26 replies to this topic

[Alex]

http://news.yahoo.co...n_go_pr_wh/bush
Thats bull . I think he should be pulled from office. Is it not against our rights of privacy and etc?

Sure he acts as though they only spy on potential terrorists, but Im sure thats about as true as the fact that he went to Iraq to liberate their people.

[Frizzle]

Oh shut up. Seriously this is a good thing, it could stop potential bomb attacks, if this was my country I'd be glad. Do you really think the government cares about anything otherwise?

You have to stop being so suspicous.

[Noitidart]

Grrr I hate the guy, he should be kicked out of office for sooo many reasons. Time to add another one to the list, grrr. I haven't read the article but I highly doubt the guy caught any potential bomb attacks, if he did, knowing the current bush administration, the story was fabricated and innocent people are being bagged on.

Edited by Noitidart, 18 December 2005 - 02:50 AM.

[Frizzle]

All and any steps must be taken before another terrorist attack can happen. If you don't agree with that then you're pretty much an idiot.

[Noitidart]

Not all and any but the right steps

[hey]

All and any steps must be taken before another terrorist attack can happen. If you don't agree with that then you're pretty much an idiot.

Of course people are going to disagree. No one thinks exactly like you so some are going to disagree with you. So you're the idiot.

I personally wouldn't want people spying on me without consent. He shouldn't get impeached though. If he keeps it up, then yes.

[Sakura]

*sigh* while it is something that no one wants to think about, almost every government, in war time, has utilized this. The media gets ahold of this and lookie what happens. Yay! Now the whole world knows and any attempts are rendered futile. Great, score one for the media.

[Ives]

http://news.yahoo.co...n_go_pr_wh/bush
Thats bull . I think he should be pulled from office. Is it not against our rights of privacy and etc?

Sure he acts as though they only spy on potential terrorists, but Im sure thats about as true as the fact that he went to Iraq to liberate their people.

so? At least the US isn't facsict yet.

[Tetiel]

If you think that is offensive then you should look at what FDR did during WWII

[malevolent]

I personally think that bush should be impeached: lets see he 1) Admits to giving the public false imformation inorder to get public support to go to war. 2) Has messed up the supreme court. 3) takes blame for goofing off on Katrina. 4) Basically supports torture. and 5- hes the scapegoat for the Republican party.
by the way: I Would support All of the acts that are in the patriot act (including the ones that violate civil liberties), but there is no evidence that they work.

FDR was an amazing president.. not sure Exactly what you are referencing- but he deserves a little bit of slack after what he did for the American public- if only we could say the same for Bush.

[redlion]

I personally think that bush should be impeached: lets see he 1) Admits to giving the public false imformation inorder to get public support to go to war. 2) Has messed up the supreme court. 3) takes blame for goofing off on Katrina. 4) Basically supports torture. and 5- hes the scapegoat for the Republican party.
by the way: I Would support All of the acts that are in the patriot act (including the ones that violate civil liberties), but there is no evidence that they work.

FDR was an amazing president.. not sure Exactly what you are referencing- but he deserves a little bit of slack after what he did for the American public- if only we could say the same for Bush.

Agreed, 100%. This would be post of the year if I hadn't seen Casilla's post on government systems the other day... She summed up my semester essay in about a half page typed

[pyke]

Thats like what Italy or Germany would have done (during WWII) . Except Bush doesn't have the secret police force bust in and whoop everyones ass... yet

[redlion]

Thats like what Italy or Germany would have done (during WWII) . Except Bush doesn't have the secret police force bust in and whoop everyones ass... yet

That would be the DHS... They don''t do anything else around here, so they might as well arrest everyone that buys some pot behind the grocery store.

[Sakura]

1) He hasn't admitted to giving the public false information. He, himself, was given false information, but that lays blame with the CIA - whose head, by the way, is against Bush and I wouldn't be surprised if he gave Bush false information for just that reason.

And remember, Bush didn't make us go to war. Bush is just a figurehead. CONGRESS is responsible. Always remember that.

2) How has he messed up the Supreme Court? Because of who he nominated? Roberts is great. The only argument against Roberts is that "He's so good, he won't be able to handle the bad." I mean, excuse me? And that lady he nominated was good, I think, but she gave in to political pressure and declined, so we are waiting on another person. Anyway. It's his Constitutional Right to do this - in fact, the Senate shouldn't even be partaking in this - but since when has Congress paid attention to the Constitution?

3) No, no, see, this is where Bush has done a political No-No and has given in to the Dems' pressure and taken blame. He did nothing wrong - he did as much as any other president has ever done. Hell, Clinton didn't even begin to get involved as Bush did. But then, Clinton is untouchable, isn't he? I don't care if Clinton slept around. That isn't the reason why Clinton was a bad president. He lied under Oath, in a court of law. THAT is an impeachable offense. And he was a bad president in general - but he was charming enough that people overlooked that.

4) Yes. The American public shows ignorance if they think that we've went through the past century without torturing anyone for information. Frequently. You, the American people, are worth more than the enemy. And we are humane compared to other countries.

5) Yes, he is the scapegoat. I don't see how this is an impeachable offense, though. In fact, nothing you've stated is an impeachable offense.

You must realise that any President is nothing more than a puppet of his party. He owes them for getting this far. That's the way of American politics.

I love you, so very much. Like to an extent that hurts.
Score two for Casilla.

[Zero DeLocke]

I love you, so very much. Like to an extent that hurts.
Score two for Casilla.

I was just reading this topic myself, but Sakura gotto it before I did. We share many of the same views, Casilla. That's why we love you so much. <3

[Ives]

Yeah not only did FDR and his caibinet heal a huge economic depression, he fought WWII until he finally died a few months before the war was over.

It's not pretty, but gets the job done.

[Tetiel]

Well... technically FDR really didn't do much to heal the depression except get us into WWII and according to Keynsian economics it was our manufacturing by our Rosies that got us out because we sold our war products overseas and got a foreign money supply into the economy. While FDR did help by providing jobs all he did was balance the economy out so well... everyone was the same amount of poor. If you notice the economy only got better when the war started and we sent planes, missiles, bombs, etc over to England to help the allied forces. His ABC programs were not our salvation.

But I do agree with you on the part of him being a good president when the war came around. What he did as you said wasn't pretty and neither is what Bush is doing but... as FDR said "I am willing to even lie to the American people if it helps us win this war" Bush feels by doing this it would help. These people were suspected of being Al Qaeda operatives after all, so... Honestly I'd rather have him do that and not prevent an attack than have a risk of a terrorist attack because he can't, you know?

In war often you sacrifice your freedoms for security... it has almost always been like that. America has a darker past than most people think when it comes to war. But alas... it does get the job done.

[Ives]

Well... technically FDR really didn't do much to heal the depression except get us into WWII and according to Keynsian economics it was our manufacturing by our Rosies that got us out because we sold our war products overseas and got a foreign money supply into the economy. While FDR did help by providing jobs all he did was balance the economy out so well... everyone was the same amount of poor. If you notice the economy only got better when the war started and we sent planes, missiles, bombs, etc over to England to help the allied forces. His ABC programs were not our salvation.

But I do agree with you on the part of him being a good president when the war came around. What he did as you said wasn't pretty and neither is what Bush is doing but... as FDR said "I am willing to even lie to the American people if it helps us win this war" Bush feels by doing this it would help. These people were suspected of being Al Qaeda operatives after all, so... Honestly I'd rather have him do that and not prevent an attack than have a risk of a terrorist attack because he can't, you know?

In war often you sacrifice your freedoms for security... it has almost always been like that. America has a darker past than most people think when it comes to war. But alas... it does get the job done.

He did make a huge contribution to it; But you do need Americas end of the deal.

[Freddy]

His speech comes amid an uproar in Congress over whether he exceeded his powers in conducting the war on terror with a secret eavesdropping program and on a day that Vice President Dick Cheney made a surprise visit to Baghdad.

and how could this mean that GB would bag on some innocent person... please tell me how

[Curse]

Bush is a a dip shit who should be pulled out of office. He's an over-sized monkey who has a gorilla as an assistant and smoked crack when he was young. He is a president who can't even read.

[Tetiel]

Bush is a a dip shit who should be pulled out of office. He's an over-sized monkey who has a gorilla as an assistant and smoked crack when he was young. He is a president who can't even read.

AND as in in another topic... I ask you this: Where the hell do you get that basis from and since being an "over-sized monkey who has a gorilla as an assistant and smoked crack when he was young" has absolutely nothing to do with how his politics are... and where the heck do you get "he can't read"? That information is quite FALSE. So until you have some actual basis for those comments I suggest you not say them

[redlion]

And remember, Bush didn't make us go to war. Bush is just a figurehead. CONGRESS is responsible. Always remember that.

Technically, they weren't. In extrenuating circumstances, the president is permitted to declare war without congressional consent. Besides, what could congress do? He anounces that we have warships in the persian gulf with bombs falling on tactical targets; what could they do, say no? He didn't give them a choice.

1) He hasn't admitted to giving the public false information. He, himself, was given false information, but that lays blame with the CIA - whose head, by the way, is against Bush and I wouldn't be surprised if he gave Bush false information for just that reason.

2) How has he messed up the Supreme Court? Because of who he nominated? Roberts is great. The only argument against Roberts is that "He's so good, he won't be able to handle the bad." I mean, excuse me? And that lady he nominated was good, I think, but she gave in to political pressure and declined, so we are waiting on another person. Anyway. It's his Constitutional Right to do this - in fact, the Senate shouldn't even be partaking in this - but since when has Congress paid attention to the Constitution?

Not quite. The whole concept of Checks and Balances (yes, its America, we have to capitalize it) is based on the fact that any action of one branch is checked or effected by the others. Bush (action) --> legislative (check) --> Judicial (effected) Thats almost always how it works. At least, until we get the populace involved... (stupid people piss me off). And I have no idea about the people he's appointing, I haven't looked into it in a while.

3) No, no, see, this is where Bush has done a political No-No and has given in to the Dems' pressure and taken blame. He did nothing wrong - he did as much as any other president has ever done. Hell, Clinton didn't even begin to get involved as Bush did. But then, Clinton is untouchable, isn't he? I don't care if Clinton slept around. That isn't the reason why Clinton was a bad president. He lied under Oath, in a court of law. THAT is an impeachable offense. And he was a bad president in general - but he was charming enough that people overlooked that.

Again, I've got you on technicalities Technically, his definition of Sexual Relations didn't include oral sex, so he didn't lie. He never said he didn't have oral sex, just not sexual relations. And I agree, he wasn't the best president, but he definitely didn't get us into two wars, one of which had no premise (other than war profits of course).

4) Yes. The American public shows ignorance if they think that we've went through the past century without torturing anyone for information. Frequently. You, the American people, are worth more than the enemy. And we are humane compared to other countries.

On this, I'll agree. We have Guantanamo for a reason people... its not a federal prison, so its exempt from our laws. Inmates there aren't exactly treated... fairly.

5) Yes, he is the scapegoat. I don't see how this is an impeachable offense, though. In fact, nothing you've stated is an impeachable offense.

You must realise that any President is nothing more than a puppet of his party. He owes them for getting this far. That's the way of American politics.

Well, not always. I mean some presidents said 'screw politics!' and did things the way they wanted. I mean, he's the president! What're you going to do, ignore what he says because he doesn't agree with you that Jesus is his Lord and Savior? (Oh, I will cherish the day a non-christian is elected to the Presidency) No, once elected, the president has free reign. Of course, if he wants the congress to support his decisions, he'll have to play by their rules, and sign their stuff. But he doesn't have to (can anyone say Line-Item Veto?), which is within his power.

[Alex]

And remember, Bush didn't make us go to war. Bush is just a figurehead. CONGRESS is responsible. Always remember that.

Congress isnt responsible. They were given incorrect information and they made their decision off that information.

Edited by Alex, 29 December 2005 - 07:45 PM.