jwalker
Token Discordian   SSHOLE |
Posts: 949 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 01:06 |
As everyone can plainly see from the news over the last year or so, public opinion has slowly been turning against the Bush administration and the GOP in general. The dirty tricks they've been playing are starting to catch up with them, and I for one am hoping that before too long it will reach the critical mass necessary to tip the scales. It's difficult to understand at times how people can be so gullible, and trust a president who is plainly beneath contempt.
There was a link swarmed yesterday about impeaching Bush, and another one today about how the wire tap program was put into place before 9/11. I was about to swarm another news story about how the NSA got the Baltimore police to help them spy on a domestic anti-war group. I figure we'll be seeing more of this in the news, and that a forum for this subject was a good idea.
Bush's crimes have been piling up. You can define crime in the legal sense or the ethical sense - let's just remember not to forget them, like he and his cronies would like us to do. (I'm focusing on his actions since he was elected president, although he got a good running start as guv of tex.)
To review:
Stealing the 2000 election
Lying about reasons for invading Iraq
Ordering illegal wire taps on US citizens
Ordering the use of torture, against US law
Detaining US citizens without due process
Being a dork
So then, here is a place to post links and comments as the Bush regime continues to unravel. Have at it.
(See also: Rove/Plame-O-Rama)
On 2006-02-20 at 22:44:23, jwalker enjoyed furrysex
____________________
To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog".
|
| |
middle_age_man
Mostly Harmless  SSHOLEPosts: 427 Registered: 1/11/2005 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 01:25 |
Bush ain't a dork, he's a party animal!!
____________________
" Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy."
George Carlin |
| |
dinozoa
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 319 Registered: 7/18/2004 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 01:44 |
you forget:
All the crap that goes with the Plame-gate scandal, ie conspiracy to leak classified information, harboring a criminal (Rove), and concealing evidence from the prosecution (goes without saying.) |
| |
SexNinja
the illest nigga  SSHOLEPosts: 1524 Registered: 10/28/2007 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 01:45 |
Bush is one of the best presidents we have ever had. Not only has he effectively stopped terrorists from operating on American soil, he is going after them in a military fashion and not an ineffective legal one like past administrations. He brought peace and democracy to Iraq and deposed a brutal dictator who could have easily had WMDs which he would have shared with the terrorists to destroy America.
Don't let your blind hatred of Bush cause problems for our country in this time of war. Don't attempt to trip up our efforts to bring democracy and peace to the world through your negative questioning of his policies. He is our president and his will should be respected.
God bless America.
____________________
HAMFIGHTER> He shrugged, and started finishing himself off, on my breasts, while I was crying. |
| |
vladtweano
DARTH MENSES  Posts: 517 Registered: 3/11/2002 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 02:11 |
And he sticks the landing with a straight face! Good one, SN.
Don't forget what I still consider criminal negligence for sitting around with his thumb up his ass for 3 days while people drowned in Nawlins.
____________________
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well, I have others."
- Groucho Marx |
| |
IMBOLCPunxsutawneyPhil
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 244 Registered: 3/17/2005 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 02:18 |
yeah, Heil! like Sexy ninga says!
But the continum of criminality is not a new thing. Mr. clinkton bombed a veterany manufacturing plant and fucked up some raggy heads in retaliation--it was supposedly a weapons lab, yeah right.
ol' father carlyle group is still getting the goods from the president--but I don't know if nepotism really matters in politix, everyone has such a short attention span that it is irrelevant to mention that past administrations [those who trained terrorists and continue to do so in the school of the americas]
It is nothing new my fine fettled fiends.
We have ourselves the gradual outcome of a corrupt oligarchic system that pretends to stand for democracy; probably as much as socialism was represented under communism...
A brief history to the present:
Slavery, Segregation, Class stratification, and now Hegemony with a side of Gentrification... Welcome to the idealistic fantasy that is the land of the free and home of the brave... Yes the entire world was and has been an active participant in this debauched episode from the rise to the stumble and the eventual beating of the wife and kids...
He's a mean angry drunk, so don't piss him off.
____________________
If you include a null character |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 949 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 03:43 |
I know I'm probably forgetting things - that's partly why I started this forum. We forget all too easily. Big Brother tells people that everything is under control, and everyone just wants to go back to sleep.
It is unfortunate that this will be a one-sided discussion. There are a lot of people - just plain folk - who are good hearted and scared and need to believe that the government has their best interests in mind.
The Bush administration has played on that, taking advantage of people's good nature, carefully molding their image as your average joe, hiding behind a facade of lies secrecy and deception, towards what end I do not know. Can it be as simple as mere greed?
Whatever they're doing on capital hill, it isn't looking after our best interests. This reveals itself in many ways, including the debacle in NAW, the reckless disregard for the safety and honor of an undercover agent, the blatant refusal to protect the planet for future generations, and treating us like a we're a class of grade-schoolers to whom they read a goat story.
No, I know there's a history of egregious behavior on the part of the US government. The same could be said for practically all governments in the history of history. That doesn't concern me here, other than to say people have a short memory. I am talking about what is happening now.
Ideally, I would like to see public oppinion turn against the Bush administration - mob rule if necessary - and Bush, Cheney, + others given prison time. I would like to see the common people learning a lesson and electing a new leader who doesn't conserve his compassion for his good ol' buddies. I would like to see the US regain its respect with other Western nations. I would like for the radical extremists worldwide to see that we are not as stupid and greedy as we appear so that their cause against us dies where it lay.
Hey, it could happen. You may say I'm a dreymer, but I'm not the only one.
On 2006-02-20 at 22:53:02, jwalker enjoyed furrysex
____________________
To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog". |
| |
middle_age_man
Mostly Harmless SSHOLEPosts: 427 Registered: 1/11/2005 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 03:47 |
Stupid Canadian question:
Does anyone here think that Bush will be impeached and if so doesn’t that make Cheney president? Seems like a scary trade off to me.
____________________
" Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy."
George Carlin |
| |
Pchimp
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 159 Registered: 6/18/2003 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 04:07 |
middle_age_man: Stupid Canadian question:
Does anyone here think that Bush will be impeached and if so doesn’t that make Cheney president? Seems like a scary trade off to me.
I don't think there's any chance of impeachment unless the electorate becomes enraged and holds Congress' feet to the fire. However, with all the Bushisms that dreymer listed, and the Abramoff affair and a few other tawdry items, I think there's a fair chance that many Republicans will try to distance themselves (at least in the public eye) from the shadowy bully politics of Bush, Delay, and company. It's conceivable that enough red House members will find a conscience and agree to impeach Bush, and possibly Cheney alongside him -- he is implicated, in public record, in many of the same impeachable offenses that Bush is linked to.
Even if he's impeached, though, there's no way he'll be convicted. Impeachment (basically, a formal indictment) only requires a simple majority of the House. Conviction (by the Senate), requires two-thirds. This is why Clinton was impeached, but not convicted.
____________________
Weebles wobble but they don't fall down |
| |
Uart
DARTH MENSES  Posts: 1228 Registered: 3/5/2005 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 06:53 |
I hate politics threads, however...
To review:
Stealing the 2000 election
No. When the votes were counted he won. How did he steal it? If I remember, it was Gore who was trying to nullify the overseas military ballots, etc. The election was a mess, but Bush won on like 2 counts without any military ballots, and he easily won the military vote. Get the fuck over it, he won.
Lying about reasons for invading Iraq
Ordering illegal wire taps on US citizens
Ordering the use of torture, against US law
Heard about all these. Don't really give a shit though. I'm not going to argue them because of that.
Detaining US citizens without due process
I won't deny it, but when? I think I missed that one.
Being a dork
Alcoholics who do cocaine are not dorks, they are par-tay animals.
But seriously, the Clinton's had their share of scandals too. They've even been accused of multiple murders (and not just wars that are being referred to as murder, like real live, bludgeon-the-weak-link-to-death-murder). Just because you like Clinton but don't much like Bush... Every administration has scandals -- this one's scandals mostly revolve around the Iraq war -- other presidents were more creative and varied with their scandals. |
| |
Uart
DARTH MENSES Posts: 1228 Registered: 3/5/2005 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 07:00 |
middle_age_man: Stupid Canadian question:
Does anyone here think that Bush will be impeached and if so doesn’t that make Cheney president? Seems like a scary trade off to me.
Clinton was impeached -- its meaningless. Frankly, Bush has pissed a lot of people off, but he really hasn't committed an impeachable offense anyway. There's no rule that says that politicians can't lie -- if there was, they'd all be impeached. If he lied in a court (like Clinton) it would be perjury and he could be impeached, but going to war (with congress' approval) is not a criminal act. Congress has had his back on most of the questionable activities as well (of course, they're really good at acting surprised and shocked when everyone finds out what's been going on...).
Also, while Cheney would become president if anything happened to Bush, I don't think he'd be any different as a president, and due to health concerns, might actually step down if it came to that. |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 949 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 07:22 |
The next step: the new atty gen Alberto Gonzales is going to defend the administration's underhanded spying tacticts.
Remember him? This is the fellow who gave Bush advise on how to get around the Geneva conventions.
The hearings before the Senate Judicary Committee will be chaired by Arlen Spectar (PA-rep) who was incensed by the administration's sneaky bypassing congressional approval.
Now - Bush has claimed that the wire taps were reviewed by congress (while in the same breath scolding those naughty journalists at the Times for publishing the story (note that the Times only printed it *after* the Plame-Miller fiasco and firing Miller for her slanted pro-admin views.) He said, "Not only has it been reviewed by Justice Department officials, it's been reviewed by members of the United States Congress.'' Do you think he'll stick with that story?
Also - let's not forget that the recent media hearthrob Patrick Fitzgerald is still conducting his investigating. Anyone know when that is scheduled to conclude? It will be interesting to see what else is in the news at the same time.
On 2006-02-20 at 23:09:01, jwalker enjoyed furrysex
____________________
To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog". |
| |
Stump
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 310 Registered: 6/18/2002 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 07:39 |
dreymers:.
Now - Bush has claimed that the wire taps were reviewed by congress (while in the same breath scolding those naughty journalists at the Times for publishing the story (note that the Times only printed it *after* the Plame-Miller fiasco and firing Miller for her slanted pro-admin views.) He said, "Not only has it been reviewed by Justice Department officials, it's been reviewed by members of the United States Congress.'' Do you think he'll stick with that story?
Note your concession that she was fired after having a pro-admin view and ask yourself where most of the news comes from. If a newspaper/T.v. Station were worth it's salt they would print and accept all view points. The "News" should only have one objective, to report the facts without interpreting them. I feel sick having to watch news channels all day at work, the way they sensationalize every little thing that comes across their desk.
As far as corruption goes, easy answer: start voting Libertarian or third party and encourage as many others as you can to do so. Shake the system up. Libertarians would love to limit congressional and senatorial terms in office. A higher turnover rate in the federal government would elad to the lobbies having a reduced influence on law and policy, and maybe a little more real influence from the common person.
|
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 949 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 07:42 |
Uart: I hate politics threads, however...
To review:
Stealing the 2000 election
No. When the votes were counted he won. How did he steal it? If I remember, it was Gore who was trying to nullify the overseas military ballots, etc. The election was a mess, but Bush won on like 2 counts without any military ballots, and he easily won the military vote. Get the fuck over it, he won.
That is debatable - if you believe in the principle of one-man one-vote, then Bush lost the popular vote. I will give you the electoral college, but - who was in charge of counting the votes of the tie-breaking state? His brother (in kahoots with Katherine Harris and ChoicePoint.)
Lying about reasons for invading Iraq
Ordering illegal wire taps on US citizens
Ordering the use of torture, against US law
Heard about all these. Don't really give a shit though. I'm not going to argue them because of that.
You don't have to argue - just read the news.
Detaining US citizens without due process
I won't deny it, but when? I think I missed that one.
Also in the news. I am not defending Padilla - but what reason could the administration have for not wanting to go through the court system? And if him, why not you?
Being a dork
Alcoholics who do cocaine are not dorks, they are par-tay animals.
But seriously, the Clinton's had their share of scandals too. They've even been accused of multiple murders (and not just wars that are being referred to as murder, like real live, bludgeon-the-weak-link-to-death-murder). Just because you like Clinton but don't much like Bush... Every administration has scandals -- this one's scandals mostly revolve around the Iraq war -- other presidents were more creative and varied with their scandals.
Who told you I liked Clinton? Don't buy into the argument that if you are against one side then you are automatically on the other side. That's what they want you to think.
____________________
To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog". |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 949 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 07:48 |
Stump: dreymers:.
Now - Bush has claimed that the wire taps were reviewed by congress (while in the same breath scolding those naughty journalists at the Times for publishing the story (note that the Times only printed it *after* the Plame-Miller fiasco and firing Miller for her slanted pro-admin views.) He said, "Not only has it been reviewed by Justice Department officials, it's been reviewed by members of the United States Congress.'' Do you think he'll stick with that story?
Note your concession that she was fired after having a pro-admin view and ask yourself where most of the news comes from. If a newspaper/T.v. Station were worth it's salt they would print and accept all view points. The "News" should only have one objective, to report the facts without interpreting them. I feel sick having to watch news channels all day at work, the way they sensationalize every little thing that comes across their desk.
As far as corruption goes, easy answer: start voting Libertarian or third party and encourage as many others as you can to do so. Shake the system up. Libertarians would love to limit congressional and senatorial terms in office. A higher turnover rate in the federal government would elad to the lobbies having a reduced influence on law and policy, and maybe a little more real influence from the common person.
Agreed - the media is a whore. The times had no business at all sitting on that story for a whole fucking year before releasing it. The point I was making is that, since the press mostly prints what they think will be well received by the public, it is an indication of what the public thinks. Like a monkey looking into a mirror. In this case, it should be noted that the Times is swinging with the times.
Libertarians? I like their message better than the others, but am still wary of anyone seeking office.
On 2006-01-14 at 01:50:16, dreymers enjoyed furrysex
____________________
To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog". |
| |
Uart
DARTH MENSES Posts: 1228 Registered: 3/5/2005 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 08:29 |
dreymers: Also in the news. I am not defending Padilla - but what reason could the administration have for not wanting to go through the court system? And if him, why not you?
This is one case. Additionally it is not, IMHO that bad, here's why:
1) He was being held as an enemy combatant, the government believed him to be a member of a paramilitary group (one whose stated purpose is death to the american infidel). The law also claims that any American who choses to represent a foreign military can risk their citizenship by doing so -- so, was Padilla even a citizen? If he did in fact represent a foreign military, then he was not.
2) Almost every President has tested the limits of the constitution. There exists a Supreme Court to set the other two branches straight when they go too far. Look up some of the stretches that our "Greatest" Presidents have attempted. The Supreme Court has ruled on this matter and it is settled.
I don't really know any more details of this case, other than what was in the article you linked, but I presume that the army picked this guy up in either Afghanistan or Iraq. I will also take a guess that he was chillin' with some bad characters and that the military believed he was a) one of them b) up to no good and c) could offer some useful info.
If they picked him up in the US, they would've had to put it through the court system, the military has no police jurisdiction in the US except on their own reservations. |
| |
Stump
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 310 Registered: 6/18/2002 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 09:11 |
dreymers:Agreed - the media is a whore. The times had no business at all sitting on that story for a whole fucking year before releasing it. The point I was making is that, since the press mostly prints what they think will be well received by the public, it is an indication of what the public thinks. Like a monkey looking into a mirror. In this case, it should be noted that the Times is swinging with the times.
Libertarians? I like their message better than the others, but am still wary of anyone seeking office.
On 2006-01-14 at 01:50:16, dreymers enjoyed furrysex
Should the Times even have been allowed to print classified information? Read up on some the latest stories of large purchases of pre-paid mobiles since the Times stories about the NSA program, here's a good place to start: http://www.michellemalkin.com/mt/oct05-tb.cgi/3615
There should definitely be a point where common sense takes over and says "maybe this is something we shouldn't talk about quite yet". Kind of like trying to plan an outing with the office outcast in the room, you really don't want him/her to show up no matter how late.
Whistle blowing is all well and good, but when it starts to endanger lives it leans towards treason. (Plamegate didn't endager lives other then the whole morale shitball it started rolling, but the NSA story truly can endanger lives if the ways and means of surveillance are fully revealed) |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 949 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 09:16 |
Uart: dreymers: Also in the news. I am not defending Padilla - but what reason could the administration have for not wanting to go through the court system? And if him, why not you?
This is one case. Additionally it is not, IMHO that bad, here's why:
1) He was being held as an enemy combatant, the government believed him to be a member of a paramilitary group (one whose stated purpose is death to the american infidel). The law also claims that any American who choses to represent a foreign military can risk their citizenship by doing so -- so, was Padilla even a citizen? If he did in fact represent a foreign military, then he was not.
2) Almost every President has tested the limits of the constitution. There exists a Supreme Court to set the other two branches straight when they go too far. Look up some of the stretches that our "Greatest" Presidents have attempted. The Supreme Court has ruled on this matter and it is settled.
I don't really know any more details of this case, other than what was in the article you linked, but I presume that the army picked this guy up in either Afghanistan or Iraq. I will also take a guess that he was chillin' with some bad characters and that the military believed he was a) one of them b) up to no good and c) could offer some useful info.
If they picked him up in the US, they would've had to put it through the court system, the military has no police jurisdiction in the US except on their own reservations.
"Not that bad" is a poor excuse for whittling away at our constitutional rights to due process. You are correct in stating that this is only one case - there may be more cases that we know nothing about. Would that be okay with you?
The story of this case is another example of the administration's deceptive tacticts. When they were brought to term and their hand was forced they buckled and charged him with a civil crime, allowing the justice system to do its job. Read more here.
Your second point is real crap, tho - you are saying that because other presidents broke the law, then it is okay for the current one to do so? Where is your integrity?
____________________
To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog". |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 949 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 09:27 |
Stump: dreymers:Agreed - the media is a whore. The times had no business at all sitting on that story for a whole fucking year before releasing it. The point I was making is that, since the press mostly prints what they think will be well received by the public, it is an indication of what the public thinks. Like a monkey looking into a mirror. In this case, it should be noted that the Times is swinging with the times.
Libertarians? I like their message better than the others, but am still wary of anyone seeking office.
On 2006-01-14 at 01:50:16, dreymers enjoyed furrysex
Should the Times even have been allowed to print classified information? Read up on some the latest stories of large purchases of pre-paid mobiles since the Times stories about the NSA program, here's a good place to start: http://www.michellemalkin.com/mt/oct05-tb.cgi/3615
There should definitely be a point where common sense takes over and says "maybe this is something we shouldn't talk about quite yet". Kind of like trying to plan an outing with the office outcast in the room, you really don't want him/her to show up no matter how late.
Whistle blowing is all well and good, but when it starts to endanger lives it leans towards treason. (Plamegate didn't endager lives other then the whole morale shitball it started rolling, but the NSA story truly can endanger lives if the ways and means of surveillance are fully revealed)
Boy, I am really on the defensive here, aren't I.
It is a matter of principle. The president is not allowed to break the law - period. If he wanted to do wire taps, he could have gone through channels.
One could say that it is the responsibility of the press to help keep the executive branch in check - and that they have a responsibility to help protect the populace from prying eyes. But they are not part of the government, they are a *free* press, and as we've both already noted, they typically pander to the largest audience, so the point is mute. Let's stay on topic here.
____________________
To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog". |
| |
Stump
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 310 Registered: 6/18/2002 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 09:41 |
A bit of booze in my system amke s me feel eloquont, but I may look back at all of this and go "WTF?" See my comment left on the NSA link towards the top of the page rearding my feeling on the "wiretaps". I think a big problem here is that as communications have advanced the law hasn't kept step with it. In the U.S. the government technically owns the airwaves and frequencies and only rents them out to telecoms. In a sense I don't see the need for them to seek permission to look at something they already own. Do you really need to ask your wife or kid before you look in their closet for drugs?
This all could be so much worse and we could live in atrue police state. Do I worry that it may be leading to it? Yes, but I also have faith in the american system of mediocrity that it will never ever come to that extreme which in turn leads to depression that we will never know the true glory that the federal system could bing, damn you Damoscles.
I think you may end up on the losing end of this anti-bush forum for the simple fact most of America is so jaded and pissed off about the political process they could care less who's in office, we jst want someone to blame.
|
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 949 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 09:59 |
That's okay - I'm not trying to win. Just to open the dialog and keep a line on the stories. The technology aspect is definitely a conundrum; I've read two opposing stories - one says that they are prepared to implement the most high-tech hands-on monitoring (like you say), and another says they are using equipment that is twenty years old. Considering the state of the bureaucracy, it is hard to guess which is correct.
However, it should be pointed out that the very laws the administration is ignoring were originally put in place because of a similar abuse of power by Nixon and the FBI conducting wire taps on US citizens (see FISA.)
Now, there's a surprise guest to testify in the senate hearings: Russell Tice, who worked for 30 years spying on us all (legally - that is with warrants in place,) has been identified as the whistleblower who tipped off the Times. You can read about the story here, and read ABC's story itself here. These hearings should be interesting.
On 2006-01-14 at 04:06:18, dreymers enjoyed furrysex
____________________
To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog". |
| |
Dumbskull
I'm assuming the position!  SSHOLEPosts: 1902 Registered: 4/22/2004 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 09:59 |
In 1972 Nixon got caught doing this same shit and was humiliated out of office. What I find is fucking astounding is that this president not only admits he did it/continues to do it; but justifies his actions with bullshit daily “Freedom and Democracy” speeches.
____________________
Easier to get into than a community college. |
| |
Uart
DARTH MENSES Posts: 1228 Registered: 3/5/2005 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 10:04 |
dreymers:Your second point is real crap, tho - you are saying that because other presidents broke the law, then it is okay for the current one to do so? Where is your integrity?
No, I'm saying that part of what President's do is to test the extent of the law/their power. The Supreme Court's job is to stop them when they've gone over the line. This case was presented to the Supreme Court and the administration lost...
You failed to address my first point, however. Was he really even an American? Where was he taken into custody? By whom? Why?
When you can answer these questions, you can claim wrongdoing, right now, it's just a case of an administration thinking it had a power that it didn't. Wouldn't be the first time, and it won't be the last. |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 949 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/14/2006 at 10:13 |
Uart: dreymers:Your second point is real crap, tho - you are saying that because other presidents broke the law, then it is okay for the current one to do so? Where is your integrity?
No, I'm saying that part of what President's do is to test the extent of the law/their power. The Supreme Court's job is to stop them when they've gone over the line. This case was presented to the Supreme Court and the administration lost...
You failed to address my first point, however. Was he really even an American? Where was he taken into custody? By whom? Why?
When you can answer these questions, you can claim wrongdoing, right now, it's just a case of an administration thinking it had a power that it didn't. Wouldn't be the first time, and it won't be the last.
This administration is way beyond "pushing the limits". They are consciously lying and deceiving in many different areas to get around the law. The Padilla case is just one small example.
What I don't understand - and maybe you or someone else can try to explain it here - is why? Are they really trying to look out for us all because they know best? Is it a power grab by the GOP? Is it just a bunch of greedy fucks trying to make a buck?Just exactly what the hell is going on here and when will it stop!?
____________________
To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog". |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 949 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/15/2006 at 00:55 |
On the lighter side:
President Says He Approved Secret Spying to Nail His Enemies
First-Amendment Bug Removed From Bill of Rights 2.0
____________________
To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog". |
| |
Stump
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 310 Registered: 6/18/2002 Offline
|
1/15/2006 at 06:59 |
dreymers:
This administration is way beyond "pushing the limits". They are consciously lying and deceiving in many different areas to get around the law. The Padilla case is just one small example.
What I don't understand - and maybe you or someone else can try to explain it here - is why? Are they really trying to look out for us all because they know best? Is it a power grab by the GOP? Is it just a bunch of greedy fucks trying to make a buck?Just exactly what the hell is going on here and when will it stop!?
From Wikipedia.org on Jose padilla (from a quick glance it looks like waht i remember reading in the papers) I want to believe it's because they believe they know best and are lookin gout for us. One thing that keeps me in belief of this is the lack of reports of massive retirements from the officer or senior NCO ranks of the military. While I was in I would say that about 70%-80% of the enlisted were unquestioning automontans, but the senior NCOs were pretty damn savvy. The officer corps had their losses, but there were still some pretty savvy people there too. There must be some kind of intelligence we don't know about that those higher level folk are privy to that keeps them in.
On 2006-01-15 at 01:00:17, Stump enjoyed furrysex
Godamn tags, if it don't work this time it's staying.
On 2006-01-15 at 01:02:11, Stump enjoyed furrysex |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 949 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/15/2006 at 07:30 |
Stump: dreymers:
This administration is way beyond "pushing the limits". They are consciously lying and deceiving in many different areas to get around the law. The Padilla case is just one small example.
What I don't understand - and maybe you or someone else can try to explain it here - is why? Are they really trying to look out for us all because they know best? Is it a power grab by the GOP? Is it just a bunch of greedy fucks trying to make a buck?Just exactly what the hell is going on here and when will it stop!?
From Wikipedia.org on Jose padilla (from a quick glance it looks like waht i remember reading in the papers) read this. I want to believe it's because they believe they know best and are lookin gout for us. One thing that keeps me in belief of this is the lack of reports of massive retirements from the officer or senior NCO ranks of the military. While I was in I would say that about 70%-80% of the enlisted were unquestioning automontans, but the senior NCOs were pretty damn savvy. The officer corps had their losses, but there were still some pretty savvy people there too. There must be some kind of intelligence we don't know about that those higher level folk are privy to that keeps them in.
Yes, of course. The officers are of a different calliber; like the ones who were in charge of Abu Grahaib. Thank goodnes they are on our side.
____________________
To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog". |
| |
Mofo
dont give a shit  SSHOLEPosts: 427 Registered: 2/8/2004 Offline
|
1/16/2006 at 00:13 |
Lincoln was a dictator.
Edit: was torture illegal under US law before the bill was passed (which Bush choose to sign in a way that he can still do whatever the fuck he wants to with torture)?
And, on the subject of Bush, why does he receive all the blame? His croonies do a lot of shit too. The head can always regrow.
On 2006-01-15 at 18:15:26, Mofo enjoyed furrysex |
| |
shitbox
my balls your chin, get used to that idea  SSHOLEPosts: 932 Registered: 1/9/2005 Offline
|
1/16/2006 at 01:15 |
Mofo:
And, on the subject of Bush, why does he receive all the blame? His croonies do a lot of shit too. The head can always regrow.
What I really find rather amusing/angering is that BOTH parties, had to vote to approve anything to do with an invasion of Iraq. Yet as soon as it started to turn sour, Dems wanted nothing to do with it.
I hate party bickering and find both of our countries major parties to be EXACTLY the same. If you honestly think there is a difference in their negative attributes you are sadly mistaken.
Politcal Parties only care about two things. MONEY and MONEY. Ya see, it takes a lot of money to get elected to a civil servant office. So to get money, you need to be inbed with the people who have it, HUGE CORPORATE CONGLOMERATES, and in return for them giving you the money you NEEDED to get elected, House of reps, senate, PRESIDENCY, etc., they demand you to make, vote, and create laws in their favor.
The above sentence is the problem with Americas politiacal insitution in a nutshell.
Am I anti bush? Sure, he's evil. But Im anti-ANYONE who runs under the banner of the Democratic or Republican party because they BOTH represent something that is as evil as those who that are called 'terrorists'.
To touch on the subject of voting...nothing gets me madder than when I hear someone say that "I voted for Bush because he's the lesser of two evils" or "I voted for Kerry because Bush is a dickfuck".
When you cast that prescious vote you should vote for the person you want as your president, the person you feel would do the best to represent the values you hold. By voting for someone simply because the alternative is shit prevents these cocksuckers from getting the idea. You are effectively wasting your vote and sending the message that what they are doing is ok. Now if you agree with what either of these two truly EVIL politcal parties are doing, then by all means vote accordingly. But if your fed the fuck up like I am please vote for ANY of the alternative parties canidates...FOR THE LOVE OF GAWD.
____________________
"Kill him! Kill the fuckin' indian! What am I watching here two fuckin' fags!?"
Rodney Dangerfield as Ed Wilson
|
| |
Mofo
dont give a shit SSHOLEPosts: 427 Registered: 2/8/2004 Offline
|
1/16/2006 at 04:39 |
What I really find rather amusing/angering is that BOTH parties, had to vote to approve anything to do with an invasion of Iraq. Yet as soon as it started to turn sour, Dems wanted nothing to do with it.
No one wanted anything to do with it when it turned sour. Had Bush had the ability, he would have ignored it as well. Its the nature of politics. |
| |
|
