• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush: Intel "Saves Lives"

FinnMacCool said:
Its only unrealistic because people like you stand in the way of peace. You and your fellows hold on desperately to old ways and, in that way, will end up bringing us down.

Now, on the subject of the Revolution of 1776 in which you believe the liberals would've supported King George, you should realize that this country was founded upon social liberal values. Libertarian values actually, which you supposedly support.

I know EXACTLY where most of the founding fathers stood politically, Jefferson particularly, and they were nothing like modern day liberals. They'd be spinning in their graves if they caught a whiff of the modern day liberal left.

And people like me stand in the way of peace? Far from it. I want peace in the Middle East as much as anybody but I'm also a REALIST. Just because I support the war doesn't mean I don't want peace any less than some delusional pacifist. They're not "old ways", as far as we've come as a race, we still have a long way to go and war is still a very real reality.
 
FinnMacCool said:
JFK isn't having a debate with all those people's quotes. How about you respond to something else I posted on here?

Hahahahaha :2rofll: You got OWNED.
 
I know EXACTLY where most of the founding fathers stood politically, Jefferson particularly, and they were nothing like modern day liberals. They'd be spinning in their graves if they caught a whiff of the modern day liberal left.
Likewise, they would be spinning in their graves if they heard of what happened to the right. I don't claim to hold my ideals closely to that of the founding fathers. I'm just making a point.

And people like me stand in the way of peace? Far from it. I want peace in the Middle East as much as anybody but I'm also a REALIST. Just because I support the war doesn't mean I don't want peace any less than some delusional pacifist. They're not "old ways", as far as we've come as a race, we still have a long way to go and war is still a very real reality.

FirstlyI'm not a pacifist, lets make that clear.

Secondly, being realistic is an admirable trait but it can only go so far. Realists are only there for the here and now and they never look towards the future. Think of what would've happened if, when we were all cavemen, we continued to oppress women based on our 'realistic ideals' realpolitik is something that cannot extend into the future. The people of the world who held the so called 'idealistic' ideals are the ones that actually got us anywhere into the future.
 
Hahahahaha You got OWNED.

Nice try but not going to work. I'm here to debate real issues. I'm not going to go back and forth with different quotes from different people and different times.

Same to you trojan.
 
FinnMacCool said:
Likewise, they would be spinning in their graves if they heard of what happened to the right. I don't claim to hold my ideals closely to that of the founding fathers. I'm just making a point.

You're absolutely right there.



FinnMacCool said:
FirstlyI'm not a pacifist, lets make that clear.

Your constant anti-war statements would say othwerwise.

FinnMacCool said:
Secondly, being realistic is an admirable trait but it can only go so far. Realists are only there for the here and now and they never look towards the future. Think of what would've happened if, when we were all cavemen, we continued to oppress women based on our 'realistic ideals' realpolitik is something that cannot extend into the future. The people of the world who held the so called 'idealistic' ideals are the ones that actually got us anywhere into the future.

I do look toward the future and I don't know too many realists that don't. I also realize that, like I said before, we still haven't evolved to the point where war is solely an issue of the past.
 
FinnMacCool said:
Nice try but not going to work. I'm here to debate real issues. I'm not going to go back and forth with different quotes from different people and different times.

Same to you trojan.

It is a real issue, you posted one anti-war quote from a liberal idol and Trajan countered with a load of quotes from more credible sources saying otherwise.
 
FinnMacCool said:
Secondly, being realistic is an admirable trait but it can only go so far. Realists are only there for the here and now and they never look towards the future. Think of what would've happened if, when we were all cavemen, we continued to oppress women based on our 'realistic ideals' realpolitik is something that cannot extend into the future. The people of the world who held the so called 'idealistic' ideals are the ones that actually got us anywhere into the future.

Ya but guess what Bush IS an idealist, I mean have you ever actually listened to one of his speeches?


The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country. From the Fourteen Points to the Four Freedoms, to the Speech at Westminster, America has put our power at the service of principle. We believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history. We believe that human fulfillment and excellence come in the responsible exercise of liberty. And we believe that freedom -- the freedom we prize -- is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind. (Applause.) - GWB
 
Your constant anti-war statements would say othwerwise.
I'm sure I look like a pacifist but I'm not.

I do look toward the future and I don't know too many realists that don't. I also realize that, like I said before, we still haven't evolved to the point where war is solely an issue of the past.
I agree. We should work towards that goal. Thats the whole idea. I wrote a long essay called 'Progressing Towards the Ideal Society: Social Democracy as I understand it'. Read it on my blog if you would like more insight into my political and philosopical beliefs.
 
It is a real issue, you posted one anti-war quote from a liberal idol and Trajan countered with a load of quotes from more credible sources saying otherwise.

JFK isn't my idol. I just thought it was a good quote. Besides you obviously didn't read all those quotes because a lot of them had absolutely nothing to do with war as an aggressor. For example George Washington's quote.
 
Ya but guess what Bush IS an idealist, I mean have you ever actually listened to one of his speeches?
Bush isn't an idealist. He has people write his speeches. Nothing he could possibly say in any of his speeches or addresses are credible or reflect him a great deal.
The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country. From the Fourteen Points to the Four Freedoms, to the Speech at Westminster, America has put our power at the service of principle. We believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history. We believe that human fulfillment and excellence come in the responsible exercise of liberty. And we believe that freedom -- the freedom we prize -- is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind. (Applause.) - GWB

This only further reinforces my point. He might say this but his policies say different.
 
FinnMacCool said:
This only further reinforces my point. He might say this but his policies say different.

His policies have led to a free Iraq.
 
His policies have led to a free Iraq.

I wasn't reffering to Iraq. I was reffering to the Patriot Act and how he doesn't like the idea of gays being married and issues of a similar to this nature. Bush is one of the most authoritarian presidents we've ever had.
 
FinnMacCool said:
I wasn't reffering to Iraq. I was reffering to the Patriot Act and how he doesn't like the idea of gays being married and issues of a similar to this nature. Bush is one of the most authoritarian presidents we've ever had.

Excuse me sir but the Patriot Act was not a Bush policy the Patriot Act is legislation you do know that President doesn't make legislation the congress does and the President has a veto.

Every single congressmen voted for the Patriot Act save for one.

Furthermore; from the road map to peace to Operation Iraqi Freedom, every single foriegn policy decision that this president has made has been one of idealism that looks to the future of a more stable and free global society.

As for gay marriage that too looks to the future for the purpose of marriage is child rearing and procreation when that system that has been with us since the inception of civilization then we're all in deep ****.
 
Excuse me sir but the Patriot Act was not a Bush policy the Patriot Act is legislation you do know that President doesn't make legislation the congress does and the President has a veto.
the President was a big supporter of the Patriot Act.

Every single congressmen voted for the Patriot Act save for one.
Thats because they were idiots. It was right after 9/11 and everyone was afraid so they just passed it. Dumb. very dumb.

Furthermore; from the road map to peace to Operation Iraqi Freedom, every single foriegn policy decision that this president has made has been one of idealism that looks to the future of a more stable and free global society.

Well then theres the question about whether he really is doing it for freedom. . .

As for gay marriage that too looks to the future for the purpose of marriage is child rearing and procreation when that system that has been with us since the inception of civilization then we're all in deep ****.
same thing.
 
FinnMacCool said:
the President was a big supporter of the Patriot Act.

So was every elected official except for one does that mean that you can not be an idealist and for the patriot act at the same time.

FinnMacCool said:
Thats because they were idiots. It was right after 9/11 and everyone was afraid so they just passed it. Dumb. very dumb.

The Patriot Act has served to stop many terrorist attacks even on our own soil:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales Highlights Success in the War on Terror at the Council on Foreign Relations
The prevention of terrorist attacks and the prosecution of the war on terrorism remain the top priorities of the Department of Justice. In the past year alone, there have been significant convictions in terrorism cases from Virginia to Texas, following a track record of success over the past four years in previous cases such as John Walker Lindh, Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid, among others.

Notable 2005 cases include: Ahmed Omar Abu Ali: On November 22, 2005 in the Eastern District of Virginia, a federal jury convicted Ahmed Omar Abu Ali on all counts of a superseding indictment charging him with terrorism offenses. The jury found Ali, a 24-year-old Virginia man, guilty of conspiracy to provide material support and resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization (al Qaeda); providing material support and resources to al Qaeda; conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists; providing material support to terrorists; contribution of services to al Qaeda; receipt of funds and services from al Qaeda; conspiracy to assassinate the President of the United States; conspiracy to commit air piracy; and conspiracy to destroy aircraft. Ali faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum sentence of life in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for February 17, 2006. Uzair Paracha: On November 23, 2005, a federal jury in the Southern District of New York convicted Uzair Paracha, a Pakistani national with permanent resident alien status in the United States, on charges of providing material support to al Qaeda. Evidence at trial proved that Paracha agreed with his father and two al Qaeda members to provide support to al Qaeda by, among other things, trying to help an al Qaeda member re-enter the United States to commit a terrorist act. Paracha faces a maximum sentence of 75 years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for March 3, 2006.

Hemant Lakhani: On April 27, 2005 in the District of New Jersey, a federal jury convicted a British national, Hemant Lakhani, on charges of attempting to sell shoulder-fired missiles to what he thought was a terrorist group intent on shooting down U.S. airliners. Lakhani was arrested following an undercover sting operation involving agents from several nations. Lakhani was sentenced in September 2005 to 47 years in prison.

Ali Al-Timimi: On April 26, 2005 in the Eastern District of Virginia, Ali Al-Timimi was convicted on all 10 charges brought against him in connection with the “Virginia Jihad” case. Al-Timimi, a spiritual leader at a mosque in Northern Virginia, encouraged other individuals at a meeting to go to Pakistan to receive military training from Lashkar-e-Taibi, a designated foreign terrorist group, in order to fight U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Al-Timimi was sentenced to life in prison.

Zacarias Moussaoui: On April 24, 2005 in the Eastern District of Virginia, Zacarias Moussaoui pleaded guilty to six charges against him related to his participation in the September 11th conspiracy. Moussaoui faces a maximum penalty of death.

Eric Robert Rudolph: On April 13, 2005 in the Northern District of Georgia and the Northern District of Alabama, Eric Robert Rudolph pleaded guilty to charges related to deadly bombings in Birmingham, Alabama, and in the Atlanta area, including the bombing at the 1996 Olympics. He has been sentenced to life in prison. Rudolph provided the government with information about 250 pounds of explosives that he had hidden in the Western North Carolina area. As a result of Rudolph’s information, the government was able to locate and safely detonate the explosives.

‘INFOCOM’: On April 12, 2005 in the Northern District of Texas, a federal jury convicted Bayan Elashi, Basman Elashi, Ghassan Elashi and the Infocom Corporation on charges of conspiracy to deal in the property of a specially designated terrorist and money laundering. The activities were related to Infocom, an Internet service provider believed to be a front for Hamas. Mohammed Ali Hasan Al-Moayad and Mohammed Zayed: On March 10, 2005 a federal jury in the Eastern District of New York convicted Mohammed Ali Hasan Al-Moayad, a Yemeni cleric, and Mohammed Zayed on charges of providing, and conspiring to provide material support and resources to al Qaeda and Hamas. Al-Moayad was sentenced to 75 years in prison; Zayed was sentenced to 45 years in prison.

Rafil Dhafir: On February 10, 2005 in the Northern District of New York, a federal jury convicted Rafil Dhafir on charges of participating in a conspiracy to unlawfully send money to Iraq, in violation of U.S. sanctions, and money laundering. Dhafir was sentenced to 22 years in prison. Lynne Stewart, et al: On February 10, 2005, a federal jury in the Southern District of New York convicted attorney Lynne Stewart, Mohammed Yousry, Ahmed Abdel Sattar and Yassir al-Sirri on charges including providing, and concealing the provision of, material support or resources to terrorists. The four defendants were associates of Sheikh Abdel-Rahman, leader of the terrorist organization Islamic Group (IG). Rahman is serving a life sentence for his role in terrorist activity, including the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/Dec...5_opa_641.html


FinnMacCool said:
Well then theres the question about whether he really is doing it for freedom. . .

No, he's doing it because he's a megalomaniacal madman bent on world domination mwuhahahahahaha gimme a break of course he's doing it for freedom, to protect our freedom and to bring freedom to the middle east.

FinnMacCool said:
same thing.

Tell me one good effect that gay marriage would have on our society?
 
Tell me one good effect that gay marriage would have on our society?
What bad will it have on society?
Weak weak argument if anything at all.
 
jfuh said:
What bad will it have on society?
Weak weak argument if anything at all.

Perhaps you should follow the jist of the thread next time here's what I posted:

As for gay marriage that too looks to the future for the purpose of marriage is child rearing and procreation when that system that has been with us since the inception of human civilization breaks down then we're all in deep ****.
 
Finn, here's a scenario for you:

Let's say Congress passes a law that prevents the NSA from listening in on domestic phone calls. Not long after, a group of Islamic extremists discover a way to manufacture an extremely fatal nerve gas along the lines of Sarin or VX. Let's say they set up a laboratory in the Mojave Desert to manufacture a large quantity of this gas. Eventually they get their hands on an 18-wheeler tanker and fill it with this gas. They then drive the tanker into downtown Los Angeles and unleash the toxin into the air, killing hundreds of thousands of people. They are caught by authorites soon after and their cell phones are discovered to have numbers linked to other known terrorists who had links to individuals who may have access to the crucial ingredients to manufacture the gas or other sources integral to their operation. Now, if the NSA (or whatever intelligence agency) had been able to listen in on the conversations of individuals with known links to terrorism, this disaster could have been prevented but it wasn't in the name of a "civil liberty" and now hundreds of thousands of people are dead.

Sounds crazy? I bet on September 10th, 2001, the prospect of terrorists hiijacking multiple jumbo jets on the same day and flying them into the Pentagon and World Trade Center towers, completely destroying them, sounded crazy too.
 
So was every elected official except for one does that mean that you can not be an idealist and for the patriot act at the same time.
I don't consider those who simply voted for it "Big supporters"
The Patriot Act has served to stop many terrorist attacks even on our own soil:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales Highlights Success in the War on Terror at the Council on Foreign Relations
The prevention of terrorist attacks and the prosecution of the war on terrorism remain the top priorities of the Department of Justice. In the past year alone, there have been significant convictions in terrorism cases from Virginia to Texas, following a track record of success over the past four years in previous cases such as John Walker Lindh, Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid, among others.

Notable 2005 cases include: Ahmed Omar Abu Ali: On November 22, 2005 in the Eastern District of Virginia, a federal jury convicted Ahmed Omar Abu Ali on all counts of a superseding indictment charging him with terrorism offenses. The jury found Ali, a 24-year-old Virginia man, guilty of conspiracy to provide material support and resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization (al Qaeda); providing material support and resources to al Qaeda; conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists; providing material support to terrorists; contribution of services to al Qaeda; receipt of funds and services from al Qaeda; conspiracy to assassinate the President of the United States; conspiracy to commit air piracy; and conspiracy to destroy aircraft. Ali faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum sentence of life in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for February 17, 2006. Uzair Paracha: On November 23, 2005, a federal jury in the Southern District of New York convicted Uzair Paracha, a Pakistani national with permanent resident alien status in the United States, on charges of providing material support to al Qaeda. Evidence at trial proved that Paracha agreed with his father and two al Qaeda members to provide support to al Qaeda by, among other things, trying to help an al Qaeda member re-enter the United States to commit a terrorist act. Paracha faces a maximum sentence of 75 years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for March 3, 2006.

Hemant Lakhani: On April 27, 2005 in the District of New Jersey, a federal jury convicted a British national, Hemant Lakhani, on charges of attempting to sell shoulder-fired missiles to what he thought was a terrorist group intent on shooting down U.S. airliners. Lakhani was arrested following an undercover sting operation involving agents from several nations. Lakhani was sentenced in September 2005 to 47 years in prison.

Ali Al-Timimi: On April 26, 2005 in the Eastern District of Virginia, Ali Al-Timimi was convicted on all 10 charges brought against him in connection with the “Virginia Jihad” case. Al-Timimi, a spiritual leader at a mosque in Northern Virginia, encouraged other individuals at a meeting to go to Pakistan to receive military training from Lashkar-e-Taibi, a designated foreign terrorist group, in order to fight U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Al-Timimi was sentenced to life in prison.

Zacarias Moussaoui: On April 24, 2005 in the Eastern District of Virginia, Zacarias Moussaoui pleaded guilty to six charges against him related to his participation in the September 11th conspiracy. Moussaoui faces a maximum penalty of death.

Eric Robert Rudolph: On April 13, 2005 in the Northern District of Georgia and the Northern District of Alabama, Eric Robert Rudolph pleaded guilty to charges related to deadly bombings in Birmingham, Alabama, and in the Atlanta area, including the bombing at the 1996 Olympics. He has been sentenced to life in prison. Rudolph provided the government with information about 250 pounds of explosives that he had hidden in the Western North Carolina area. As a result of Rudolph’s information, the government was able to locate and safely detonate the explosives.

‘INFOCOM’: On April 12, 2005 in the Northern District of Texas, a federal jury convicted Bayan Elashi, Basman Elashi, Ghassan Elashi and the Infocom Corporation on charges of conspiracy to deal in the property of a specially designated terrorist and money laundering. The activities were related to Infocom, an Internet service provider believed to be a front for Hamas. Mohammed Ali Hasan Al-Moayad and Mohammed Zayed: On March 10, 2005 a federal jury in the Eastern District of New York convicted Mohammed Ali Hasan Al-Moayad, a Yemeni cleric, and Mohammed Zayed on charges of providing, and conspiring to provide material support and resources to al Qaeda and Hamas. Al-Moayad was sentenced to 75 years in prison; Zayed was sentenced to 45 years in prison.

Rafil Dhafir: On February 10, 2005 in the Northern District of New York, a federal jury convicted Rafil Dhafir on charges of participating in a conspiracy to unlawfully send money to Iraq, in violation of U.S. sanctions, and money laundering. Dhafir was sentenced to 22 years in prison. Lynne Stewart, et al: On February 10, 2005, a federal jury in the Southern District of New York convicted attorney Lynne Stewart, Mohammed Yousry, Ahmed Abdel Sattar and Yassir al-Sirri on charges including providing, and concealing the provision of, material support or resources to terrorists. The four defendants were associates of Sheikh Abdel-Rahman, leader of the terrorist organization Islamic Group (IG). Rahman is serving a life sentence for his role in terrorist activity, including the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/Dec...5_opa_641.html
Thats all just recycled bullshit. This country didn't need to patriot act to stop 9/11. All they needed to do was pay attention to what was going on around them.
No, he's doing it because he's a megalomaniacal madman bent on world domination mwuhahahahahaha gimme a break of course he's doing it for freedom, to protect our freedom and to bring freedom to the middle east.
IF thats what you honestly believe, then there is nothing I can do for you.

Tell me one good effect that gay marriage would have on our society?
Name one good effect that making gay marriage illegal would have on our society
 
Finn, here's a scenario for you:

Let's say Congress passes a law that prevents the NSA from listening in on domestic phone calls. Not long after, a group of Islamic extremists discover a way to manufacture an extremely fatal nerve gas along the lines of Sarin or VX. Let's say they set up a laboratory in the Mojave Desert to manufacture a large quantity of this gas. Eventually they get their hands on an 18-wheeler tanker and fill it with this gas. They then drive the tanker into downtown Los Angeles and unleash the toxin into the air, killing hundreds of thousands of people. They are caught by authorites soon after and their cell phones are discovered to have numbers linked to other known terrorists who had links to individuals who may have access to the crucial ingredients to manufacture the gas or other sources integral to their operation. Now, if the NSA (or whatever intelligence agency) had been able to listen in on the conversations of individuals with known links to terrorism, this disaster could have been prevented but it wasn't in the name of a "civil liberty" and now hundreds of thousands of people are dead.
Thats all just speculatation.

Sounds crazy? I bet on September 10th, 2001, the prospect of terrorists hiijacking multiple jumbo jets on the same day and flying them into the Pentagon and World Trade Center towers, completely destroying them, sounded crazy too
Perhaps for Bush and Clinton. But the fact is that they knew there was a threat and the Patriot Act wasn't in place.
 
FinnMacCool said:
Thats all just speculatation.


Perhaps for Bush and Clinton. But the fact is that they knew there was a threat and the Patriot Act wasn't in place.

9-11 was allowed to take place because Intelligent officers were banned from talking with prosecutors in an ongoing criminal case, there was info on a computer from the 20th hijacker that the intelligence officers had that they couldn't share with the F.B.I because of the Clinton Gorelick wall the Patriot act has a provision that desolved that wall but guess what that provision is due to expire in two weeks because of the Democratic fillibuster. Check this out:

The Able Danger project team tried three times, Fox reports, to give the information on Atta to the FBI in 2000. Each time, administration attorneys blocked their efforts:

Weldon said that in September 2000, the unit recommended on three separate occasions that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI "so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists." However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation, arguing that Atta and the others were in the country legally so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.
"Lawyers within the administration ? and we're talking about the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration ? said 'you can't do it,'" and put post-its over Atta's face, Weldon said. "They said they were concerned about the political fallout that occurred after Waco ... and the Branch Davidians."


The Able Danger project team tried three times, Fox reports, to give the information on Atta to the FBI in 2000. Each time, administration attorneys blocked their efforts:

Weldon said that in September 2000, the unit recommended on three separate occasions that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI "so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists." However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation, arguing that Atta and the others were in the country legally so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.
"Lawyers within the administration ? and we're talking about the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration ? said 'you can't do it,'" and put post-its over Atta's face, Weldon said. "They said they were concerned about the political fallout that occurred after Waco ... and the Branch Davidians."


http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005182.php
 
jfuh said:
Wow, you must really be desperate, you can't find any credible source except for some one elses blog.

I used the quotes from the able danger operative, have you even heard of Able Danger or the Clinton Gorelick wall? You can fact check this stuff all you want this was the first site I found on it and I really don't feel like researching stuff that is already public knowledge. That's not the point anyways the point is that you people keep saying that the Patriot Act wouldn't have prevented 9-11, well the facts speak differently, to you wish to debate the veracity of my assertion or would you rather prefer to continue living in a dream world?
 
Last edited:
Thats real cute trying to place the blame on Clinton but Bush has equal responsiblity to 9/11 as did Clinton. I'm not going to bother to tell you what the report said. I'm sure you've heard it a million times.

The fact is: 9/11 took place because those in the executive branch during those admins didn't take the threat seriously. The Patriot Act would've done no more if it were in place.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom