. I mean they can see the evidence in front of their faces.....So call me all the names you want...You libs do that everytime you can't support yout side of the issue.
Seriously, you can't get out of your own way.
You're literally famous for calling people "fucking fag" "pussy" "bitch" "fool" and a host of others without provocation yet here you are crying about being called a hypocritical blowhard. A moniker which is based wholly on facts. BTW, the fact that you would mention it is hypocritical. I'm guessing you're not bright enough to see that though.
I'll say it again and type it in bold so you can read it more clearly. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TRUTH IS AND NEITHER DO YOU.
Get it? Neither of us knows what the real cause is, the difference is I'm not basing my opinions on partisan bullschit like you are and I'm not making asinine statements that I can't prove.
-
Seriously, you can't get out of your own way.
You're literally famous for calling people "fucking fag" "pussy" "bitch" "fool" and a host of others without provocation yet here you are crying about being called a hypocritical blowhard. A moniker which is based wholly on facts. BTW, the fact that you would mention it is hypocritical. I'm guessing you're not bright enough to see that though.
I'll say it again and type it in bold so you can read it more clearly. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TRUTH IS AND NEITHER DO YOU.
Get it? Neither of us knows what the real cause is, the difference is I'm not basing my opinions on partisan bullschit like you are and I'm not making asinine statements that I can't prove.
so the scientific measuring of the sun's surface temperature by a german scientist is now partisan??? you will have to explain that one. and that was proven...And I love it when you call me names because when you get to a point in your argument where you can's support it any longer you turn to name calling. See me on the other hand, I would say something like this..." fucking fag, the sun's surface has been proven to be hotter fool" See how I still support my side instead of just name calling? Try it.....
-
LOL, If you only understood that the majority of us could care less how the world looks at us.
i DO care how the rest of the planet sees us...you really think the rest of the planet does not have the capability to have our markets come crashing?
people like me and my family will be sitting in canada or someplace in the UK tomorrow..would would you do?
-
so the scientific measuring of the sun's surface temperature by a german scientist is now partisan??? you will have to explain that one. and that was proven...And I love it when you call me names because when you get to a point in your argument where you can's support it any longer you turn to name calling. See me on the other hand, I would say something like this..." fucking fag, the sun's surface has been proven to be hotter fool" See how I still support my side instead of just name calling? Try it.....
This is like dealing with a petulant 8th grader.
You've chosen one scientist, there are literally thousands on both sides of the issue, yet you've only chosen one. I'm guessing you and many other conservatives base your opinions on Global Warming on your political beliefs first and science second.
Again, this isn't the issue though. The issue is that you made a claim that you refused to prove. Even going so far as to accuse the simple act of asking you for proof of being a some kind of Democratic trick. And the next day you asked for proof on two separate occasions.
You're a hypocrite. And then today you're crying about being called names even though you're literally the KING of calling people names. Case number 2 of you being a hypocrite.
Again, it's like dealing with an 8th grader.
-
i DO care how the rest of the planet sees us...you really think the rest of the planet does not have the capability to have our markets come crashing?
people like me and my family will be sitting in canada or someplace in the UK tomorrow..would would you do?
believe me it won't happen. And in the end America could survive on it's own.
-
This is like dealing with a petulant 8th grader.
You've chosen one scientist, there are literally thousands on both sides of the issue, yet you've only chosen one. I'm guessing you and many other conservatives base your opinions on Global Warming on your political beliefs first and science second.
Again, this isn't the issue though. The issue is that you made a claim that you refused to prove. Even going so far as to accuse the simple act of asking you for proof of being a some kind of Democratic trick. And the next day you asked for proof on two separate occasions.
You're a hypocrite. And then today you're crying about being called names even though you're literally the KING of calling people names. Case number 2 of you being a hypocrite.
Again, it's like dealing with an 8th grader.
You keep saying I put science second...yet I am the ONLY one here that provided scietific FACT........I haven't given a theory...where is your science? And again I guess you missed this..."And I love it when you call me names because when you get to a point in your argument where you can's support it any longer you turn to name calling."
-
You keep saying I put science second...yet I am the ONLY one here that provided scietific FACT........I haven't given a theory...where is your science? And again I guess you missed this..."And I love it when you call me names because when you get to a point in your argument where you can's support it any longer you turn to name calling."
Here we go again.
There are scientists all over the world studying this topic and they haven't come to a consensus yet. But some guy on a bodybuilding forum has found the cause.
Nope, not the thousands of scientists actually working on it, a guy on a bodybuilding website.
As I've said many times. I DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH AND NEITHER DO YOU. You keep skipping that part.
Yet again, my point was you made a claim and you wouldn't prove it.
So far you've said the scientists that believe man had a hand in global warming are less intelligent and jackasses.
I ask for proof of this, you cry like a girl.
I've proven you to be a hypocrite on two different occasions. That's a fact.
-
Here we go again.
There are scientists all over the world studying this topic and they haven't come to a consensus yet. But some guy on a bodybuilding forum has found the cause.
Nope, not the thousands of scientists actually working on it, a guy on a bodybuilding website.
As I've said many times. I DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH AND NEITHER DO YOU. You keep skipping that part.
Yet again, my point was you made a claim and you wouldn't prove it.
So far you've said the scientists that believe man had a hand in global warming are less intelligent and jackasses.
I ask for proof of this, you cry like a girl.
I've proven you to be a hypocrite on two different occasions. That's a fact.
LMAO!!!!! way to support your claim of man made global warming!!! I still have provided the only scientific fact in this debate...call it what you will. I mean thousands of scientists can't be wrong right? I'm done with this until you can do something of worty of my time.
-
LMAO!!!!! way to support your claim of man made global warming!!! I still have provided the only scientific fact in this debate...call it what you will. I mean thousands of scientists can't be wrong right? I'm done with this until you can do something of worty of my time.
You must have missed all those posts of mine saying "I DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH". I mean it would be easy to miss considering I've only posted it two other times in the last ten minutes alone.
Again you're skipping over the basis for our little exchange. You refusing to prove your claim and instead crying about some Democratic trick. And then asking for proof twice the next day. Oh, and you're little bit about name calling. ;D
How's that feel to be outed as a hypocrite not once but twice in the span of two days?
-
You must have missed all those posts of mine saying "I DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH". I mean it would be easy to miss considering I've only posted it two other times in the last ten minutes alone.
Again you're skipping over the basis for our little exchange. You refusing to prove your claim and instead crying about some Democratic trick. And then asking for proof twice the next day. Oh, and you're little bit about name calling. ;D
How's that feel to be outed as a hypocrite not once but twice in the span of two days?
it was different circumstances, but I really could care less what your thoughts are. it will only be a matter of time before I show you as a hypocrite...ask 240...
-
it was different circumstances, but I really could care less what your thoughts are. it will only be a matter of time before I show you as a hypocrite...ask 240...
???
no offense, but you've made a lot of factual mistakes lately and you're starting to look like a low grade subject, better suited for parroting than critical thikning.
-
???
no offense, but you've made a lot of factual mistakes lately and you're starting to look like a low grade subject, better suited for parroting than critical thikning.
Low grade mistakes like this??? 240 said "bush" when asked who controls the guard.......ring ring..hey pot this is the kettle, you're black!!! lol What mistake other than the oil have I made?
-
Low grade mistakes like this??? 240 said "bush" when asked who controls the guard.......ring ring..hey pot this is the kettle, you're black!!! lol What mistake other than the oil have I made?
No, 'low grade' referred to YOU.
A person without proper breeding, upbringing, or general situational awareness. A person whose purpose is to serve a master, employing only low level thinking skills like knowledge and comprehension - very little analysis or evaluation.
You're a low-grade subject. HTH.
-
No, 'low grade' referred to YOU.
A person without proper breeding, upbringing, or general situational awareness. A person whose purpose is to serve a master, employing only low level thinking skills like knowledge and comprehension - very little analysis or evaluation.
You're a low-grade subject. HTH.
and you don't know who controls our own countries Guard??? lol that shows alot of intelligence
-
and you don't know who controls our own countries Guard??? lol that shows alot of intelligence
Bush signed a law a few months back giving the executive branch power to control our National Guard. Oz or ribo posted it here.
Man, you just keep sticking your foot in your mouth, don't you?
-
Bush signed a law a few months back giving the executive branch power to control our National Guard. Oz or ribo posted it here.
Man, you just keep sticking your foot in your mouth, don't you?
Oh this is going to be fun.......when was that bill signed? a few months ago? refresh my mind, when did Katrina hit?? LMAO!!!!! GOOD one 240, and I give thanks to Oz and Ribo for posting that fact!!!
-
Oh this is going to be fun.......when was that bill signed? a few months ago? refresh my mind, when did Katrina hit?? LMAO!!!!! GOOD one 240, and I give thanks to Oz and Ribo for posting that fact!!!
Dipshit -
Yes, you.
Your post asks who controls them.
The "s" at the end of the word 'control' would imply "currently".
If you had asked who controlled them THEN, I would have pointed at their state level govt.
But you used the present tense so I replied in the present tense.
If you need further clarification, ask yourself why I would have commented greatly on the 'bush grabs control of the natl guard' thread a few months back, if I didn't know it was leaving state hands for federal control. Obviously I knew it was state until several months ago.
You've been owned by the present tense.
-
Dipshit -
Yes, you.
Your post asks who controls them.
The "s" at the end of the word 'control' would imply "currently".
If you had asked who controlled them THEN, I would have pointed at their state level govt.
But you used the present tense so I replied in the present tense.
If you need further clarification, ask yourself why I would have commented greatly on the 'bush grabs control of the natl guard' thread a few months back, if I didn't know it was leaving state hands for federal control. Obviously I knew it was state until several months ago.
You've been owned by the present tense.
Looks like you got your facts wrong, the bill wasn't passed
-
Bush signed a law a few months back giving the executive branch power to control our National Guard. Oz or ribo posted it here.
Man, you just keep sticking your foot in your mouth, don't you?
So is it true that Bush never signed this law?
-
So is it true that Bush never signed this law?
As far as i can tell: YES, but he has to declare Marshall law first.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Bush_Seeks_New_Power_Over_Guard_999.html (http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Bush_Seeks_New_Power_Over_Guard_999.html)
the item about the Bush controlling the guard is part of the 2007 defense authorization bill
wikapedia reports it singed by BUSH in October of 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._5122_(2006) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._5122_(2006))
So we are arguing over "tense" now ;D
I pitty the fool trying to mess with my "tense"! :-*
-
As far as i can tell: YES, but he has to declare Marshall law first.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Bush_Seeks_New_Power_Over_Guard_999.html (http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Bush_Seeks_New_Power_Over_Guard_999.html)
the item about the Bush controlling the guard is part of the 2007 defense authorization bill
wikapedia reports it singed by BUSH in October of 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._5122_(2006) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._5122_(2006))
So we are arguing over "tense" now ;D
I pitty the fool trying to mess with my "tense"! :-*
Ah so. :) I'm not arguing tense. I just read a string of exchanges where 240 was calling MM stupid (among other things), claiming Bush controls the National Guard and MM apparently didn't know this. Looks like the prez now has the authority to call up the Guard to aid a state in time of a natural disaster or other public emergencies.
-
Ah so. :) I'm not arguing tense. I just read a string of exchanges where 240 was calling MM stupid (among other things), claiming Bush controls the National Guard and MM apparently didn't know this. Looks like the prez now has the authority to call up the Guard to aid a state in time of a natural disaster or other public emergencies.
he actually has the power to control them not just call them up.
"expansion of the President's power to declare martial law under revisions to the Insurrection Act, and take charge of United States National Guard troops without state governor authorization when public order has been lost and the state and its constituted authorities cannot enforce the law;"
-
Ah so. :) I'm not arguing tense. I just read a string of exchanges where 240 was calling MM stupid (among other things), claiming Bush controls the National Guard and MM apparently didn't know this. Looks like the prez now has the authority to call up the Guard to aid a state in time of a natural disaster or other public emergencies.
the control of the guard still lies with the state
-
the control of the guard still lies with the state
yes, but the pres can take control of it by declaring Marshall law.
-
yes, but the pres can take control of it by declaring Marshall law.
correct. So really nothing has changed. The president had always been able to activate them in a time of war. Now he can do it if the nation is attacked.
-
the control of the guard still lies with the state
So was 240 wrong about this?
-
So was 240 wrong about this?
It looks like it, but one could say ultimate control is given to the pres if he declares Marshall Law.
-
;D
-
;D
Hey Jag, I know you are an expert on the US military but did you happen to see my post on the military condoning immoral beahvior?
-
Hey Jag, I know you are an expert on the US military but did you happen to see my post on the military condoning immoral beahvior?
Like I'm gonna waste time reading your crap. Maybe if I'm bored with nothing else to do I might wade through it,
...however, in the meantime, I prefer to limit the subjects I click on to those started by those with some credibility.
Hope That Clarifies
-
Like I'm gonna waste time reading your crap. Maybe if I'm bored with nothing else to do I might wade through it,
...however, in the meantime, I prefer to limit the subjects I click on to those started by those with some credibility.
Hope That Clarifies
LMAO!!! I wouldn't want you to see the truth about your accusations of the military turning a blind eye to rape!!!!