PDA

View Full Version : Impeach Bush?



Hurricane Aegien
9th June 03, 06:35 PM
Couple of interesting articles -

http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/3917049.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/

Bummey
9th June 03, 06:36 PM
Elections are just around the corner, and impeachment would just be a publicity stunt.

Sithray
9th June 03, 07:43 PM
He is going down.

Kwill
9th June 03, 07:53 PM
As I so aptly heard it on National Public Radio, it was pretty absurd to moblize the entire Western world to destroy two mobile tractor trailer labs that might have had some chemicals in them -- which is all they can really say they found.

The latest is the currency there is worthless and they are printing more money with Saddam Hussein on it as they can't change the currency for this emergency.

Actually I am waiting for the expose book about the professional art theives that planned a raid on the museum long before war broke out, knowing they would have a chance to sell priceless objects on the black market.

And being a person who is interested in Arabian horses, it's quite a shame that they raided the places and made off with those horses without papers or pedigrees, which makes them worthless on the international market. With papers, those horses could probably have brought some big dollars.

Impeach Bush? Nah, too much of an embarrassment to the nation. But he will go down in history in the presidential hall of shame, no doubt. If you see the movie Wag the Dog, it's not funny anymore!

Kwill

Merauk
9th June 03, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Bummey
Elections are just around the corner, and impeachment would just be a publicity stunt.

Everything in politics is by definition political.

Bush has four major stumbling blocks for re-election. No WMD, no final Iraq solution yet, US Jewish block (Florida) pissed at his road map, and the economy. He will probably win election again just because the democrats don't have a strong candidate.

joen00b
9th June 03, 08:20 PM
That is a scarey but true notion. We have 5 more years of enduring this blockheads alternate agenda while he tries to upstage his dad's presidency.

Ouden
9th June 03, 08:39 PM
He could invade 50 other nations and nuke Trinidad, and as far as I'm concerned he'd still be a better president than Clinton ever was.

imported_Driz
10th June 03, 08:24 AM
Thanks Ouden,

Reasons for invading Iraq at this point are moot. Clinton loafed for 8 years and did nothing but enforce sanctions that hurt and turned more of them against the U.S than any one smart bomb did. Look, take some time and check out some of the fucked up shit the dude was doing to the people there. Tell me we needed more reason than that.

Scary as it may seem, I to find myself agreeing with Ouden..

-Driz

Phleg
10th June 03, 08:31 AM
Yaknow, if anyone's to be held to blame (assuming it's proven Saddam had no WMD...which is kind of hard, seeing as he's, oh, admitted to it, and seeing as how even France, the Democrats, etc. realize he had them) it's intelligence. Bush only acted upon intelligence given to him by intelligence agencies. It's not like they told him, "Nope. No WMD anywhere," and he went along with it.

imported_Driz
10th June 03, 08:44 AM
Even if there are no WMD to be found I feel the justification for removing him was there already for the crimes he and his regime committed against the populace which they governed. And as far as Bush going down in the presidential hall of shame, it's your opinion and you are entitled to it.


But then opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink... I for one, prefer someone who has the courage of their convictions and will see the course to its end. 9/11 was a wake up call and smacked us in the face. I for one would like to be sure that no rogue nation with ties to the arab world would even think of giving terrorists WMD to use against my countrymen home or abroad. I want them to know that the full might of the US military machine will come crashing down on them like a fucking Texas tornado. I want there to be no doubt in their minds that it will spell disaster for them to do such a thing.

But thats just my opinion and I could be wrong....

-Driz

Gaerwing
10th June 03, 08:44 AM
I agree with Ouden.

Gaer!

Notorious
10th June 03, 09:14 AM
I would have much more confidence in the economy under a Clinton administration, anyday. I think if Clinton could run again, he would win.

Now?

The highest stretch of unemployment since WWII.

Record setting unemployment rates in certain states.

A Whirlwind for the stock market.

Tax breaks that forgot those who are classified as "poverty."

All this, while the interest rates have been at an all-time low.

EDIT: On the other hand, I think Bush was very strong in dealing with 9/11 and has taken a hard line stance against terrorist radicals. The conviction is backed with action.

Kitska
10th June 03, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by Driz
I for one, prefer someone who has the courage of their convictions and will see the course to its end. 9/11 was a wake up call and smacked us in the face.

So they are anywhere close to finding Osama?

Straylight
10th June 03, 09:21 AM
Yeah, isn't it great what a shit-mess of shambles that Bush inherited from Clinton?

Clinton used it all up for what it was worth knowing that by the time he got out of office, the country would be fuxx0red for at least 4-8 years....

He knew that a Dem would NOT be elected, and engineered a fall for a Repub president.

He didn't give a rat's ass about the election then....he's more concerned with '04.

imported_Driz
10th June 03, 09:34 AM
Thanks for making my retort Stray,

-Driz

Straylight
10th June 03, 09:50 AM
Any time, dude.

We must make a line in the sand against these pansy-assed bleeding-heart tree-hugging granola-eating liberal fag-tards.

Ouden
10th June 03, 10:10 AM
The economy was in recession before Clinton ever got into office. The natural flow means that we would come out of that recession. It just so happened while Clinton was in office, he didn't do anything in particular to make him a great economist.

I could have taken Presidential office after the Gulf War recession and you would all be slobbing my knob for being such a great economical president.

Boanerges
10th June 03, 10:12 AM
I find it amazing that people point to the economic boom as the main reason Clinton was a good president. First off, the President doesn't have any direct ability to influence the economy. Bush has chosen to lower taxes which, historically, helps inflate the economy. Clinton did nothing to the economy which, in some small part, was a wise move but it also takes no real leadership to leave something alone.

Second, the reason we're in such a mess today is due in no small part to crimes committed when Clinton was still in office. Does the name Enron ring a bell? How about Worldcom? Both were doing their illegal activities well back in the Clinton administration. Translation: the huge stock market boom was based on a lie that companies and traders helped purpetrate on the American public.

Should Bush be impeached? No. He hasn't broken any laws. Clinton lied under oath which is called Purjury, which is a Felony. If he'd come out from the start and said he'd had an affair in office people would have laughed and forgotten and nobody could touch him because, well, it's not illegal. Watergate involved a break-in which I'm sure we all know is a crime. That's what both articles are lacking: a crime.

Telling lies in the public arena is not a crime. Impeachment is for crimes, not public disdain. That's what the ballot box is for. And if you think any other politician out there who wants to be the next President is any more truthful I'd like to sell you an herbal drug that will make you an uber EQ player for only $9.95 a bottle! :rolleyes:

If you read between the lines in this whole sordid affair over Iraq you discover Tony Blair wanted UN apprival while Bush wanted to just go in and get it over with. You might think Bush would get in trouble over that but the US has done it before and with significantly less political fallout (Grenada anyone?). So I can't say I'm surprised that certain things were overstated. But there is the unassailable fact that Saddam was one of the worst tyrants of the 21st century. The fact that we keep finding mass graves speaks volumes.

I don't condone Bush's behavior in this. I think we could have made a different case. But then again everyone had a stake in this too. France and Russia had lucrative contracts with Saddam and they knew if they could wait out Bush (does anyone actually believe Hans Blix would have concluded anything other than Iraq was WMD free?) then he would be hard pressed to keep the 12 year embargo. Let's be honest here for a second: who here actually believes that reopening trade with Iraq would have been a good thing? That was the ultimate choice in this whole situation: war or sayonara embargo.

We were sold a bill of goods to convince us the timing was right (nobody needed convincing Saddam was an oppressive SOB). The problem is so many mistakes were made that that bill may not be worth anything now. The evidence that might have existed is likely gone with the looters we didn't stop. Just one more mistake in a long line of mistakes.

Bottom line: war with Saddam was right but we were given likely unprovable motivation for said war. If you don't like it, head out to the ballot boxes Nov 2, 2004.

Sithray
10th June 03, 11:03 AM
I stongly Disagree with Ouden. Clinton > *

Shorrtee McHeals
10th June 03, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Notorious
I think if Clinton could run again, he would win.

Sorry, try again. A poll came out the other day that said if there was a Clinton/Bush election right now, Bush would win.

Shorrtee McHeals
10th June 03, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Boanerges
Bush has chosen to lower taxes which, historically, helps inflate the economy.

Got any facts to back that up with? I've always heard thats pretty debatable.

Merauk
10th June 03, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Driz
Even if there are no WMD to be found I feel the justification for removing him was there already for the crimes he and his regime committed against the populace which they governed

There certainly was; but, that wasn’t the reason that Bush gave to the world community or the American people.

imported_Driz
10th June 03, 01:06 PM
And as I've said Merauk, the reason for going to war is a moot point at this stage. We've gone in and wreaked havoc, nows the time to move onward and forward. In my opinion this means stablizing things and establishing a government for the people of Iraq.

Straylight
10th June 03, 01:29 PM
F the people of Iraq.

Notorious
10th June 03, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Shorrtee McHeals
Sorry, try again. A poll came out the other day that said if there was a Clinton/Bush election right now, Bush would win.

You got me. I forgot about "that" poll.

At any rate, Bush Sr. had sky-high approval ratings after his war and he still lost re-election.

...

Also, in some other post regarding a President's power... I think it is ridiculous to say that a President does not contribute to / influence a nation's economy.

Sithray
10th June 03, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Driz
And as I've said Merauk, the reason for going to war is a moot point at this stage. We've gone in and wreaked havoc, nows the time to move onward and forward. In my opinion this means stablizing things and establishing a government for the people of Iraq.

So basically you are saying it's OK to lie in order to start a war you want, but when it is discovered that it is a lie just forget it and move on hoping the people stay behind you?

I think this happened starting in 1936 in a small country called Germany.

Boanerges
10th June 03, 02:11 PM
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/taxes/pdtx1198a.html

Lists 4 boosts in the last 50 years from tax cuts. Even if hard numbers weren't out there, can you honestly sit there and tell me the government keeping more of your money is a good thing? The Democrats wanted to spend all that money on drugs for old people.

Kitska
10th June 03, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Boanerges
The Democrats wanted to spend all that money on drugs for old people.

You honestly believe everything that people who are trying to get into presidential office tell you?

Straylight
10th June 03, 02:24 PM
Things didn't get good until 1938, though.

Donnely McLeod
10th June 03, 02:36 PM
What does Bush have to do with it? Nothing.

The Military controls the country. The President, since LBJ anyway, has been a puppet; a fall guy for the brass. Wether or not Bush knew if what he was saying were true - or conversely - openly lied is irrelevant and therefore moot. When a "scandal" is at the top; the only place to go is down. The government would be guilty.

Seriously, do you think Bush could have thought this whole thing up? No. A number of generals around a table in the war room told him, "these are the facts; he has weapons" when he really didn't have weapons. That means every subordinate, every General, every Commander not on the field is guilty of even more.

This isn't 1961. The president does not have the authority he once did. The real authority lies among maybe 10 men; each of them has a string to pull.

And the Nazis took power in 1933.

Sithray
10th June 03, 03:26 PM
STFU Don my boy Hitler didn't start offing countries til 1936, and as stray said, they got bold in 1938.

Ouden
10th June 03, 03:28 PM
Those cooky Nazi's.

joen00b
10th June 03, 04:16 PM
Bush is just trying to dwarf his father's Presidency. When people think of Bush, he wants them to think of George W. The guy seriously has some kind of issues with outdoing his dad.

Shorrtee McHeals
10th June 03, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Donnely McLeod
What does Bush have to do with it? Nothing.

The Military controls the country. The President, since LBJ anyway, has been a puppet; a fall guy for the brass. Wether or not Bush knew if what he was saying were true - or conversely - openly lied is irrelevant and therefore moot. When a "scandal" is at the top; the only place to go is down. The government would be guilty.

Seriously, do you think Bush could have thought this whole thing up? No. A number of generals around a table in the war room told him, "these are the facts; he has weapons" when he really [b]didn't have weapons. That means every subordinate, every General, every Commander not on the field is guilty of even more.

This isn't 1961. The president does not have the authority he once did. The real authority lies among maybe 10 men; each of them has a string to pull.
B]

I'm glad you're joking, because if you were being serious I would call you a fucking idiot. ;)

Donnely McLeod
10th June 03, 08:37 PM
If theye were smart they'd have friggen planted WMDs before they went to war.

Ouden
10th June 03, 10:38 PM
<bgsound src="http://www.pageofshame.com/mongolians.wav" autostart="true" loop="false" hidden="true">

Phleg
11th June 03, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Notorious
I would have much more confidence in the economy under a Clinton administration, anyday. I think if Clinton could run again, he would win.

News flash--the president has little to do with the economy. Perhaps you could try the "Congress" or "Federal Reserve" doors next time?

Th
Originally posted by Notorious
e highest stretch of unemployment since WWII.

Gee, might it have anything to do with terrorist attacks, the dot-com bubble bursting, and corporate scandals which have been going on for years?


Originally posted by Notorious
Record setting unemployment rates in certain states.

Record setting? Check out most of the European countries, which are currently more democratic than us. Hell, Germany's got somewhere around twice our unemployment.


Originally posted by Notorious
Tax breaks that forgot those who are classified as "poverty."

So um, how do people that don't pay taxes get taxes back? I'm kind of curious about this one. To me, that's called "welfare" or "income distribution". Shouldn't it be only natural that when taxes are cut, those who don't pay taxes don't get any back? Christ, with your reasoning, every time Wal-Mart cuts prices, they should give refunds to people who haven't ever bought there.


Originally posted by Notorious
All this, while the interest rates have been at an all-time low.

Take an economics class.

Phleg
11th June 03, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Straylight
He knew that a Dem would NOT be elected, and engineered a fall for a Repub president.

He didn't give a rat's ass about the election then....he's more concerned with '04.

Haven't you been paying attention? The Clintons don't want a Democrat elected in 2004. Hillary's book just came out, taking attention and media coverage away from Democratic nominee hopefuls. Bill's book is coming out just in time for the general election, this time taking attention away from the democratic nominee, as well as bringing Clinton's history back to the forefront, hurting democratic chances.

Why wouldn't they want a Democrat in 2004? Because Hitlary's running in 2008, and she doesn't want to fight an incumbent Democrat. That would reduce her chances of winning massively.

Trounce
11th June 03, 12:09 PM
Well, Well, Well. Come back from fighting a war and what do we find? Whoopee, my account here is no longer banned, (thanks for banning it and proving my point, next time make it permanent). We have people now claiming to be “professional” martial artists (Mal & phuck). Give me a fucking break, that kind of shit went out in Jr. High.
. Everyone playing “Arm Chair” general, claiming to know more about what went on/ is going on over there than the people running the show (big fat assed surprise there). We already know everyone here is a “know-it-all”.

For a few replies before I delete this bookmark.

Donnely, you unbelievably ignorant fucking tard. The military runs the country? What fucking country do you live in? Really, someone needs to give you a lobotomy with a claw hammer.
You think it is all a big plot by the “secret powers” in DC? Get out that tin foil hat.
The question of weapons of mass destruction is still unanswered, maybe they were/are there, maybe not. They don’t know yet and are still looking. Where exactly do you think most of our intel on that region comes from? Think hard. Who would have the most to gain if one of the major powers in the Middle East were toppled? Think real hard. They are supposed to be out “ally” but our current president has cooled relations with them in the past few years (which they aren’t happy about).
Hmmm, you think maybe they gave us false intel? They wouldn’t do that; they are our friends, aren’t they? http://home.san.rr.com/bcarlson/liberty.html

If theye were smart they'd have friggen planted WMDs before they went to war.
If you had a brain maybe you’d figure out from the fact that they didn’t plant any that maybe there were weapons there or they actually believed there were WMD’s there (damn, there goes your conspiracy theory.)

Bush ruined the economy? You people really need to take a class, may I suggest Economics 101? You think that the economy of a counter this size can change that much in just a few years? Retards! The economy started on its way downward under clinton’s administration and has been gathering momentum since.

Bush has done nothing “for” the country? The war has done nothing for the country or world? Lets see here, there was a little oriental man in a country called Korea that was trying to blackmail our country into giving them money and goods or they “would restart our nuclear arms program”. They didn’t like George W’s answer to this (check on Clinton, he gave in to them every time and they restarted their nuclear weapons program while promising they weren’t) They thumbed their noses at our leaders, knowing full well they had the upper hand and Bush would cave in just like Clinton did.
Move forward a bit to Iraq. Everyone predicted we would loose. We went in there with 2 battalions and our British allies and cleaned house. Now that little Korean man wants to start talks and negotiations. I wonder why?

And for those of you who want to compare what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan to Nazi Germany…you should all be lined up and summarily shot.

Bookmark deleted and good riddance to bad rubbish.

Ouden
11th June 03, 12:11 PM
I didn't think I would ever say it to someone who is a soldier(if you really are), but too bad you didn't get banned in real life.

Kwill
11th June 03, 12:16 PM
Who is Trounce? Did he post on the old CTC? ... a very angry individual.

Ouden
11th June 03, 12:22 PM
He got verbally raped here multiple times by me and several others, and then was temporarily banned for being a freaking moron. Now he's back and even a bigger moron than ever.

Notorious
11th June 03, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Phleg
News flash--the president has little to do with the economy. Perhaps you could try the "Congress" or "Federal Reserve" doors next time?

Th

Gee, might it have anything to do with terrorist attacks, the dot-com bubble bursting, and corporate scandals which have been going on for years?



Record setting? Check out most of the European countries, which are currently more democratic than us. Hell, Germany's got somewhere around twice our unemployment.



So um, how do people that don't pay taxes get taxes back? I'm kind of curious about this one. To me, that's called "welfare" or "income distribution". Shouldn't it be only natural that when taxes are cut, those who don't pay taxes don't get any back? Christ, with your reasoning, every time Wal-Mart cuts prices, they should give refunds to people who haven't ever bought there.



Take an economics class.

...

"The President has little to do with the economy..."

With opening remarks like that, you lose all the credibility you might have had.

Phleg
11th June 03, 02:01 PM
Okay then, please tell me exactly how he has a major effect on the economy.

joen00b
11th June 03, 02:08 PM
Wasn't President Bush an investor with Enron?:P Isn't Enron some big company in Texas?:P Didn't Governor Bush help them with all sorts of crazy fly by night Tax Breaks before he became President?:P Isn't President Bush trying desperately to cover up his involvement with that scam?:P Why is the ImClone exec getting 7 years behind bars while the Enron Execs get a $1M/year 'retirement' paycheck for the rest of their lives?:P

Straylight
11th June 03, 02:13 PM
Because Martha Stewart was involved with ImClone...and we all frigging hate that bitch....

...and because the 'ImClone' name needed to be freed up to be placed in the 'fake sci fi movie company name pool.'

...and because Enron was cool.

Sithray
11th June 03, 04:54 PM
The majority of the people who like bush are either rich, super rich, or uneducated.

*edit* and that was proven in a poll. Trying to find the link again now.

Donnely McLeod
11th June 03, 05:20 PM
http://www.angelfire.com/theforce/natheo/chevy_bounce.gif

Menarion
12th June 03, 08:14 AM
Second, the reason we're in such a mess today is due in no small part to crimes committed when Clinton was still in office. Does the name Enron ring a bell? How about Worldcom? Both were doing their illegal activities well back in the Clinton administration. Translation: the huge stock market boom was based on a lie that companies and traders helped purpetrate on the American public.


Sorry we're in a mess today because both parties have been complicit in illegal activities with corporations for many decades, through the presidencies of both parties. It's just now that they are getting caught. If you think just the Democrats are in bed with these corporations or that just the Republicans are in bed with them, then you aren't paying attention.

Mesmer
13th June 03, 01:06 AM
Bush is the worst president we have had in 20 years.

Fuckin idiot.

Dick Cheney is a joke, his heart is so fucked up he cant prevent his head from tilting to the side.

Everytime I hear bush speak to some foreign dignitary, ambassador or leader, I shake my head in disbelief.

I ask myself, how is someone who can't even speak his own language supposed to represent the most powerful country in the world? Then it dawns on me, no wonder the rest of the world hates us. Its witless warmonger fuckwads like bush who tarnish our world image.

Ouden
13th June 03, 07:58 AM
Tard

Chantress
13th June 03, 09:18 AM
This whole hate Bush mantra is really getting tired, and I'll illustrate why.

#1 - The Liberal Hypocracy - You wanted to give the UN weapons inspectors 6 to 18 months to find the WMDs that both the UN, the Clinton Administration, France, Russia, and Germany, ALL ADMITTED THAT HE HAD! It is because of the retarted debate over whether or not to go in with or without UN approval that Saddam had AMPLE time to hide said WMDs that EVERYONE knew existed before the war. Since the war ended, there are several unanswered questions, but why are you unwilling to give the military the same amount of time to find the WMDs as you were willing to give the UN Weapons inspectors? Hypocracy #1 Revealed

#2 - Bush is only popular with the rich - There was a poll taken on a weekend a week or so ago, that was attempting to judge how well former President Hillary Clinton would fare in a race against Current President GW. She lost, she not only lost, she lost BADLY! Now you ask what is the significance of a weekend poll. Polls on the weekend have a tendency to be more liberal minded. This poll was conducted on a Thur, Fri, Sat, Sun. If you want a truer picture in the polling business you run a poll for at least two weeks to get an accurate sample. (I learned this while working for the Gallup Poll) So, we have what all of you liberals allege as the least popular president in history in office when the simpel facts of the polls that most likely are LIBERAL leaning show that even the liberals like him, and that he will be re-elected.

#3 - The Economy - SPEND SPEND SPEND! This is the liberal mantra. Tax the rich to give money to the poor. Punish the successful to reward those who would rather sit on their bum all day rather than get a job. Reward the people who have 20 kids just to collect a bigger welfare check instead of living responsibly and only having one or two. Anyone who thinks that the President has a serious impact on the economy is fooling himself. The only part of the economy the president can effectually impact is your current tax rate, and even then, he cant do anything until congress puts a tax bill in front of him. If you want to effect the economy and you want to make money, elect CONSERVATIVE not republican politicians. Conservatives will work to keep the government out of your wallet. I dont know about you, but i dont work my rear off to pay for Betty and her 20 welfare bebes. I work so that I can make a living as should others. The economy is on the rise. The job market is improving. The tax cuts will help becuase they will ALLOW you to spend more of YOUR money that YOU earned. Is there a place for the current tax system? certainly. I have no problem with donating part of my paycheck to help those who are less fortunate than myself as no fault of their own. I do NOT care to help those who intentionally disable themselves by making poor choices in their life. Tax cuts help the economy...look at the Reagan tax cuts. Look at the John Freaking Kenedy Tax cuts. BOTH times the tax cuts helped the economy.

#4 - Joe, looking forward to lunch with you today, but really, please dont forget your tin foil hat. Bush has played Enron like an open book. Enron was what appeared to be a VERY successful company that anyone with any investment portfolio seemed to have a share in their stock. I mean why not? It was consistently increasing in value. Did Bush own some of the stock? Sure, so did MANY other Americans. Was Bush friends with Ken Ley (sp?) Sure, but so was Clinton, as well as many other prominant Texans, and to be technical, Enron donated more money to Clinton in 96 than they did to the Republican Candidate, and they also donted more money to Gore in '00 than to the Bush campaign. Why are all the cry baby liberals not screaming for a full accounting of the Enron donations to the Gore campaign? Simple, Gore and the Liberals lost in '00 and in '02 and they cant stand it, so they whine and moan about ther failing party. Perhaps if America could figure out what the Democratic party stood for other than radical liberalism, Americans would be more favorable towards your candidates.

I cant believe it, but I have to agree with Ouden on this one. Interesting debate though.

Shorrtee McHeals
13th June 03, 09:33 AM
In times like this, people dont necessarily want the smartest or the "best" leader, they just want a strong one. Most people agree that Bush is, if nothing else, a pretty strong leader. He's shown he wont lay down and take it up the ass like Gore would have done, which makes some people like him a lot. (Especially soccer moms, I read that in Time!)

:p

Kitska
13th June 03, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Chantress
This whole hate Bush mantra is really getting tired, and I'll illustrate why.

#1 - The Liberal Hypocracy - You wanted to give the UN weapons inspectors 6 to 18 months to find the WMDs that both the UN, the Clinton Administration, France, Russia, and Germany, ALL ADMITTED THAT HE HAD! It is because of the retarted debate over whether or not to go in with or without UN approval that Saddam had AMPLE time to hide said WMDs that EVERYONE knew existed before the war. Since the war ended, there are several unanswered questions, but why are you unwilling to give the military the same amount of time to find the WMDs as you were willing to give the UN Weapons inspectors? Hypocracy #1 Revealed


This one is weak :P
If everyone knew there were WMD, with constant survailance wouldn't it be possible to see where they have relocated the weapons? And why don't you name what unanswered questions are there? :P How much time do they need? As much as to find Osama? :P

Chantress
13th June 03, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Kitska
This one is weak :P
If everyone knew there were WMD, with constant survailance wouldn't it be possible to see where they have relocated the weapons? And why don't you name what unanswered questions are there? :P How much time do they need? As much as to find Osama? :P

While finding Osama Bin Laden would be a strong victory in the battle of the war on terror, it would by no means be an end all victory. When dealign with an organization such as Al Queda(sp?) that has independent cells, eliminating the cash flow and disabling the cells is far more important than findign the leader. They dont operate like ants where u kill the queen you kill the colony. They operate more like worms. Cut off the head and then you have two worms.

Some unaswered questions would be, what about the chemical agents found in the Euphrates that shows that massive amounts of chemical agents had been dumped there recently? What about the Cargo Ships that departed Iraq into international waters and then were never heard of again? Many suspected that they were loaded with WMDs, but there is no way to tell since they cant be boarded. What about the hidden underground facilities that we have heard little about?

To answer your question of constant surveilance, They had these things hidden in 18 wheelers. There would be little to no way to keep a constant track of the transportation of WMDs if Hussein didnt want us to track them. The world community all agreed that he had the weapons before we went into Iraq. President Clinton admitted it and was too busy getting interns to try to sleep with him to do something about it. It did however provide a convenient cover up for his perjury.

Honestly, I think we have already found WMDs, and Bush is waiting until the right time to tell the public. He has a history of letting people degrade him and malign him, and then proving them all wrong and stealing the glory, a la Enron or Haliburton or Clear Channel or....you get the point. While all of you may think he is stupid, you are underestimating your worst enemy, and he will best you for it. Bush is neither stupid nor unexperienced, and he knows how to deal with people that would assume he is such.

Ouden
13th June 03, 10:41 AM
Have you seen that Osama Bin Laden is without a shadow of a doubt alive? No. For all you know and for all anyone knows he's been blown to dust and will never be found.

Kitska
13th June 03, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Chantress
While finding Osama Bin Laden would be a strong victory in the battle of the war on terror, it would by no means be an end all victory. When dealign with an organization such as Al Queda(sp?) that has independent cells, eliminating the cash flow and disabling the cells is far more important than findign the leader. They dont operate like ants where u kill the queen you kill the colony. They operate more like worms. Cut off the head and then you have two worms.
Do you have their manuals on how they operate? Leader is always a big influence and taking someone like Osama out of the game, would make a big difference to the war on terror. In my opinion at least.


Originally posted by Chantress

Honestly, I think we have already found WMDs, and Bush is waiting until the right time to tell the public. He has a history of letting people degrade him and malign him, and then proving them all wrong and stealing the glory, a la Enron or Haliburton or Clear Channel or....you get the point. While all of you may think he is stupid, you are underestimating your worst enemy, and he will best you for it. Bush is neither stupid nor unexperienced, and he knows how to deal with people that would assume he is such.
So, like close to election time? :P

Kitska
13th June 03, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Ouden
Have you seen that Osama Bin Laden is without a shadow of a doubt alive? No. For all you know and for all anyone knows he's been blown to dust and will never be found.

So we are not exactly sure if Osama is dead or alive, so we stop looking for him, but we think that Iraq has/had WMD, not knowing for sure since noone has shown any found WMD yet, and we go blast everything in sight? :P

Sithray
13th June 03, 11:40 AM
I agree with you Chantress that Bush is much smarter than he leads on, and he is good about popping things out at romantic times (one of the reasons he acts like this is so he can look innocent), HOWEVER, the reason he won the poll agasint Hillary is plain and simple...she is a woman.

I don't care what any girl says here, she wouldn't stand a chance against the worst Candidate to ever grace the runnings. Although I personally don't give a shit what gender sits in the Oval, I know the USA as a whole is not ready for a woman President, this has been proven time and time again, in poll after poll.

I howver think that GWB Jr has been the most corrupt President I have seen in my time.

Sure Clinton lied about boning a chick, But Bush was in volved in a scandal from the beginning with rumors he had Florida rigged by his brother. Then papers were released proving he knew a terroist attack was being planned, and that he possibly overlooked them because it would open up access to war, he simply didn't know that the attack would be so large scale. Then he lost Osama, slowly leaving him out of his speches he focused on Al Queda, then when they were stumped there, he started a war with Iraq, and now we find out that his inner circle doctored, possibly even faked or overlooked documents in order to make a better case for war. Then when the US defeats Iraq and tons of looting is going on, the American public finds out that thousands of soldiers, who could have stopped the looting, were sitting on their asses because he wanted the Oil Ministry building protected. But wait, now he gives the rebuild contract to his good buddy Cheney's former company?? I can go on...

Sorry, but that is why I don't like the guy, I have reasons not too. Simply saying "you don't like bush cause it's cool not too" pegs you as a sheep among the masses. Uneducated America at it's best. When I say uneducted, I mean people who prefer to just think that what the President says is true and accurate, people who don't look into subjects and things for themselves. Blind devotion is just that...blind.

**edit** oh yeah...HE WANTS TO DRILL FOR OIL IN NATIONAL PARKS FOR FUCKS SAKE!!!

Ouden
13th June 03, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Kitska
So we are not exactly sure if Osama is dead or alive, so we stop looking for him, but we think that Iraq has/had WMD, not knowing for sure since noone has shown any found WMD yet, and we go blast everything in sight? :P

Saying we stopped looking for Osama is about the most moronic thing in the world.

Not knowing they had WMD? It has been known for years upon years that he still had TONS upon TONS of chemical and bio-chemical weapons laying around that they admitted to having after the Gulf War. All of these tons and tons just up and vanished, and you believe it? How gullible can you be?

Kitska
13th June 03, 11:52 AM
They used to show every single day on the news what was being done to find Osama, then it slowly all faded away. Why?

Ok, maybe I worded it wrong. That they still have any WMD left, not that they had any before. I am gullible, as most of you are :P

Ouden
13th June 03, 12:27 PM
WMD doesn't isn't exactly bio-degradeable. It doesn't just slowly fade away into the wide blue yonder. All these tons of tons of it are just gone? Some magician put them in a box and sent them to a parallel dimension?

And if you're depending on the news media to stick with a certain story you can forget it. Hell 2 days after Iraq had their ass kicked it was back to Laci Peterson is Dead OMG OMG OMG OMG stories over and over again.

I posted a story not long ago about how the guv'ment is going after Al Qaeda, etc. Bin Laden is included in that.

Zeta
13th June 03, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Kitska
So we are not exactly sure if Osama is dead or alive, so we stop looking for him, but we think that Iraq has/had WMD, not knowing for sure since noone has shown any found WMD yet, and we go blast everything in sight? :P

I personally don't think Osama even exists. If we cant find him he must not exist right? Kind of like the WMD. They don't exist because we cant find them either...


http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-061103D

Kitska
13th June 03, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Zeta
I personally don't think Osama even exists. If we cant find him he must not exist right? Kind of like the WMD. They don't exist because we cant find them either...


Only we hear a lot about search for WMD and I haven't seen much about the search for Osama. Looks like they needed ratings and at some point they were getting these ratings with "hunt" on Osama, now they are getting ratings with "hunt" on WMD, so they leave Osama alone, as in stop looking for him? Weren't there some vidoes of Osama not too long ago with him being well and alive?



Ouden...I posted a story not long ago about how the guv'ment is going after Al Qaeda, etc. Bin Laden is included in that.
Sorry Ouden, I haven't read all of this board, so I must have missed your post.

Mesmer
13th June 03, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Ouden
Tard

Re

Ouden
13th June 03, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Mesmer
Re

guh guh guh

Shorrtee McHeals
13th June 03, 09:17 PM
People say dont worry 'bout bin Laden......

Have you forgotten.

Lufy
13th June 03, 09:23 PM
yeah the attacks on saudi are thought to be traced back to bin laden

Phleg
14th June 03, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by Sithray
I agree with you Chantress that Bush is much smarter than he leads on, and he is good about popping things out at romantic times (one of the reasons he acts like this is so he can look innocent), HOWEVER, the reason he won the poll agasint Hillary is plain and simple...she is a woman.

I don't care what any girl says here, she wouldn't stand a chance against the worst Candidate to ever grace the runnings. Although I personally don't give a shit what gender sits in the Oval, I know the USA as a whole is not ready for a woman President, this has been proven time and time again, in poll after poll.

Well, and she's a fucking sociopath.


Originally posted by Sithray
Sure Clinton lied about boning a chick, But Bush was in volved in a scandal from the beginning with rumors he had Florida rigged by his brother.

Just making a point, but being involved in a scandal does not necessarily imply guilt.


Originally posted by Sithray
Then papers were released proving he knew a terroist attack was being planned, and that he possibly overlooked them because it would open up access to war, he simply didn't know that the attack would be so large scale.

Sure, he had papers on his desk saying that terrorists might attack by plane. He also probably had papers on his desk saying terrorist attacks might come by boat, from car bombings, from poisoned water supplies, etc. Not to mention, there are a lot of fucking airplanes. We've "cracked down" on airport security, even bringing in our "best and brightest" (yes, I'm being facetious), and undercover agents can still smuggle weapons on board.

Don't you guys remember right after 9/11, when people started whining about "not being warned"? We started getting warned about everything, until people were sick and tired of it.


Originally posted by Sithray
Then he lost Osama, slowly leaving him out of his speches he focused on Al Queda,

Excuse me? I remember from the very beginning him making the explicit statement that they were not going after Osama bin Laden, or any other single person, but after Al Qaeda and other terrorists.


Originally posted by Sithray
then when they were stumped there, he started a war with Iraq, and now we find out that his inner circle doctored, possibly even faked or overlooked documents in order to make a better case for war.

How does this make Bush corrupt?


Originally posted by Sithray
Then when the US defeats Iraq and tons of looting is going on, the American public finds out that thousands of soldiers, who could have stopped the looting, were sitting on their asses because he wanted the Oil Ministry building protected.

Actually, we found out that very few items were looted from the museum--the most expensive of which was a pot. Besides, the American soldiers didn't go in because they were taking fire from the building, and were under explicit orders not to return fire for fear of damaging items in the museum.

Finally, I see nothing wrong with us protecting their oil supplies first and foremost. Christ, that's where 95% of the funds to rebuild the country are coming from. Wouldn't it have been absolutely fucking retarded to go protect a few things of sentimental value to the Iraqis, ignoring protection for what we were counting on as their main source of funds for rebuilding?


Originally posted by Sithray
But wait, now he gives the rebuild contract to his good buddy Cheney's former company?? I can go on...

The company won the bid fair and square. Show me a single bit of evidence of favoritism in this.

Sithray
16th June 03, 12:29 PM
OMG I had a HUGE reply typed up but fucking accidentally hit f5 and wiped it. I have no Idea where you get your info from Phleg, but a simple google search or a cnn archive search will disprove 90% of your statements. Especially the one where you said he never said Osama was our priority. He tooted that horn for nearly 2 months before realizing he would never find him, then switched to Al Kiddys.

Also, do some research, you will find alot more than the museum was pillaged in Iraq.

Phleg
16th June 03, 01:12 PM
You're kidding me, right? I remember him explicitly stating on several occasions, right when we were going to begin the war on terror, that it wasn't about killing a single person, but about attacking terrorism wherever it reared it's ugly head.

Sithray
16th June 03, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Phleg
You're kidding me, right?

Absolutely not. Do some research...


I remember him explicitly stating on several occasions, right when we were going to begin the war on terror, that it wasn't about killing a single person, but about attacking terrorism wherever it reared it's ugly head.

He said this, but he also specifically stated "Our number one priority right now is finding Osama Bin Laden". Then eventually he stop referencing Osama altogether out of his speeches, hoping people like you would forget he ever said it.

Boanerges
16th June 03, 04:13 PM
If you know all this, Sithray, why not post your links?

Kwill
16th June 03, 05:15 PM
In Support of Sithray:


Nine months after President Bush said he wanted Mr. bin Laden "dead or alive" and declared war on the Taliban authorities in Afghanistan who refused to hand him over, the most wanted man in the world is still on the run.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0627/p01s04-wosc.html (Christian Science Monitor)


From >http://www.museum-security.org/03/054.html#8 (Museum Security)


As the full extent of the looting of Iraq’s National Museum in Baghdad emerges, it becomes clear that there was nothing accidental about it. Rather it was the result of a long planned project to plunder the artistic and historical treasures that are held in the museums of Iraq.
Had the National Museum of Iraq been looted by poor slum dwellers it would have been crime enough, and the responsibility would have rested with the American administration that refused, despite repeated warnings, to provide for the security of Baghdad’s cultural buildings. Once the museum staff were able to communicate with the outside world, however, it became apparent that the looting was not random. It was the work of people who knew what they were looking for and came specially equipped for the job. Dr. Dony George, head of the Baghdad Museum, said, “I believe they were people who knew what they wanted. They had passed by the gypsum copy of the Black Obelisk. This means that they must have been specialists. They did not touch those copies.”

Speaking on Britain’s Channel 4 News, he told Dr. John Curtis of the British Museum that among the artifacts that have been stolen are the sacred vase of Warka, a 5,000-year-old golden vessel found at Ur, an Akkadian statue base, and an Assyrian statue. It was, said Dr. Curtis, “Like stealing the Mona Lisa.”

It was only almost a week after the museum was originally looted that Dr. George was able to alert archaeologists worldwide to what had been stolen. The American military authorities had made no effort to prevent the objects leaving Baghdad or to put in process an international search for the stolen artifacts. The US reluctance to act cannot be explained by any lack of warning. Professional archaeologists and art historians had told the Pentagon of the danger of looting beforehand. Dr. Irving Finkel of the British Museum told Channel 4 that the looting was “entirely predictable and could easily have been stopped.”


The museum was the victim of a carefully planned assault. The thieves who took the most valuable material came prepared with equipment to lift the heaviest objects, which the staff could not move from the galleries, and had keys to the vaults where the most valuable items were stored. Not since the Nazis systematically stripped the museums of Europe has such a crime been committed. The US online publication of BusinessWeek magazine reiterated the theme of premeditation and conspiracy in the looting of Iraq’s museums in an April 17 article headlined “Were Baghdad’s Antiquity Thieves Ready?” The article carries the subtitle: “They may have known just what they were looking for because dealers ordered the most important pieces well in advance.” BusinessWeek writes: “It was almost as if the perpetrators were waiting for Baghdad to fall to make their move. Gil J. Stein, a professor of archaeology at the University of Chicago, which has been conducting digs in Iraq for 80 years, believes that dealers ordered the most important pieces well in advance. ‘They were looking for very specific artifacts,’ he says. ‘They knew where to look.’” Since the last Gulf War in 1991 Iraqi antiquities have flooded onto the market from the museums that were looted then and from archaeological sites that have been attacked with bulldozers. At such locations ancient statues have been sawed apart so they could be exported. This plundering of Iraq’s cultural heritage has only whetted the appetite of collectors who are already responsible for looting Far Eastern, Latin American and Italian archaeological sites. With the collapse of global stock markets, works of art and antiquities have come to be regarded even more highly as a secure investment, fuelling an already huge underground market.

The illegal trade in antiquities is thought to be as lucrative as drugs trafficking, to which it is often linked.

Phleg
16th June 03, 10:01 PM
Actually, Kwill, as it turns out, about 38 items were looted from Baghdad museum, the most valuable of which was a bowl. There was an article in the Chicago Tribune about it--I'll try to find it.

Mesmer
16th June 03, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by Ouden
guh guh guh

sorry, next time I use lube.

Merauk
17th June 03, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by Phleg
You're kidding me, right? I remember him explicitly stating on several occasions, right when we were going to begin the war on terror, that it wasn't about killing a single person, but about attacking terrorism wherever it reared it's ugly head.


Originally posted by Phleg
Excuse me? I remember from the very beginning him making the explicit statement that they were not going after Osama bin Laden, or any other single person, but after Al Qaeda and other terrorists.

Originally posted by Sithray

Absolutely not. Do some research...


Originally posted by Kwill
In Support of Sithray:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0627/p01s04-wosc.html (Christian Science Monitor)



Originally posted by Phleg
Actually, Kwill, as it turns out, about 38 items were looted from Baghdad museum, the most valuable of which was a bowl. There was an article in the Chicago Tribune about it--I'll try to find it.

Of course Sithray's other point is totally ignored, good spin.

Phleg
17th June 03, 09:55 AM
The other point is ignored because I already refuted it twice. But that's okay, a third time is fine.

Although I don't remember hearing Bush saying something to the effect of wanting him "dead or alive", I'll pretend for a moment it's true. Know how much this changes my opinion? None. Sure, he may have wanted Osama dead or alive, but that doesn't mean that we sent troops in there for the explicit purpose of killing Osama. If you look at any place where Bush was talking about sending troops in, I'm confident you will find him repeatedly saying they weren't going in to kill Osama. If it happened during the operations, great, but it wasn't about killing one man.

Sithray
17th June 03, 10:06 AM
You also act like the only thing looted in Iraq was that museum...you are totally overlooking privately owned businesses, banks, homes and hotels.

Looting was a huge ordeal that went on for some 2 weeks before the international public made HUGE uproar about how the American army was standing Idly by while they let it happen. (Note that British troops were still some 300 miles South during the biggest chunk of looting). It was at this point, that Bush (by now some 25,000 troops were in the area so he had more than enough to protect his precious Oil Ministry as well as do some policing) Sent in the marines to make peace, it took less than a day to get the looting under control.

This shows Bush's blantant disrespect for the Iraqi people.

I am just stumped how a man who avoided Vietnam, is so hell bent on making war.

Sithray
17th June 03, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Boanerges
If you know all this, Sithray, why not post your links?

Of all the people who I consider uninformed fucks, you would not have been on that list. I hope I can still consider you in the class of semi smart on these boards.

http://www.google.com search: President Bush "Wanted dead or alive" you will get HUNDREDS of articles. Also Bush osama priority dead or alive you will get some nice Bush Quotes.

an old link to him saying he wanted him dead or alive: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_MAIN010917.html

looking for bin laden? : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/18/wbush18.xml

This article really brings out how our first few attacks in Afghanastan were specifically engineered through intelligence obtained about possible whereabouts of Bin Laden. http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/time.dead/

When the war on terrorism started, the public wanted Bin Ladens head on a platter, so that is what Bush said he would give them. When he realized he failed, he attempted to let it fade away. Apparently it is working on the sheep, some of which obviously post here.

There are many more articles

imported_Driz
17th June 03, 10:24 AM
Actually Sithray,

If you ask me it is the Iraqi people showing their lack of respect for their own country and fellow countrymen. After all, its Iraq citizens doing the looting isn't it? Or did a bunch of Iranians decide to come over and loot?

Boanerges
17th June 03, 10:47 AM
I didn't say that for my benefit. I remember Bush demanding the Taliban hand him over and them refusing so we invaded Afghanistan. But you assume a heck of a lot telling people "Go look it up". That was my point.

As to why nobody talks about Osama anymore... The main reason is that capturing Osama wouldn't really do anything to end terrorism. Osama is pretty much broke now and the funding for al Qadia comes mainly from "charitable" Arab organizations that are nothing more than fronts.

As far as Bush being in with big business, name one president in the past 50 years who wasn't. Politics are expensive and, like it or not, money talks. But your assertions that Florida was rigged and Bush knew about Sept 11 before it happened are unprovable. Nobody could have imagined in their wildest dreams that it would come that close in Florida nor could anyone have imagined someone would use commercial airliners as guided missles.

Sithray
17th June 03, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Driz
Actually Sithray,

If you ask me it is the Iraqi people showing their lack of respect for their own country and fellow countrymen. After all, its Iraq citizens doing the looting isn't it? Or did a bunch of Iranians decide to come over and loot?

OK, you are obviously a complete fucking retard!

Merauk
17th June 03, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Phleg
Although I don't remember hearing Bush saying something to the effect of wanting him "dead or alive", I'll pretend for a moment it's true.

It isn’t a matter of pretend it is a matter of substantiated fact. It did happen almost 2yrs ago so it may have been before you were old enough to read.

imported_Driz
17th June 03, 12:35 PM
Sithray,

Tell me and be honest about it, Were you born a complete fucking retard or is it something you hqave to work on a daily basis? I was pointing out the fact that the average looter in Iraq is an Iraq citizen and not a foreign national. Looting your countrymens sotres and such shows no fucking respect whatsoever, be it for your country or countrymen.

imported_Driz
17th June 03, 12:40 PM
And to clarify my position Sith, It is not Bush's job to prevent looting, he shouldn't have to... The average Iraq citizen should have enough respect for their country and countrymen to not loot or to stop looting from happening. Showing a lack of respect on Bush's part? Not in my opinion but thats just what it is: my opinion.

Sithray
17th June 03, 12:48 PM
OK Driznit - I called you a fucking retard first, therefore you have to come up with something better, otherwise your insult is moot.

Yes it is true that most of the looters were Iraqi people. As in ANY country when chaos hits, looting happens. A good example of such in the US are the LA riots. Maybe a bit before your time, but records are there. Basically the city was not ready for such a large scale riot, hence chaos reigned and looting occured. Finally when the National Guard was called in the looting subsided.

The point made by the international community, as well as the UN when looting ensued in Iraq, is that it is ALWAYS a known factor in war. There will be those dishonest who want to gain for themselves. This was a factor that Bush didn't even think twice about being ready for. He let it happen for a substantial amount of time, before he finally let the Marines take care of it. The fact that it took less than a day to stop it, shows he could have prevented it from happening in the first place.

By not taking steps to prevent this KNOWN aspect of war, he showed a disrespect for the HONEST HARDWORKING people of Iraq.

And just so you know, many of the looters who were apprehended were in fact not Iraqi, but they were from bordering countires who entered Iraq AFTER the war for the specific purpose of looting.

It took less than 200 marines to police the city that day to restore some sort of order. There were 25,000 troops within driving distance of the city, not to mention a force of more than 1,000 protecting the Oil Ministry building...you do the math.

Sithray
17th June 03, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Driz
And to clarify my position Sith, It is not Bush's job to prevent looting, he shouldn't have to...

And this is why the international community hates America :(

imported_Driz
17th June 03, 01:20 PM
Sith,
I have my own viewpoint and I will concede the point that when chaos reigns those who are of questionable character will come out of the woodwork to wreak havoc for their own ends.
I guess I look at it with the viewpoint I held after the LA riots and looting in april of 92 after the R. King verdict. Those who are looting have no respect for those who they are looting. Those who are looted have no self respct to stand up and put a stop to it. I for one would not sit by and watch someone pull that sort of shit. But like I've always said, its just my opinion.

Soulmirror
17th June 03, 01:25 PM
Driz,
La riots, Lakers winning the champoinship and the rioting, riots over any number of things, riots over war. Ok, now understand the mob mentality, a person will do things in a mob that they normally would not do alone, that being said.

That is the mentality in Iraq, the US Government is directly responsible for making it that way, through armed aggression. Their role changed the day they overran the city, from aggressor to peacekeeper. The US has to step in and control the initial rioting, looting and civil insurrection to pave the way for some kind of order and so that the Iraqis can install a peacekeeping force and eventually a government.

Using the Army and Marine Corps is not the way to do it though. Time and time again the Chiefs of Staff have told various presidents that soldiers are not peacekeepers, but warfighters. There are 2 entirely different sets of rules in war or maintaining order. A policeman and a soldier are not the same thing by any means, they are trained in a totally different manner. The Army and Marine Corps have made adjustments in their training to change with the changing battlefields and hopefully they can assist in maintaining the peace, but they are not the best for the job of peacekeeper.

Soulmirror

imported_Driz
17th June 03, 01:39 PM
Sorry for denigrating myself into throwing insults as well, such behavior shifts the focus of what we are trying to discuss to personal attacks and that is rather counterproductive....

Anyways, the international community is going to have to accept the fact that america is changing the way she looks at the world and deals with it. I find it oddly amusing that there has been no discourse on the fact that with the Iraq war America has for the 1st time ever in her history engaged in a preemptive war. The reasoning for it is a bit muddled to say the least but its been done now. (Lets not diverge into discussions over vietnam as a preemptive war, as such it was a civil war in which we stuck our noses.) I find myself wondering whats next, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia? And on to another side note, we need to examine our relationship with our "allies" in Saudi Arabia.... Sorry a bit muddled.. Just finished teaching New Employee IT education 1, teaching that class is the worst 4 hours of my week... ohhh well.

Sith, What do you think of Americas new policy of preemption?

Sithray
17th June 03, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Soulmirror
the US Government is directly responsible for making it that way, through armed aggression. Their role changed the day they overran the city, from aggressor to peacekeeper. The US has to step in and control the initial rioting, looting and civil insurrection to pave the way for some kind of order and so that the Iraqis can install a peacekeeping force and eventually a government.

Well said, my thoughts exactly. Bush caused the civil chaos. As with ANY war he knew it would happen, yet he took no steps of prevention, and only after a HUGE amount of scrutiny from international media did he do something about it.

joen00b
17th June 03, 03:34 PM
GEORGE W. BUSH
The White House
USA

RESUME

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:

I ran for congress and lost.

I produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.

I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas; company went
bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land
using taxpayer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White
Sox.

With my father's help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

I changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas
the most polluted state in the Union.

I replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in
America.

Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of
billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in
American history.

I became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000
votes, with the help of my father's appointments to the Supreme Court.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:

I attacked and took over two countries.

I spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

I shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.

I set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12
month period.

I set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock
market.

I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

I am the first president in US history to enter office with a
criminal record.

My first year in office I set the all-time record for most days
on vacation by any president in US history.

After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the
worst security failure in US history.

I set the record for most campaign fundraising trips than any other
president in US history.

In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their
job.

I cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any
president in US history.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month
period.

I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions
than any president in US history.

I set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any
president since the advent of television.

I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution
than any president in US history.

I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused
to intervene when corruption was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and
refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.

I cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.

I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to
the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the
record for protest against any person in the history of mankind
http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches).

I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US
history.

My presidency is the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US
history.

Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US
history. (The 'poorest' multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice has
a Chevron oil tanker named after her).

I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the
Union simultaneously nearing bankruptcy.

I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any
market in any country in the history of the world.

I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and
military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of
the United Nations and the world community.

I created the largest government department bureaucracy in the
history of the United States.

I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending
increases, more than any president in US history.

I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations
remove the US from the human rights commission.

I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations
remove the US from the elections monitoring board.

I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of
congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US
history.

I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

I withdrew from the World Court of Law.

I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by
default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations
election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).

I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate
campaign donations.

My biggest lifetime campaign contributor, who is also one of my
best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy
frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron corporation).

I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in
US history.

I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.

I took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 9/11, and in
less than a year made the US the most resented country in the
world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

I, with a policy of 'disengagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine
relations in at least 30 years.

I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the
people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace
and stability.

I am the first US president in history to have the people of South
Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North
Korea.

I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded
government contracts.

I set all-time record for number of administration appointees who
violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for
government contracts.

I failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden dead or
alive'.

In the 18 months following the 9/11 attacks I have successfully
prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the
history of the United States.

I removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any
other president in US history.

In a little over two years I created the most divided country in
decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.

Sithray
17th June 03, 04:21 PM
Thankyou Joe :) It's funny how a huge number of people simply overlook that fact. That list leaves out that he is the only President with a criminal past...

joen00b
17th June 03, 04:25 PM
Posted by me:
I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

I am the first president in US history to enter office with a
criminal record.

My first year in office I set the all-time record for most days
on vacation by any president in US history.

Sithray
17th June 03, 04:26 PM
point taken!

joen00b
17th June 03, 06:05 PM
Hahahahahaha (http://www.democrats.org/scotus/bushenstein.html)

Mesmer
17th June 03, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by Driz
It is not Bush's job to prevent looting,

So exactly what is Bush's job? is it to attack another state without provocation, and then not even try to save bagdad from falling into chaos?

Bush should have done more than protect the oil ministry, especially since the pentagon had advance warning from the curators of that museum before the war even started. Luckily, those same curators were smart enough to hide the most valuable pieces of Iraq's museum in safehouses.

Bush could not have prevented the mass looting, but he did cause the condition that allowed the looting, and he could of at least tried harder to maintain an appearance of I give a fuck.

Ouden
17th June 03, 07:46 PM
I typed up a good-sized response, but then I realized that Clinton supporters were retarded monkies and thought better of it.

Phleg
17th June 03, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by Merauk
It isn’t a matter of pretend it is a matter of substantiated fact. It did happen almost 2yrs ago so it may have been before you were old enough to read.

Which would seem to be two years prior to you.

I said I would pretend that I had heard it, not that I would pretend that he made the statement.

Phleg
17th June 03, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by joen00b
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:

I attacked and took over two countries.

And before, we attacked and took over Nazi Germany. I see no complaints about that.


Originally posted by joen00b
I spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

Correction: Congress spent the surplus. The President has very little direct control over the allocation of finances.


Originally posted by joen00b
I shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.

Oops, Bush loses this one. His deficit was not the largest, if you consider it as most rational people would: as a percentage of our GDP. Think of it this way: if a family that makes $25,000 a year overspends their budget by $5,000, that's a huge chunk of their money. It'll take 1/5 of a year to pay off those debts. On the other hand, let's say there's a family who makes $250,000 a year, who's overspent their budget by $10,000. Of course, that's a much larger amount of deficit. However, as a percentage of their income, it's far smaller, and will only take 1/25 a year to recoup the losses.

During World War II, our annual budget deficit hit 30.3% of our GDP. Right now, it's only 2.7%. That's even lower than Clinton's annual deficit, as a percentage of the GDP.

But hey, a little FUD never hurt anyone, right?


Originally posted by joen00b
I set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12
month period.

Yeah, because he had a whole hell of a lot to do with that. This has about as much credibility as me faulting Clinton for fucking El Nino.


Originally posted by joen00b
I set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock
market.

Once again, as a percentage of the stock market's actual value, it's not even close. And of course, the internet bubble bursting, a rise in terrorism, etc., couldn't have had anything to do with this, right? It's all Bush's fault, just like it was Clinton's fault that Frank Sinatra died!


Originally posted by joen00b
I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

Never heard about this. Link me? The guy mighta deserved it.


Originally posted by joen00b
I am the first president in US history to enter office with a
criminal record.

This is just laughable.


Originally posted by joen00b
After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the
worst security failure in US history.

So shouldn't the blame be put over the security personnel who actually let the shit fall through the cracks? Christ, it's like blaming the CEO of McDonalds because some flunkie served you a cold burger.


Originally posted by joen00b
In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their
job.

I'm telling you, I'm on to Clinton and the whole El Nino thing. It's undeniable.


Originally posted by joen00b
I cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any
president in US history.

What about Presidents who didn't increase unemployment benefits when we had none? Were the evil monsters? And personally, I don't see what's so bad about cutting unemployment benefits. Unemployment isn't supposed to be beneficial. Hell, look at Germany's massive welfare state and corresponding unemployment.


Originally posted by joen00b
I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month
period.

Clinton, El Nino. Nuff' said.


Originally posted by joen00b
I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions
than any president in US history.

Isn't our entire justice system based off the principle of rehabilitation? =\ Not to mention, "convicted criminal" can be extended to be just about anything, including people who've been pulled over for speeding.


Originally posted by joen00b
I set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any
president since the advent of television.

This is a bad thing? I'd rather our president be in the office taking care of business rather than blathering on to the American public, who for the most part couldn't give a shit anyways. That's what a fucking press secretary is for.


Originally posted by joen00b
I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution
than any president in US history.

Er, that's bullshit. Bush hasn't signed any constitutional amendments. Other presidents have. You lose.


Originally posted by joen00b
I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused
to intervene when corruption was revealed.

Great! I'd prefer the government, a corrupt entity on it's own, stay out.


Originally posted by joen00b
I presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and
refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.

Didn't you just blame him for wasting the surplus? So now he's trying to keep a surplus, in case of emergency, and you're faulting him on that. Hey, gotta love double standards.


Originally posted by joen00b
I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US
history.

So? This isn't necessarily a bad thing.


Originally posted by joen00b
My presidency is the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US
history.

I'll give you this. I've been pissed off at Bush's attempts to evade accountability.


Originally posted by joen00b
Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US
history. (The 'poorest' multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice has
a Chevron oil tanker named after her).

Hey, because having successful people at the highest branches of our government is BAD. Let's put some minimum-wage earners in for the President's staff. I'm sure that'll work out well.


Originally posted by joen00b
I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the
Union simultaneously nearing bankruptcy.

Clinton. El Nino.


Originally posted by joen00b
I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any
market in any country in the history of the world.

Clinton. El Nino.


Originally posted by joen00b
I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and
military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of
the United Nations and the world community.

Er, he's nowhere near the first US President to do this. Against the will of the U.N.? Odd, I seem to recall explicit authorization granted in Resolution 1441.


Originally posted by joen00b
I created the largest government department bureaucracy in the
history of the United States.

Too true. /cry


Originally posted by joen00b
I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending
increases, more than any president in US history.

Once again, as taken as a percentage of the GDP, he loses.


Originally posted by joen00b
I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations
remove the US from the human rights commission.

Yeah, the same commission that refused to examine China for years and years. Yeah, I sure as hell give the UNHRC credibility. The idiots wouldn't smell a human rights violation if their own damned children were tortured.


Originally posted by joen00b
I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of
congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US
history.

True. This pisses me off, too.


Originally posted by joen00b
I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

It rendered it's own damned self irrelevant by passing resolution after resolution and never providing any teeth behind them. Nobody's at fault for it's irrelevance except itself and the spineless weasels who were too afraid to put any real backing into it's actions.


Originally posted by joen00b
I withdrew from the World Court of Law.

This is bad? Sorry, but isn't the World Criminal Court straight out of 1984?


Originally posted by joen00b
I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by
default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

Yeah, this is true. Pisses me off, too.


Originally posted by joen00b
I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations
election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).

Sorry, but we don't need U.N. personnel to monitor our elections.


Originally posted by joen00b
I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate
campaign donations.

So in other words, he promotes business?


Originally posted by joen00b
My biggest lifetime campaign contributor, who is also one of my
best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy
frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron corporation).

My friend does drugs. I'm a horrible person.


Originally posted by joen00b
I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in
US history.

Oddly enough, he hasn't seemed to be using them for guidance.


Originally posted by joen00b
I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.

Yeah =\


Originally posted by joen00b
I took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 9/11, and in
less than a year made the US the most resented country in the
world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

Aww, isn't it sad? He made enemies by liberating a nation under a tyrranical dictator. Doesn't this show he's more interested in doing the right thing than being popular?


Originally posted by joen00b
I, with a policy of 'disengagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine
relations in at least 30 years.

It wouldn't have anything to do with the natural escalation of these types of situations, now, would it?


Originally posted by joen00b
I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the
people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace
and stability.

Remember, these are the same people who thought Hitler would bring no harm.


Originally posted by joen00b
I am the first US president in history to have the people of South
Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North
Korea.

Er, how so?


Originally posted by joen00b
I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded
government contracts.

I thought our justice system was based on rehabilitation?


Originally posted by joen00b
I set all-time record for number of administration appointees who
violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for
government contracts.

Yeah, it's true. I agree it's bad.


Originally posted by joen00b
I failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden dead or
alive'.

Well, to play devil's advocate, he is "dead or alive". And besides, we haven't heard a squeak from him in an incredibly long period of time. How can you definitively say Osama isn't dead? I mean, for all we know, he was killed in one of the bombings or firefights, and just never discovered and/or identified.

But of course, this is much worse than Bill Clinton, who had the opportunity to have Osama handed over and declined it.


Originally posted by joen00b
In the 18 months following the 9/11 attacks I have successfully
prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the
history of the United States.

Yeah, I agree. Bad stuff.


Originally posted by joen00b
I removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any
other president in US history.

Well, it's actually been John Ascroft. But seeing as he's an appointee, I'll give you this. I despite it, too--especially the PATRIOT II.


Originally posted by joen00b
In a little over two years I created the most divided country in
decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.

How do you quantify this? I'd say the only division is over whether or not they like Bush. I'd say we're far less divided than, say, during segregation.

joen00b
17th June 03, 10:40 PM
Dude, are you a Dittohead, Phleg? You're sounding more and more like Rush Limbaugh, what ever happened to your Libertarian roots? Are you actually saying Bush is a good President without an alternate agenda?

About the Ken Lay thing, that dude should be personally rotting in prison, but instead, Bush helped save his bacon. Thousands of individuals have had their retirement and financial dreams crushed by that fuck and just because he's personal friends with the President he gets off Scot Free. Yet the dude from ImClone, who's shady business dealings impacted far fewer folks got 7 years? Oh yeah, let's not forget that Ken Lay gets 1 million a year for the rest of his life as 'retirement' for commiting fraud.

Bush is a shady mother fucker, I don't like him, I didn't vote for him, I won't vote for him, and it scares me shitless that he AND Clinton are both trying to change the rules so they can serve more than 2 terms in office.

Nikalos_2
17th June 03, 10:55 PM
Solution: Redd Foxx for president

" This ones the big one....."

Phleg
18th June 03, 04:33 AM
Originally posted by joen00b
Dude, are you a Dittohead, Phleg? You're sounding more and more like Rush Limbaugh, what ever happened to your Libertarian roots? Are you actually saying Bush is a good President without an alternate agenda?

Never said I liked the guy as a president. Personally, I think he's done a better job than Al Gore would have, but a) that's just conjecture, and b) that's not saying much. Hell, I'll defend Clinton if people are saying shit about him that isn't true.


Originally posted by joen00b
About the Ken Lay thing, that dude should be personally rotting in prison, but instead, Bush helped save his bacon. Thousands of individuals have had their retirement and financial dreams crushed by that fuck and just because he's personal friends with the President he gets off Scot Free. Yet the dude from ImClone, who's shady business dealings impacted far fewer folks got 7 years? Oh yeah, let's not forget that Ken Lay gets 1 million a year for the rest of his life as 'retirement' for commiting fraud.

I was being sarcastic on this one. Yeah, Ken Lay deserves to be stoned to death because of the actions he committed, and believe me, I felt as cheated as ever when all he got was a wrist slap.


Originally posted by joen00b
Bush is a shady mother fucker, I don't like him, I didn't vote for him, I won't vote for him, and it scares me shitless that he AND Clinton are both trying to change the rules so they can serve more than 2 terms in office.

Doesn't it? =\

Kitska
18th June 03, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by Phleg
And before, we attacked and took over Nazi Germany. I see no complaints about that.
a bit of an overstatement.




Originally posted by Phleg
Yeah, because he had a whole hell of a lot to do with that. This has about as much credibility as me faulting Clinton for fucking El Nino.
because natural disaster is exactly the same as economics? People have more control over economics then over nature as far as I know so far. This would be comparing apples to oranges.




Originally posted by Phleg
This is just laughable.
because where it says that to become a president of US you can’t have any criminal record is funny? You must get lots of laughs reading the Constitution also.




Originally posted by Phleg
So shouldn't the blame be put over the security personnel who actually let the shit fall through the cracks? Christ, it's like blaming the CEO of McDonalds because some flunkie served you a cold burger.
because we all know that there is huge security personnel in every McD’s to check the temperature of each burger and to report it to CEO’s. From media though we know that Bush was briefed on the threat.




Originally posted by Phleg
I'm telling you, I'm on to Clinton and the whole El Nino thing. It's undeniable.
Apples and oranges, again, and few more times later on, which I’m not going to keep repeating.




Originally posted by Phleg
Isn't our entire justice system based off the principle of rehabilitation? =\ Not to mention, "convicted criminal" can be extended to be just about anything, including people who've been pulled over for speeding.
you answer it with your own words
Originally posted by Phleg
Never heard about this. Link me? The guy mighta deserved it.




Originally posted by Phleg
This is a bad thing? I'd rather our president be in the office taking care of business rather than blathering on to the American public, who for the most part couldn't give a shit anyways. That's what a fucking press secretary is for.
or taking a long vacation.




Originally posted by Phleg
Didn't you just blame him for wasting the surplus? So now he's trying to keep a surplus, in case of emergency, and you're faulting him on that. Hey, gotta love double standards.
is surplus the same as national reserve? Educate me, please. :P




Originally posted by Phleg
Hey, because having successful people at the highest branches of our government is BAD. Let's put some minimum-wage earners in for the President's staff. I'm sure that'll work out well.
because becoming successful is so hard when you can do anything with little to no risk involved because you have good back up. Saying all minimum-wage earning people are not capable of running the office better then present staff is a lot of assuming.




Originally posted by Phleg
Sorry, but we don't need U.N. personnel to monitor our elections.
so what business do we have in setting up governments in other countries then?




Originally posted by Phleg
My friend does drugs. I'm a horrible person.
this is more like, my friend sells drugs to school kids and treats me to lunch with the money that helps to kill those kids.




Originally posted by Phleg
Remember, these are the same people who thought Hitler would bring no harm.
not exactly, that generation is long gone or too old to do polls. These are few generations later, some of which haven’t even seen that war.




Originally posted by Phleg
I thought our justice system was based on rehabilitation?
and again, hate to use your own words, but you said it
Originally posted by Phleg
The guy mighta deserved it.
so should they be doing time for crimes?



This should keep you busy for some time :P

Sithray
18th June 03, 10:47 AM
Comparing the US' takeover of Iraq and Afghanastan to the Takeover of Nazi Germany is what is Laughable.

Soulmirror
18th June 03, 10:50 AM
Kitska,

Read and laugh yourself.

REQUIREMENTS AND TRADITIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.

Americans elect their president through a combination of custom, state law, and constitutional requirement such as the electoral college as specified in Article II, Sections 2 and 4 and Amendment 12. Furthermore, Article II, Section 5 plus Amendments 20 and 23 of the United States Constitution pertain to election of the president. The following statements describe the presidential election system in the United States.

* A president must be at least 35 years old, a natural born citizen, and a resident of the United States for a minimum of 14 years.

* A president is elected by delegates to the electoral college (i.e., electors), not directly by the people.

* In each state, each party on the ballot selects electors equal to that state's number of senators and representatives in Congress (in addition to three delegates from the District of Columbia, as secured by the passage of the Twenty-Third Amendment).

* Eligible voters in each state and the District of Columbia vote for a presidential candidate on the designated election day, or they cast absentee ballots if they are out of the state on the official election day; these are the popular votes.

* Entire slates of electors are pledged to each of the presidential nominees in every state (except Maine, where special presidential elector districts allocate delegates) so that the winner of the state's popular vote, even a plurality winner, takes all of the electoral votes of a state (even though the Constitution does not require electors to vote for the candidate receiving the most popular votes in the general election).

* Electors cast ballots in their state capitals the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (the electoral college never convenes as an entire body).

* Ballots are sent to Washington and counted before a joint session of the new Congress on January 6.

* If no candidate wins a majority of electors in the electoral college (i.e., 51 percent or 270 electoral votes), then the election of
the president goes to the House of Representatives, where each state casts one vote, determined by the state's representatives, among the five highest-ranking candidates, and the election of the vice president goes to the Senate, where every member casts one vote for one of the two highest-ranking candidates.

* If the House of Representatives fails to elect a president by majority vote before the president's scheduled inauguration on January 20, then the vice president-elect "shall act as President until a president shall have qualified" (Twentieth Amendment).

* The president-elect is sworn in on January 20.

Unable to foresee development of political parties and a two-party system, most delegates to the Constitutional Convention believed the electoral college would fail frequently to produce a majority, thus throwing the election of the president into the House of Representatives.

Only the presidential elections of 1800 and 1824, however, did not yield a majority in the electoral college. Yet, because of the winner-take-all system, in 17 of 52 presidential elections a candidate won without attracting a majority of the popular vote. Moreover, John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), and Benjamin Harrison (1888) were elected despite receiving fewer popular votes than their opponents.

Now for that precious constitution that you did not read either.

Article II Section 1,

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--''I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''

Article 12

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. (Text in bold superseded by amendment 20) -- The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Soulmirror

Sithray
18th June 03, 11:24 AM
How is Kitska supposed to be laughing? Nothing you posted was funny...

Kitska
18th June 03, 11:42 AM
Thanks Sith :)
And Soul, I never said anything about whether the Constitution describes presidential elections :P. Was meant that serious documents somehow make him laugh. I guess I will spell things out more clearly next time :P

Soulmirror
18th June 03, 12:48 PM
Kitska,
Ok, I thought you were alluding to the fact that the President cant have a criminal record to enter office. Just printed that to show what the requirements were to be president, simple really, only 3 requirements.

Soulmirror

Kitska
18th June 03, 01:45 PM
Would be nice if we lived in the perfect society to have person with high values to run the country, but I guess we all make mistakes :(

joen00b
18th June 03, 01:47 PM
Soulmirror, you and I both know all those requirements mean Jack and Shit anymore now that W. is in office. He's rewriting shit faster than the editors can keep up with him, and he bought this fucking Presidency with his father's influence.

Don't gimme that bullshit about Electoral colleges or what have you, his brother gave him the hook up and cockblocked the whole process in Florida while his dad was talking with the Supreme Court.

I think the worst thing W. has done is sealed all the Presidential papers from the public eye forever. Generally, 4-6 years after they are done with their term, the papers are turned over to the Presidential Library, but W. had all records from his Father's terms till the present sealed. His father said: I'll abide by the wishes of our President, where as Clinton said: I have nothing to hide, I'm opening all my stuff for everyone to see.

What the fuck is he trying to hide so bad? His father's papers were down in Texas at A&M (I believe) supposedly being sorted for the last so many years, then his son comes along and seals them before they hit the public eye?

The Bush family is bad for America, I think it's pretty evident. If Clinton was responsible for all of our economic woes, how did he hide them for 10 years and all of a sudden everything falls apart during W's presidency? Did Clinton have some sort of Economic Time Bomb that went off to make W. look bad?

Seriously, W. is abusing his power as President and stretching every check and measure that binds him to the limit. If he stays in office for another term, we're going to be losing alot more rights as he rewrites the rest of the bylaws that bind him to give him the freedom to do what he wants.

Soulmirror
18th June 03, 02:11 PM
Jen00b,

It is the Constitution of the United States we are talking here, not some arbitrary bullshit posted by another president or party.

As for Florida I agree there was alot of posturing and we will never know the true result as the problem was a mechanical one and an administrative one. There has not been an election that close in Fla for the president ever. This comedy of errors could have happened in any state at any time with the exact same rersults.

I am not defending Bush by any means, but I have to say that it is the system we are given to work with. Personally, if you feel that there is a need to change then the Constitution tells you how you as a voter can enact change.

Soulmirror

Sithray
18th June 03, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Soulmirror
This comedy of errors could have happened in any state at any time with the exact same rersults.


Luckily it happend in the state where his Brother was Govenor...

joen00b
18th June 03, 02:27 PM
I think Florida proves that our system does not work. A guy can win an election by almost half a million votes and still not be appointed the position because of the Electoral Colleges. I've known they didn't work 25 years ago when it was explained to me, and I know it doesn't work now.

If a 7 year old can see the fallicies of our voting system, I'm pretty sure we should try something different. Starting with that election, Bush has made a laughing stock of this entire country. Nearly everything he has done has the adjective: 'most' or biggest' attached to it.

We as voters need to insure he isn't elected again. Plain and simple. I'm not a Democrat, but I'll vote for that party (since Libertarians and Green Parties never stand a chance) to make sure Bush is NOT re-elected.

Ouden
18th June 03, 02:35 PM
The Florida election attack is lame. Seriously.

Please get your mouth off of Clinton's cock. He did more to harm this nation than any 10 President's.

Clinton's pussy-footing on terrorist attacks only helped them to think that all of us were pussies. He pardoned people that had no business being pardoned, took plenty of money from places he shouldn't have, was involved in a lot of the same corporations you now bitch about Bush being involved with, commited perjury while in office, he attacked Iraq 4 different times during his administration, attacked Serbia without much international support. A whole lot of terrorist attacks happened during his reign, and his only response to that was to sling 50 cruise missiles at empty camps from time to time. A lot of the captured Al Qaeda people claimed that after the WTC attacks they expected another cruise missile attack. But I guess they found out that we no longer had a pussy-fied con-man Democrat in office.

He did nothing necessarily to make the economy go super good, he just happened to be elected on a natural economic boom that always comes after a recession. I still don't see why you think he's so great with the economy.

It's humorous how the same shit you're attacking Bush for, was done by Clinton already. Why do you defend Clinton so strongly? It makes no fucking sense.

Most of the attacks on Bush are assinine paranoid bullshit that is said about every single president, no matter what they do. Is he the best President ever? Not even close, but at least he has the fucking balls to stand up and get rid of some of these faggots before a nuke goes off in America. With Gore as President I honestly could have seen that happening soon.

joen00b
18th June 03, 02:45 PM
I never defended Clinton, I merely smelled the shit Bush was doling out and said I didn't like the smell. He is a megalomanical freak with serious deep seeded issues. He's an admitted Cocaine addict, he has sunk every business he was part of, so I guess it's just a coincedence that the guy who is a financial nightmare waiting in the shadows for any business he uses his name as pull to join is president during our worst economical crisis in a long, long time.

What makes Bush so great? I don't get it? The guy has his own agenda, is having his secret police goons harrasing people under the guise of the Homeland Securaity act (like Dennis Miller said: I guess Fatherland Security act would have revealed too many parrallels with what he really wants America to be like, and yes, that is a facetious remark), and basically throws away any law or restriction that prevents him from doing what he wants.

Sure, I'm one of those weirdos that thinks this is the best country in the world and I feel like we should be able to do pretty much whatever we as a nation want, but Bush is using this ideal to promote his own personal agenda... the actual agenda he is persuing is still a secret because the guy has more secret organizations than any other President in the history of our nation.

No, I'm not saying Clinton was so great, but I do agree Bush is worse for us.

Tegian
18th June 03, 03:30 PM
Has anyone actually pointed out something that Bush did that helped us?
all I see from the Bush people are attacks on Clinton, which seems to be their only defence, even though there really isn't any support for him.

Ouden
18th June 03, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Tegian
Has anyone actually pointed out something that Bush did that helped us?


You haven't been nuked. The military is stronger than it ever was under Clinton. The economy is slowly recovering after the WTC attacks(which would have happened whoever was in charge). Two super oppressive and murdering regimes that sponsored/harbored terrorism are gone. North Korea is backing down once again after the 3 week campaign, terrorism has been cracked down more in the past year than it *ever* has been.

And Joe, you are very much paranoid.

joen00b
18th June 03, 04:54 PM
Am I? (http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff04092003.html)

Ouden
18th June 03, 04:58 PM
yes

joen00b
18th June 03, 06:58 PM
Are you sure? (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/12/05_Fascism.html)

Donnely McLeod
18th June 03, 07:44 PM
Joe... rent JFK on DVD.

This quote is used:

Jan. 17, 1961: Dwight D. Eisenhower delivers his farewell address. "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex," he warns. "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

joen00b
18th June 03, 08:00 PM
I like to think I'm quite sane compared to some (http://www.examiner.com/news/default.jsp?story=n.jenkel.0604w).

joen00b
18th June 03, 09:56 PM
Ok, why are we leaving North Korea alone again? (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/18/1055828379264.html) It occurs to me someone has some kind of unhealthy fixation with the middle east.

orcmauler
18th June 03, 10:07 PM
Simple Joe, N. Korea has nothing Bush wants, a la Oil. If Kim Il Jong found oil on his doorstep tomorrow I would bet dollars to donuts we'd have a few carrier taskforce groups in his backyard by friday

Ouden
18th June 03, 10:26 PM
orcmauler, you're a tard.

Nikalos_2
18th June 03, 10:27 PM
.

orcmauler
19th June 03, 01:04 AM
Say what you will, but we are threatening action on Iran for "possible" atomic research while fucking N Korea is "definitley" nuclear capable.

Makes no sense to me either way.

By the way Ouden, you calling me a tard is Irony of the highest calibur thanks.

Tegian
19th June 03, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by Ouden
You haven't been nuked.



we haven't been nuked because they apparently didn't have any, which was ironically our reason for attacking them

joen00b
19th June 03, 02:49 AM
America:

The best country ever stolen!

Boanerges
19th June 03, 09:16 AM
There's a couple of reasons why NK isn't a target...

1. How many terrorist attacks were commited by Koreans? How many Korean religious sects are calling for the destruction of the US and urging its followers to martyr themselves against Americans?

2. North Korea is a historic sabre rattler. They said they restarted their nuclear plant but satellite photos have shown no such evidence. Most of what Korea wants is more US aid. An invasion of the North would not only be costly in lives (NK has about 1 million in their army) but likely pointless. NK can't use a nuke anywhere on the peninsula without seriously screwing themselves. And China wouldn't be the only fallout politically. SK (some families still have relatives in NK) and Japan wouldn't be too happy either.

Keep in mind that Middle East countries are rolling in money. NK is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. The threat from them is not that they will use a nuke but sell it. NK wants US aid, basically, but the Communists can't exactly go begging to Washington, Capitalist HQ, for help. So they take a hard line, make some half-hearted but viable threats ("Help us or we sell nukes to your enemies") and wait. It's called Brinkmanship and it's nothing new (Cuban missle crisis anyone?).

Nikalos_2
19th June 03, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by orcmauler
By the way Ouden, you calling me a tard is Irony of the highest calibur thanks.


OH NO HE DIDNT!

Nikalos_2
19th June 03, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by joen00b
America:

The best country ever stolen!


Ill trade you a blanket for something, oh here, just take it.

Ouden
19th June 03, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by orcmauler
By the way Ouden, you calling me a tard is Irony of the highest calibur thanks.

There is no irony, you're just a tard.

orcmauler
19th June 03, 10:42 AM
Trust me Ouden coming from you and yours I'll take that as a compliment.

Thanks

Ouden
19th June 03, 01:23 PM
you weren't complaining when you tagged along on our Hole raid.

Hurricane Aegien
19th June 03, 03:17 PM
Wow, you had to go to the Hole with the Juggernauts, and you're calling him a tard?

Ouden
19th June 03, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Aegien
Wow, you had to go to the Hole with the Juggernauts, and you're calling him a tard?

I had to? More like they had to, it was for my epic, just like you had to go there for yours.

joen00b
19th June 03, 04:30 PM
Boanerges, how many atrocities has the Regime of NK perpetrated on it's own people? Weren't we using this same excuse for our reasons to get into Iraq and remove Hussein?

We also used the excuse of WMD, well, I guess that was a giant Submarine sandwich NK launched into the Sea of Japan earlier this year. Koreans hate Japanese nearly as much as Isreali's hate Palestinians. Are we gonna let Japan take care of it themselves?

Seriously, there are no natural resources for us to gobble up in the name of releasing political prisoners, we're a bit stretched out right now with troops still in Iraq (and Bush already stated the British/US forces are the ruling body there.... but mostly the US forces), and like you said: They only want aid for their failing country.

We could either give them the stuff to shut them up, at which point we're feeding the monster, or spread ourselves even thinner to try and remove a guy that is debatably worse the Hussein at the cost of 10 times what we saw in Gulf War 2: Junior's Revenge!

Economically, there's no reason to send troops there, regardless of the atrocities being performed on it's own people. We only go to war when it is profitable, and we're raking in cash to the tune of $76 Billion to rebuild Iraq... or should I say: So Bush's cabinet members' companies can rebuild Iraq. Coincedence or not, there is some serious backscratching going on with the contract to rebuild Iraq.

Boanerges
19th June 03, 05:04 PM
I think the argument was WMDs and that it was a hotbed of terror. I could be wrong, of course, and there might have been nothing to worry about in Iraq but then again... (http://www.msnbc.com/news/895185.asp)

As for what Bush has done right? Well, if you earn enough to pay income taxes you should already know the answer to that question. Not to mention that Bush restarted humanitarian aid to NK, a good way to build trust and get them back to talking. For all the warmongering you're accusing Bush of, he certainly is well restrained in this case...

Sithray
19th June 03, 05:57 PM
SARGAT, Iraq, April 4 — Preliminary tests conducted by MSNBC.com,which is totally NOT a scientific organization and TOTALLY pro-bush, indicate that the deadly toxins ricin and botulinum probably were present on two items found at a camp in a remote mountain region of northern Iraq allegedly used as a terrorist training center by Islamic militants with ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network. The field tests used by MSNBC.com are only a first step in the evidentiary process and are typically followed by more precise laboratory testing that MSNBC.com has not conducted. U.S. intelligence agents were conducting their own tests in the same area and had not yet released their results, according to officials in northern Iraq.

That article was the biggest if/and/or/but article I have ever seen. When I finished it I realized that not one viable point or fact was introduced that we already didn't know...

And WTF??!! a whole two items were found with TRACES of substance? "OMG PULL IN THE WMD TEAM!! WE FOUND THEM!! 2 coke cans and a dildo COVERED in harmful material. With these weapons whole nations could have been wiped out!!!!!1111kekekekek!11"

Menarion
20th June 03, 09:33 AM
As for what Bush has done right? Well, if you earn enough to pay income taxes you should already know the answer to that question. Not to mention that Bush restarted humanitarian aid to NK, a good way to build trust and get them back to talking. For all the warmongering you're accusing Bush of, he certainly is well restrained in this case...

I would agree with you on taxes IF we were reducing government spending at the same time. The problem is that government spending is increasing while taxes are being lowered. Eventually we're going to have to pay that back with increased taxes from another president.

Phleg
20th June 03, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by orcmauler
Say what you will, but we are threatening action on Iran for "possible" atomic research while fucking N Korea is "definitley" nuclear capable.

Makes no sense to me either way.

Maybe not to a third grader.

DPRK has nuclear weapons. This means we have to tread very lightly with them. If you haven't noticed they've been rather belligerent. We don't want nuclear war, so we're not going to make any sudden moves. DPRK is a delicate situation. On the other hand, if we can stop nuclear proliferation in Iran before it becomes another North Korea, then we'll be doing the world a favor.

Oh, not to mention, did anyone else notice how right after we kicked Saddam's weaselly behind, Kim Jong-Il suddenly became a lot nicer, and a lot more open to the idea of having talks with Japan, China, etc., instead of just the United States? Funny, that.

Phleg
20th June 03, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Kitska
a bit of an overstatement.

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out the fact that, "I invaded and took over two countries" is not necessarily a bad thing. Especially when it's not quantified.


Originally posted by Kitska
because natural disaster is exactly the same as economics? People have more control over economics then over nature as far as I know so far. This would be comparing apples to oranges.

Not really. The President has very little control over the economy--about all he can do is ask Congress to spend money, which they of course don't have to. Other than that, it's Congress and the Federal Reserve who have the most control. The President has about as much direct control as I do. So if you're going to blame the economy on him, you might as well blame it on me.


Originally posted by Kitska
because where it says that to become a president of US you can’t have any criminal record is funny? You must get lots of laughs reading the Constitution also.

It doesn't say that. Try actually reading the Constitution next time.


Originally posted by Kitska
because we all know that there is huge security personnel in every McD’s to check the temperature of each burger and to report it to CEO’s. From media though we know that Bush was briefed on the threat.

Yeah, and we also know he was briefed on tons of other threats. Do you honestly expect him to act upon every single one? Remember after September 11th when he did? I seem to recall most everyone getting annoyed as hell and screaming "Enough already!" You can't fault the guy for not following up on hundreds of possible threats. Especially when so far, none of them had panned out.


Originally posted by Kitska
Apples and oranges, again, and few more times later on, which I’m not going to keep repeating.

Sorry, but it's not apples and oranges. Bush had about as much to do with these as Clinton had to do with El Nino. Just because they rose their heads during their respective terms doesn't necessarily mean that the President was the cause of them, especially when they're things that had been going on for years and years.


Originally posted by Kitska
you answer it with your own words

Of course, I do feel there's a difference between, say, Osama bin Laden and your average convenience store robber. I'd put our buddy bin Laden to death in a heartbeat--there's literally zero chance he'll ever be a peaceful member of society. However, a convenience store robber can be rehabilitated to function normally, and lead a productive life. See how there's a difference here?

The federal prisoner may have been an extremely nasty person with little hope of becoming a good citizen. On the other hand, Bush's transgressions against the law were relatively minor. Most certainly we've all done things that could get us arrested, and I'm sure a few of us have. That doesn't mean we'll be that way our entire lives.


Originally posted by Kitska
or taking a long vacation.

Vacations can improve work performance and morale. Lack of them can hurt it. I'm much less worried about a President who takes long vacations during an incredibly stressful term than I am about a President who feels like going out in front of the press and talking about himself for hours on end every other day.


Originally posted by Kitska
is surplus the same as national reserve? Educate me, please. :P

Nope, but in concept, they're similar. Many people complain because Bush sent us back excess money the government had taxed from us. They complained because he wasn't planning for a rainy day and keeping it on hand. But then of course, people are now complaining that he's keeping our petroleum reserves for a rainy day and asking for it to be sent out to reduce prices (and thus help our wallets). Sorry, but we're not in a gasoline crisis. We've still got it flowing from the pumps freely, and I'm not about to want us to dry up our reserves just to help the pocketbooks right now. Wouldn't it be great if, say, OPEC decided to stop shipping us oil soon after? Wouldn't it suck if we'd spent our reserves just making gas prices go down?

I find the situation perfectly analogous to spending our surplus budget.


Originally posted by Kitska
because becoming successful is so hard when you can do anything with little to no risk involved because you have good back up. Saying all minimum-wage earning people are not capable of running the office better then present staff is a lot of assuming.

It's assuming they're there because they mismanaged their own lives. For the most part, this is true.


Originally posted by Kitska
so what business do we have in setting up governments in other countries then?

Very little. Please tell me where I've said I hope Iraq becomes a satellite of our government. I think we should've killed Saddam, helped maintain order while a new government was set up, and gotten the fuck out after we'd searched to our heart's content for weapons.


Originally posted by Kitska
this is more like, my friend sells drugs to school kids and treats me to lunch with the money that helps to kill those kids.

If you read above, I was being sarcastic.


Originally posted by Kitska
not exactly, that generation is long gone or too old to do polls. These are few generations later, some of which haven’t even seen that war.

I was being moderately facetious. However, I think it basically points out the fact that what people think is mostly irrelevant. People usually know a lot less than they think they do (myself included), think solutions for shit they have no clue about are incredibly simple (like idiots that think we should tax email 1c to eliminate spam), and in a lot of cases are completely blind as to what others are doing and their motives for doing it.


Originally posted by Kitska
and again, hate to use your own words, but you said it
so should they be doing time for crimes?

If they've been awarded government contracts, I think they're probably out of prison by then. So they've done their time.


Originally posted by Kitska
This should keep you busy for some time :P

'bout five minutes =(

Kitska
20th June 03, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Phleg
Not really. The President has very little control over the economy--about all he can do is ask Congress to spend money, which they of course don't have to. Other than that, it's Congress and the Federal Reserve who have the most control. The President has about as much direct control as I do. So if you're going to blame the economy on him, you might as well blame it on me.
So Congress and Federal Reserve do not consist of people. Since I said people have more control. Reading comprehension.




Originally posted by Phleg
It doesn't say that. Try actually reading the Constitution next time.
Or maybe you will read post first. It doesn't say anything about Constitution mentioning requirements for presidential election. All I've mentioned constitution for as to say that serious documents somehow are funny to you. Again, reading comprehension.




Originally posted by Phleg
Yeah, and we also know he was briefed on tons of other threats. Do you honestly expect him to act upon every single one? Remember after September 11th when he did? I seem to recall most everyone getting annoyed as hell and screaming "Enough already!" You can't fault the guy for not following up on hundreds of possible threats. Especially when so far, none of them had panned out.
So, he didn't react to real threat, because he "knew" people would get upset about higher security?




Originally posted by Phleg
Of course, I do feel there's a difference between, say, Osama bin Laden and your average convenience store robber. I'd put our buddy bin Laden to death in a heartbeat--there's literally zero chance he'll ever be a peaceful member of society. However, a convenience store robber can be rehabilitated to function normally, and lead a productive life. See how there's a difference here?
You have statistics on terrorists vs. store robbers on rehabilitation? Other then that it's your personal opinion and thus doesn't hold true for anyone but yourself.




Originally posted by Phleg
The federal prisoner may have been an extremely nasty person with little hope of becoming a good citizen. On the other hand, Bush's transgressions against the law were relatively minor. Most certainly we've all done things that could get us arrested, and I'm sure a few of us have. That doesn't mean we'll be that way our entire lives.
The person who is representing the whole country is being viewed in a different light then any mere mortal. He has to set the highest possible standard. Bush doesn't. Let’s not start with Clinton and Monica. And if you are going to bring it, I’ve seen one good poster about it: “Better to fuck one time intern then all the time country”. And may have been doesn't justify anything. You don't know the whole truth about what Bush has done, and no one ever will, looks like.




Originally posted by Phleg
Vacations can improve work performance and morale. Lack of them can hurt it. I'm much less worried about a President who takes long vacations during an incredibly stressful term than I am about a President who feels like going out in front of the press and talking about himself for hours on end every other day.
So, when there is an emergency, you take vacation to improve your performance and morale? Or you do it when everything is calm? There is time and place for everything.




Originally posted by Phleg
It's assuming they're there because they mismanaged their own lives. For the most part, this is true.
How is that proving anything? You made a blank statement, and now you do it again. So because there are people who screwed up their own lives, people in the government can cover each other up and help themselves to benefit from their positions as the people who make decisions for the whole country? Try better excuse.




Originally posted by Phleg
Very little. Please tell me where I've said I hope Iraq becomes a satellite of our government. I think we should've killed Saddam, helped maintain order while a new government was set up, and gotten the fuck out after we'd searched to our heart's content for weapons.
Show me where I said anything about Iraq in that statement, please?! You answered yourself, again :P




Originally posted by Phleg
I was being moderately facetious. However, I think it basically points out the fact that what people think is mostly irrelevant. People usually know a lot less than they think they do (myself included), think solutions for shit they have no clue about are incredibly simple (like idiots that think we should tax email 1c to eliminate spam), and in a lot of cases are completely blind as to what others are doing and their motives for doing it.




Originally posted by Phleg
If they've been awarded government contracts, I think they're probably out of prison by then. So they've done their time.
Or haven't done any time at all?




Originally posted by Phleg
'bout five minutes =(
well, actually it shows about 2 days, if to look at the post times :P

Ouden
20th June 03, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Kitska

So, he didn't react to real threat, because he "knew" people would get upset about higher security?


What a stupid comment.

If your desk is covered everyday in "Possible Terror Threats" how are you going to know which is the real one to not react to?

Nikalos_2
20th June 03, 01:45 PM
I think people on EverQuest message boards should run our country, since they got it all figured out.

Kitska
20th June 03, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Ouden
What a stupid comment.

If your desk is covered everyday in "Possible Terror Threats" how are you going to know which is the real one to not react to?

What a stupid comment :P.

He has ton of advisors and aids. So detaining anyone and everyone who says word bomb is a real threat, but doing something about the things that brought up to you by people who you suppose to trust and listen too is not necessary?

Boanerges
20th June 03, 02:38 PM
Sithray, why don't you extract your head from your rectum and think about this for a second. For someone who likes to ridicule others for not thinking your last post makes you just as guilty.

First off, they used a preliminary test. It's not as infalable as a real lab test so they can't say it's 100% conclusive. If you'd actually look at the tests (http://www.osborn-scientific.com/products.htm) they used you'd find out they're pretty accurate. So much so that the FBI uses them too. Second, how do you think it became covered in said substances? They don't just magically appear out of thin air. There had to be something to expose said items to to get that result. Lastly, MSNBC is NOT pro Bush. If you actually read some of the articles there instead of resorting to hyperbole you might find that out yourself.

The point is, saying there were never any WMD in Iraq is still premature.

As to the taxes... uhm, ever heard of loaning? If nobody ever took on debt to better themselves a lot of businesses would have gone out of business a long time ago. Yes, in the short term the deficit will rise but if it has the desired effect the deficit will shrink as the economy grows. I feel like I'm repeating myself on this one. Historically, tax cuts have improved the economy.

Sithray
20th June 03, 02:57 PM
Actually MSNBC is completly conservative, hence, pro Bush by default. NBC has always been considered a "liberal" station, but they were always last place in the news. When Fox started it's news channel, it was totally Conservative and stole all the ratings from the reigning powers. When other stations such as CNN realized this and took up a sort of conservative stance, they too were able to compete with Fox. So here comes NBC, not wanting to change their liberal views, simply come out with MSNBC and boom, a conservative station.

Most of your News networks are hugely biased towards conservative views, specifically for ratings. CNN is probably one of the ones who still reports mostly the whole story, as well as NBC local news.

IE - do you hear stories of how many innocent civilians died in that war on American run mainstream media sites? Hardly.

Do you hear the whole truth about how much trouble the good ol boys of the USA are still in over there? Hardly. (More US soldiers have died in the last month than in the whole first few months of the war together. (Think it is at 56 now? whereas it was 40ish during initial combat? 120 for Coalition forces combined? Not sure, gonna have to look this one up when I get a chance. And those 56 are mostly actual combat deaths, not helicopter crashes or drunk car wrecks like what claimed 24 US Soldiers in the beginning of the war.)

What you do see, is most mainstream media sites clinging to whatever shitty excuses they have for the slight chance that the US might actually find WMD's and running with them, or trying to say the war is over and everything is OK now in Iraq except for a few "minor" skirmishes (that are just killing soldiers left and right), just to keep those conservative pro Bush people watching.

Now more towards your comment...

I read the article. It was poorly written. There were if's, maybe's, probabilities and such riddling the article. It was as if they had this tiny piece of material to go on, and simply used filler words and technical mumbo jumbo to make it seem more than it was.

Obviously some people fell for it....

In the end? A boot is a boot, not a WMD, no matter how much they want it to lead to it, it probably wont. The article also plainly says the boot was found in an area which was a terrorist training camp. More than likely THEY were creating the chemicals, NOT the Iraqi gonvernment. Only time will tell I suppose though.

Ouden
20th June 03, 03:18 PM
The Iraqi's didn't have to create chemicals, they already had tons and tons of the shit stockpiled.

And Kitska, you win the bonehead of the year award.

Let's assume that stupid people completely take over the world, and most the population is dead, and in this eventuality, you have sex with enough people to become a President of a nation. Then let's say that you get 100's possibily thousands of reports everyday, and you find one among those hundreds and thousands that says "There is a possibility that terrorists could maybe possibly hijack planes sometime in the relative near future, but then again maybe they won't." And you suddenly know exactly who these people are, what they're planning, where they are, what planes they plan to hijack, and what they plan to do with those planes? It's good to know you're psychic, you should try to make some money off of that.

joen00b
20th June 03, 03:40 PM
Actually, we KNOW Iraq had WMD's of all sorts, he used them in that little war they had witrh Iraq, ya should have heard of it, it was only 11 years long.

The point being: We are going to find leftover residuals of the last 20 years of their use of Bio/chem weapons, the question at hand was did he disarm. I'm not stupid enough to believe he did, that shit is stashed so far down in the desert, it'll take a billion cats burying turds to find them.

anyone wanna bet this time next year they'll 'discover' a few bio/chem factories and weapons? Anyone?

That's what I thought.

Kitska
20th June 03, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Ouden
The Iraqi's didn't have to create chemicals, they already had tons and tons of the shit stockpiled.

And Kitska, you win the bonehead of the year award.

Let's assume that stupid people completely take over the world, and most the population is dead, and in this eventuality, you have sex with enough people to become a President of a nation. Then let's say that you get 100's possibily thousands of reports everyday, and you find one among those hundreds and thousands that says "There is a possibility that terrorists could maybe possibly hijack planes sometime in the relative near future, but then again maybe they won't." And you suddenly know exactly who these people are, what they're planning, where they are, what planes they plan to hijack, and what they plan to do with those planes? It's good to know you're psychic, you should try to make some money off of that.

you are right, calling names makes so much more sence, it all became clear now, are you sure you are ready to part with your award?
How do you know how many reports did he get on his table? Most of the reports are filtered before they get to the president most likely. I've never been there, unlike you, I don't know. You still didn't say how aresting or detaining people for just saying stupid stuff in the airport is more valid, and we all know it happened, then reports from the agencies that are responsible for the security?

Ouden
20th June 03, 04:17 PM
What you are saying is that he magically knows which threats are the most credible and he just ignores them. It is ignorant.

Phleg
20th June 03, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Kitska
So Congress and Federal Reserve do not consist of people. Since I said people have more control. Reading comprehension.

Actually, people have control over the weather, too. Environmental changes caused by some of the things we do cause changes in the climate and ecosystem. So I maintain that Bush has about as much to do with the economy as Clinton has to do with El Nino.


Originally posted by Kitska
Or maybe you will read post first. It doesn't say anything about Constitution mentioning requirements for presidential election. All I've mentioned constitution for as to say that serious documents somehow are funny to you. Again, reading comprehension.

Nope, but you mentioned "because where it says that to become a president of US you can’t have any criminal record is funny?" Unfortunately, the Constitution is the exact document where requirements for presidential office are enumerated.


Originally posted by Kitska
So, he didn't react to real threat, because he "knew" people would get upset about higher security?

He didn't react to the real threat because there was no way he could determine that it was the real threat out of hundreds of possible ones. He had no way of knowing that there even *would* be a terrorist attack. I can't exactly blame him for not wanting to piss people off with extreme security measures for no tangible threat.


Originally posted by Kitska
You have statistics on terrorists vs. store robbers on rehabilitation? Other then that it's your personal opinion and thus doesn't hold true for anyone but yourself.

Oh, please. Do you really want to go down this line of reasoning? I don't think a single person in here (besides maybe Merauk) is going to be with you. There is absolutely a difference between religious zealots who've dedicated their lives to the destruction of western civilization and convenience store robbers who were short on cash/food/whatever.

And really, if you want statistics, I'd bet you that less than half a percent of convicted terrorists have been rehabilitated, whereas a vastly larger portion of nonviolent criminals have been.


Originally posted by Kitska
The person who is representing the whole country is being viewed in a different light then any mere mortal. He has to set the highest possible standard. Bush doesn't. Let’s not start with Clinton and Monica. And if you are going to bring it, I’ve seen one good poster about it: “Better to fuck one time intern then all the time country”. And may have been doesn't justify anything. You don't know the whole truth about what Bush has done, and no one ever will, looks like.

First off, find me a person who's never committed a crime. You're going to have a hell of a time. Secondly, I couldn't give a shit about Clinton fucking Monica. I do give a shit about him lying under oath in front of the entire fucking country. Third, you're absolutely right that I don't know the whole truth about what Bush has done. You won't either. You can't judge a person based on what you don't know about them.

I say the prisoner may have deserved it. That's because I haven't looked up what he was accused of, and what he was convicted of. I'm not going to judge Bush as an evil, hate filled person because a federal prisoner was executed under his watch if I have no clue what the person's transgressions were.


Originally posted by Kitska
So, when there is an emergency, you take vacation to improve your performance and morale? Or you do it when everything is calm? There is time and place for everything.

I take time off after emergencies. Bush did the same, to my knowledge.


Originally posted by Kitska
How is that proving anything? You made a blank statement, and now you do it again. So because there are people who screwed up their own lives, people in the government can cover each other up and help themselves to benefit from their positions as the people who make decisions for the whole country? Try better excuse.

I have no clue what the fuck you're talking about. All I said is that I'd far rather have a successful person in office than an unsuccessful person because they, more often than not, exhibit better management and people skills. Sorry, but I'd rather have a person who's had experience with making management decisions in the Oval Office--not Ed Smith, life welfare recipient whose biggest managerial achievement was deciding which shoes to buy with his check.


Originally posted by Kitska
Show me where I said anything about Iraq in that statement, please?! You answered yourself, again :P


Originally posted by Kitska
so what business do we have in setting up governments in other countries then?

Seeing as Iraq was the only country Bush has attempted to set up a government in, I'd say the concept was more than implied. Don't play Miss Fucking Innocent. You're not fooling anyone.


Originally posted by Kitska
Or haven't done any time at all?

Conjecture. Hypocrite.


Originally posted by Kitska
well, actually it shows about 2 days, if to look at the post times :P

If you've noticed, which you probably haven't, and I can't blame you for it, but I don't visit here very often any more.

Sithray
20th June 03, 04:24 PM
WOAH! I wasn't saying Iraq never had WMD's this is a cold hard fact I know. I am simply saying finding a BOOT with residue on it hardly justifies the need for a front page report, especially since the owner/origin of the boot are unkown. Propaganda at it's best.

Phleg
20th June 03, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Sithray
Actually MSNBC is completly conservative, hence, pro Bush by default. NBC has always been considered a "liberal" station, but they were always last place in the news. When Fox started it's news channel, it was totally Conservative and stole all the ratings from the reigning powers. When other stations such as CNN realized this and took up a sort of conservative stance, they too were able to compete with Fox. So here comes NBC, not wanting to change their liberal views, simply come out with MSNBC and boom, a conservative station.

Most of your News networks are hugely biased towards conservative views, specifically for ratings. CNN is probably one of the ones who still reports mostly the whole story, as well as NBC local news.

That's laughable. The media in this country is by far liberal, with the exception of FOX News, and to a lesser extent, MSNBC. Look at the statistics on it--it's not even close.


Originally posted by Sithray
IE - do you hear stories of how many innocent civilians died in that war on American run mainstream media sites? Hardly.

This (and the rest of your comment regarding media and the war) has very little to do with liberalism or conservatism. It has to do entirely with the fact that glorifying wars and acting patriotic attracts more viewers. Period.

Sithray
20th June 03, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Phleg
That's laughable. The media in this country is by far liberal, with the exception of FOX News, and to a lesser extent, MSNBC. Look at the statistics on it--it's not even close.


Don't watch TV much huh? CNN is all I watch now. It's the only one I can sort of trust.

CNN: "A Soldier was Killed today by Hussein Loyalists, He was pursued by US troops (leave out that the suspected shooter was caught after a house to house search, but couldn't be immediatly tied to any Iraqi militant groups as reported by Al Jazeera, and may not have been loyal to Hussein, but simply a man who lost quite a few family members during bombing raids)" [Last thing we want is the American public thinking the Iraqi people don't want the US there...]
FOX News: "Their is no war...the war is over...have you seen the new elmo doll?"
MSNBC: "A Soldier was shot by those sand niggers!! VIVA LA WHITE PEOPLE" (just realized some people may not get this if they don't follow internal station scandals...)

Uuudar
20th June 03, 05:44 PM
One of my big qualms with Bush is that he has yet to apologize for the events on 9/11. As president, it is his JOB to keep the American people safe. He failed in that job.

Phleg
20th June 03, 05:51 PM
Uuudar: you're retarded.

joen00b
20th June 03, 08:13 PM
This was actually on New Zealand TV:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/pics/ACFHBAv1aixk.JPG

Read about it here (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3508442&thesection=news&thesubsection=general).

Donnely McLeod
20th June 03, 08:18 PM
The question is; does Democracy work?

I'm only interested to see what the world situation will be in 10 years.

joen00b
20th June 03, 08:37 PM
What has the US been for the last 227 years? A Theocracy?

Donnely McLeod
20th June 03, 08:44 PM
Yeah... I was gonna say Republic of Missionary Sex and Larry Flint.

Nikalos_2
20th June 03, 08:52 PM
you're both wrong, its been a blast.

joen00b
20th June 03, 09:42 PM
This (http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/Projects/digitexts/machiavelli/the_prince/chapter01.html) is for our dear Phleg to read.

Phleg
22nd June 03, 10:21 AM
I've read The Prince =)