• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace

JMak

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,942
Reaction score
568
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Been there already, Go back to posts 265 and 266 of this thread... there's also more than 20!!! sources of information there... mainly news sites, videos of Bush and his administration, AND links to the the patriot acts themselves.
Oh? So these posts will identify the "rights" you claim have been "lost" and will specify how they were lost? Okay, I'll go re-read those posts.

No, no, and no...

Sorry, but mere claims of rights being lost are not representative of arguments demonstrating such a loss.

In other words, all you have is someone else (yes, I know you're cribbing your posts here) claiming that some right was lost. That's a claim, not an argument.

Sorry, but a draft of Patriot II does not demonstrate that Bush is guilt of "treason," "fraud," or any "lesser crime" as you assert.

Try again.

Title 3 : Enhancing Investigations of Terrorist Plots
Subtitle A : Terrorism Identification Database
Section 302: Collection and Use of Identification Information from Suspected Terrorists and Other Sources
Oh, "Other Sources", like blood draws by local cops...bwahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa!!!

Now we know that your integrity is completely shot. No reasonable can draw from that that it represents cops doing roadside blood draws.

No. YOU made a claim. Now specify the specific provisions supporitng that claim.

You are merely cribbing what someone else has already said about these provisions. I am sure that they cite specific sections....just copy and paste their whole argument will ya so we can stop playing these games...

Or were you just skimming through the posts waiting for me to say something that wasn't sourced??
Nope.

And, sorry, but demanding that someone read an entire bill and somehow divine what specifically you meant would lead to your, errr, the somebody else's conclusion, that you pasted here is unreasonable.

Prove your points. Do it with specific citations.

I mean, did you choose to ignore those posts just so you could come up with this sort of argument??
Ignore what? Your repeated references that lacked any specificity whatsoever? Yeah, I saw those.

You do realize that it is your obligation to prove your points, right?

Remember, Posts 265 and 266 then get back to me.
Done.

Those posts do not prove what you claimed.

Mere speculation doesn't count for anything. Especially not when we see that your speculation that "Other Sources" would supposedly imply raodside blooddraws by cops.

:doh

Dismissed!
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oh? So these posts will identify the "rights" you claim have been "lost" and will specify how they were lost? Okay, I'll go re-read those posts.

No, no, and no...
Did you read the post or are you just pretending??

Sorry, but mere claims of rights being lost are not representative of arguments demonstrating such a loss.
What showing the friggin law that was signed that takes away your rights is not a representative argument???????

Satements like this SHOW a clear misunderstanding as to what your actual rights are... since your rights are essentially a legality that is GUARANTEED, and these are being legislated away. Why I seriously doubt that you are remotely qualified in discussing your rights... when you continually demonstrate a lack of knowledge as to what they are, and how laws such as these should not be allowed to pass in the first place.

In other words, all you have is someone else (yes, I know you're cribbing your posts here) claiming that some right was lost. That's a claim, not an argument.
READ THE FRIGGIN PATRIOT ACTS!!!!! You'll see that what I'm saying is at least one interpretation of the law that was signed.

If it says in the law this applies to 'x, y, z, 'OR anyone that is a terrorist suspect'. That's a broad statement that can have broad application.

Sorry, but a draft of Patriot II does not demonstrate that Bush is guilt of "treason," "fraud," or any "lesser crime" as you assert.
OMG, I swear you skimmed my post for keywords that you could argue on and nothing more.

Try again.
No, you're right, Bush didn't plan the war before he was elected, the downing street memo is fake, the PNAC document is fake, the patriot act legislation, the legislation for the first act that 2 judges decided was unconstitutional... that was propaganda.

Are you high??

Oh, "Other Sources", like blood draws by local cops...bwahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa!!!
you're not even making arguments... wtf??
How about you read through THE WHOLE POST, ALL THE SOURCES at the bottom, hell... I could send you about 30 more that I didn't bother getting into.... But, I've clearly gone so far over your head on this one, that you think laughing will make it go away.

Now we know that your integrity is completely shot. No reasonable can draw from that that it represents cops doing roadside blood draws.
Untill patriot act came around. GO READ THE ACT. Cypher through the legal speak and you will find EVERY BIT of what I posted. if the draft copy isn't 'legit' enough for you... the first of the 2 links was a VERBATIM COPY of the law that congress signed. The page even has a LINK TO A GOVERNMENT SITE WITH THE SAME INFO!!

No. YOU made a claim. Now specify the specific provisions supporitng that claim.
I've done that/... you say 'no that's not the case... bwahahaha...' make yourself out to be a real class act and then tell me to try again... NO, I've made my case and you ignoring the sources, or trying to attack my interpretation of the first act (since the draft doesn't count in your opinion)

You are merely cribbing what someone else has already said about these provisions. I am sure that they cite specific sections....just copy and paste their whole argument will ya so we can stop playing these games...
I WROTE THAT from scratch... I listed EVERY source I looked at that I even used a word from... so go back and try again, I know it's more that 120000 chars, so it might be too deep for you, I dunno... but like I said, I was going to restart, so I did, I sourced everything... except maybe the few logical arguments that I've added...

And, sorry, but demanding that someone read an entire bill and somehow divine what specifically you meant would lead to your, errr, the somebody else's conclusion, that you pasted here is unreasonable.
EVERY point in the post I made referred specifically to the act, article and section number, if your not sure how that works... Section 312 would be starting at that line and then continuing untill the line before section 313... I didn't think it would be necessary to quote the entire act for you... that's why I linked to it multiple times... I sourced every claim... even claims that were made by other news sources.... WTF else could you possibly want??

Prove your points. Do it with specific citations.
More evidence that you didn't read it beyond finding keywords that you might take a stab at.


Ignore what? Your repeated references that lacked any specificity whatsoever? Yeah, I saw those.

You do realize that it is your obligation to prove your points, right?
Ya, but you continually ignore the point and post rubbish to make it seem like you weren't talking out of your a&&... how can I prove a point with that level of debate???

Those posts do not prove what you claimed.
Hence, why I restarted my argument from scratch... goes to show that you're not quite 'done' as ... not quite starteed.

Mere speculation doesn't count for anything. Especially not when we see that your speculation that "Other Sources" would supposedly imply raodside blooddraws by cops.
I think you're doing this on purpose.

Dismissed!
I'll rephrase that for you : 'dismissed without having read or understood the argument'.

So unless you want me to get the case to the level where I could take Bush to court and stand a chance, Get real... All I went on was news sources, bush's and his administrations testimony, the draft copy of the patriot act 2, and the first patriot act as it was signed into law.

You're not quite a good enough liar to have pulled that one off... go read it, watch the videos in there, and get back to me... don't cheat this time, it looks bad when you get caught.
 

Keorythe

Active member
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
440
Reaction score
238
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What showing the friggin law that was signed that takes away your rights is not a representative argument???????

Satements like this SHOW a clear misunderstanding as to what your actual rights are... since your rights are essentially a legality that is GUARANTEED, and these are being legislated away. Why I seriously doubt that you are remotely qualified in discussing your rights... when you continually demonstrate a lack of knowledge as to what they are, and how laws such as these should not be allowed to pass in the first place.


READ THE FRIGGIN PATRIOT ACTS!!!!! You'll see that what I'm saying is at least one interpretation of the law that was signed.
No, no, and no. None of the "rights" you had posted before were infringed and some were not even guaranteed.
 

LennyD

Active member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
393
Reaction score
78
Location
East coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There are two things I honestly do not "get" on this subject.

One is why so many conservatives will defend this (Patriot act) to the end no matter of its content and very real opportunity for abuse. I really want to hear some answers on this, and I am not wanting to discuss every legal point, but just why would anyone defend something that erodes the Constitution and can have a negative effect on American Citizens.

Two is why so many on the left seem to want to make it look like GWB sat down and wrote this all himself? Sure he is and was on the top of his administration etc, but I am more interested in who really put it all together, and what were they really after when they did.

It would also be nice to see some discussion from the left on this act could potentially be misused against American citizens in the future by an administration of either party.

I mean like come on already as this rhetoric connecting issues like this directly to GWB worked so well previously that it was very likely a good part of what swayed the recent election etc, and can we be "real" now and discuss who was really behind it all.

It seems more than obvious to me that the actions after 9/11 were popular with both parties, and pulling off something like this would not be possible by a lone party at all. Sure the Democrats distanced themselves later on as things played out, but was this anything more than a smoke screen?

Wish I had time to sit here and pick each little part apart like so many are doing (some nicely btw), but I am currently fixated on the idea of with so many people and countries benefiting from the post 9/11 events all this talk and reporting on everything being done by GWB alone has to be a tactic to deter us from finding the truth.

So maybe all the horrible treatment of Bush is part of the game.
 

Jessica

Bank killer.
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
878
Reaction score
185
Location
The (soon-to-be) Divided States of Amerika.
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
The Patriot Act is an unconstitutional and evil document.
Even the name should be questioned.

"We can't go through your purse and your life and crawl up you kazoo whenever we feel like it? You must be a terrorist and have something to hide and not very patriotic of you!"

Sounds like McCarthyism.
 

Keorythe

Active member
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
440
Reaction score
238
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There are two things I honestly do not "get" on this subject.

One is why so many conservatives will defend this (Patriot act) to the end no matter of its content and very real opportunity for abuse. I really want to hear some answers on this, and I am not wanting to discuss every legal point, but just why would anyone defend something that erodes the Constitution and can have a negative effect on American Citizens.

Two is why so many on the left seem to want to make it look like GWB sat down and wrote this all himself? Sure he is and was on the top of his administration etc, but I am more interested in who really put it all together, and what were they really after when they did.
1) You don't want to hear legal points and yet site the Constitution which is a legal document? That should be your answer right there. The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine which freedoms and liberties are guaranteed. Freedoms and liberties cannot be infringed if they are not defined. Definition requires interpretation of the law. And now we're back at the Supreme Court.

2) Because the left realizes that we needed something like this. By keeping quiet and pushing the blame on president Bush they get what they want without any sort of fallout from a document not popular with their constituents. You'll notice that the left makes a real effort to make people forget that they've been in control of legislative branch for 2 years now. It makes things alot easier.
 

Jessica

Bank killer.
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
878
Reaction score
185
Location
The (soon-to-be) Divided States of Amerika.
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
The Treatment of Bush needs to include impeachment!

2) Because the left realizes that we needed something like this. By keeping quiet and pushing the blame on president Bush they get what they want without any sort of fallout from a document not popular with their constituents. You'll notice that the left makes a real effort to make people forget that they've been in control of legislative branch for 2 years now. It makes things alot easier.
:funny

:rofl You cannot seriously believe this stuff.
The left realizes we do NOT need something like this.
Pushing the blame on the President? Haha. It was his idea. He and Cheney, I'm sure.
We may have been in control of the legislative branch for 2 years, but the Patriot Act is a lot older than just 2 years old.
However, before we had majority control, we did stop it in a two-month long filibuster, which forced Bush to make changes to the act. So not sure where you are getting your misinformation.
The original author was Viet Dinh, an immigrant tapped by the department of justice to help write laws for two years as a deputy district attorney, but then the trade centers came tumbling down three months later, and so he was asked to write the Patriot Act. He is also a republican.
The chief author of the Patriot Act renewal is Chairman Arlen Specter, a republican.
214 republican supported it along with 66 democrats, and 124 democrats and 13 republicans opposed it.
 
Last edited:

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,863
Reaction score
27,931
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: The Treatment of Bush needs to include impeachment!

The Constitution defines the powers of the federal government, not the freedoms and liberties of the citizens. The SCOTUS is to review federal laws to the extent that they violate the terms of the Constitution, in view of legal powers being exceeded.
 

JMak

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,942
Reaction score
568
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Did you read the post or are you just pretending??
No, I read it. What I read was supposition that the specified provisions violate this or that right. That's all it is. And, as I said, supposing that the law violates a right is not evidence that it does, in fact, violate a right.

What showing the friggin law that was signed that takes away your rights is not a representative argument???????
You have to establish that a right was lost or was violated. Citing legislative language doesn't do that. You'd have to cite actual instances.

Satements like this SHOW a clear misunderstanding as to what your actual rights are... since your rights are essentially a legality that is GUARANTEED, and these are being legislated away.
No. I mean, you can argue what my understanding is or is not, but it's irrelevant.

Why I seriously doubt that you are remotely qualified in discussing your rights... when you continually demonstrate a lack of knowledge as to what they are, and how laws such as these should not be allowed to pass in the first place.
And you're somehow qualified?

READ THE FRIGGIN PATRIOT ACTS!!!!! You'll see that what I'm saying is at least one interpretation of the law that was signed.
First, no, I won't simply read the acts and hope to divine what you're really arguing. It's your argument, so your burden.

Second, whose interpretation?

If it says in the law this applies to 'x, y, z, 'OR anyone that is a terrorist suspect'. That's a broad statement that can have broad application.
Oh, I see...so your claim of rights being lost or violated rests merely on how some one at some point might consider broadly applying the language? Color me underwhelmed.

Look, if you're going to argue that rights were lost or violated, you have to show actual instances.

No, you're right, Bush didn't plan the war before he was elected, the downing street memo is fake, the PNAC document is fake, the patriot act legislation, the legislation for the first act that 2 judges decided was unconstitutional... that was propaganda.
These things are evidence that Bush planned the war before he was elected?

Now I know you're a wingnut.

How about you read through THE WHOLE POST, ALL THE SOURCES at the bottom, hell... I could send you about 30 more that I didn't bother getting into.... But, I've clearly gone so far over your head on this one, that you think laughing will make it go away.
No, some person's supposition about this or that is irrelevant. Show actual instances...

Untill patriot act came around. GO READ THE ACT. Cypher through the legal speak and you will find EVERY BIT of what I posted. if the draft copy isn't 'legit' enough for you... the first of the 2 links was a VERBATIM COPY of the law that congress signed. The page even has a LINK TO A GOVERNMENT SITE WITH THE SAME INFO!!
Again, I'm not going to divine what it is you're talking about in those acts. It's your burden to make your argument with explicit instances and examples.

Your supposition of what it might be, like cops doing roadside blood draws, demonstrate that you're bieng foolish and those suppositions deserve zero scrutiny.

I've done that/... you say 'no that's not the case... bwahahaha...' make yourself out to be a real class act and then tell me to try again... NO, I've made my case and you ignoring the sources, or trying to attack my interpretation of the first act (since the draft doesn't count in your opinion)
You say a law violates a right. You cite a right. You cite a provision. You don't, though, demonstrate how it violates that right. And what you're relying on is mere supposition about the application of the provision.

EVERY point in the post I made referred specifically to the act, article and section number, if your not sure how that works... Section 312 would be starting at that line and then continuing untill the line before section 313... I didn't think it would be necessary to quote the entire act for you... that's why I linked to it multiple times... I sourced every claim... even claims that were made by other news sources.... WTF else could you possibly want??
I'm not asking you to post the entire act. And sourcing every claim is rather irrelevant. That you provided a source doesn't mean a right has been violated or lost. All you've done is presented someone else's supposition about the applicability of the law and the implications of that application.

So unless you want me to get the case to the level where I could take Bush to court and stand a chance, Get real... All I went on was news sources, bush's and his administrations testimony, the draft copy of the patriot act 2, and the first patriot act as it was signed into law.
To merely suppose that a right was lost or violated. Had you simply said, I think this provision violates this right or renders this right lost I would have treated your posts differently. But you asserted it as unconditional fact based on mere supposition.
 

JMak

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,942
Reaction score
568
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
1) The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine which freedoms and liberties are guaranteed.
Wel,, the President and Congress, too, interpret the Constitution as each drafts legislation or determines whether to sign or veto legislation.

And the role of SCOTUS ain't to determine which freedoms and liberties are guaranteed. Its role is to determine whether some government action violates the Constitution, one violation bieng the infringement of freedoms specified in the Constitution. And even Marbury specified a limited judicial review role.
 

ADK_Forever

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
3,706
Reaction score
1,001
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
First, no, I won't simply read the acts
And thus the source of why no one can have an intelligent discussion or debate with you. :roll:
 

Ethereal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,178
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Here's how it appears to me...

Bush wanted to invade Iraq. Americans wanted to invade Iraq. Congress gave Bush the authority to use force. We went to war. Troops start dying, things go wrong, and Americans remember that real wars aren't like the one's they watch on TV. As the 9/11 adreneline rush starts to wear off Americans lose their stomach and Bush's political opponents sieze the opportunity. Bush is villified and detested by many of the same citizens who initially supported the invasion and by many of the same politicians who gave him the authority to go to war in the first place.

The lesson? Americans are fickle and weak-willed. They'll trumpet for war at the drop of a hat. But when they see the real cost of war that's when they change their minds.

"Just kill someone damnit, because I'm mad as hell and I got my little America flag and I want a reason to wave it! Oh...my! Look at the blood and the bombs and the bullets! Is this what war is like!? No, we need to stop this! Oh please! How could the President do this!? He should have told me it'd be like this! He's evil! He's a Nazi!"

There's a reason why we have a Constitution and there's a reason it requires a FORMAL DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS before we can engage in hostilities against another country. You see, a formal declaration of war leaves no ambiguities. The people demand war, the Congress declares it, and the President executes it. Anyone who tries to place the blame soley at Bush's feet is a partisan fool. Americans allowed themselves to be fooled while the Congress acted in cowardice and contrary to the Constitution. They knew precisely what they were doing when they gave Bush blanket authority to conduct generalized hostilities. This war is not Bush's fault. It's America's fault. It's my fault. It's your fault.
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, no, and no. None of the "rights" you had posted before were infringed and some were not even guaranteed.
Please elaborate on that...

No, I read it. What I read was supposition that the specified provisions violate this or that right. That's all it is. And, as I said, supposing that the law violates a right is not evidence that it does, in fact, violate a right.
Ya, I get that now... I had a 'face palm' moment when I realized just how off the mark I was... So, this will be my last post on this particular subject, I concede that there is no evidence available to me that 'proves' that Bush was in fact a traitor to this country... He still acted like a tyrant, very likely defrauded the country in terms of the war on Iraq... but beyond that, I was wrong... and I must apologize again for going overboard.

You have to establish that a right was lost or was violated. Citing legislative language doesn't do that. You'd have to cite actual instances.
I can't find the video of that... but you want to see rights violated, do a search for the 'RNC protest'. There was one clip I had seen with a cop beating on a protestor saying 'your violating my rights'...

First, no, I won't simply read the acts and hope to divine what you're really arguing. It's your argument, so your burden.
Ya, in the post, I did mark the sections that were modified in the law, and the relative sections... the issue is the 'broadness' of the language that COULD allow unconstitutional interpretation from those enforcing the law... that's my great fear, but alas, untill this starts happening on a massive scale and I can say 'I told you so' I won't be able to prove it.

Second, whose interpretation?
A) The officer on the street level making an arrest, then,
b) the judge who must decide if this has in fact broken a law, whether your rights were infringed and the appropriate punishment.


Look, if you're going to argue that rights were lost or violated, you have to show actual instances.
That's the problem, to date (except for at protests and such where protestors have been beat, hosed and tear gassed, I wish I had saved the clip from a Nafta protest some years back where an elderly woman with a walker tried giving a cop a flower... she was returned the favor with a gas canister to the chest from 5-10 feet away) all these rights are merely set the potential for abuses....

Again, I'm not going to divine what it is you're talking about in those acts. It's your burden to make your argument with explicit instances and examples.

Your supposition of what it might be, like cops doing roadside blood draws, demonstrate that you're bieng foolish and those suppositions deserve zero scrutiny.
There is a section on creating a DNA database for terror suspects, including fingerprints and other means of identification... Again, not that these have been abused as of yet, but adding that to be added would only involve being a 'suspected terrorist' without any further definition of how one would become suspected of being a terrorist, is dangerous... it's not illegal.


You say a law violates a right. You cite a right. You cite a provision. You don't, though, demonstrate how it violates that right. And what you're relying on is mere supposition about the application of the provision.
That was the realization where I thought to myself 'God damn how'd I let myself screw this one up so bad'.

Again, that's all it is up to this point... maybe there are examples... but I hadn't found any... so I do pray that you are right, and that this is 'nothing to worry about'... my gut tells me otherwise.

I'm not asking you to post the entire act. And sourcing every claim is rather irrelevant. That you provided a source doesn't mean a right has been violated or lost. All you've done is presented someone else's supposition about the applicability of the law and the implications of that application.
Had you explained that sooner, I might not had made such an a$$ of myself...

So, I'll just end that Bush has NOT been a good president for america, he very likely defrauded america in terms of the war on Iraq, he did the big banks a tremendous service with the bailout package, but he's managed to stay just at the line of the law except where plausible deniability would be enough to save him from further scrutiny...

That said, my instincts still tell me that he is a VERY evil character, it's in his eyes... but alas my impressions of the man can't be expected to do very much to convince others unless they also see it for themselves.


And again, sorry I made such an ass of myself.
 

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Here's how it appears to me...

Bush wanted to invade Iraq. Americans wanted to invade Iraq. Congress gave Bush the authority to use force. We went to war. Troops start dying, things go wrong, and Americans remember that real wars aren't like the one's they watch on TV. As the 9/11 adreneline rush starts to wear off Americans lose their stomach and Bush's political opponents sieze the opportunity. Bush is villified and detested by many of the same citizens who initially supported the invasion and by many of the same politicians who gave him the authority to go to war in the first place.
I see it more like this:

Bush wanted to invade Iraq. Americans wanted to invade Iraq. Congress gave Bush the authority to use force. We went to war. Troops start dying, things go wrong, and Americans are too stupid to understand the real reasons we go to war and instead must be spoon-fed feel-good half-truths so the average dumbass American is riled up enough to support an incursion into another country that will cost American blood and treasure. (this is a reoccurring event throughout American history. You have to give the people some heroic and noble cause to fight as a distraction for the true intentions of the administrations foreign policy and long term ambitions/goals.) As the spoon-fed feel-good half-truths rush starts to wear off Americans lose their stomach and Bush's political opponents sieze the opportunity. Bush is villified and detested by many of the same citizens who initially supported the invasion and by many of the same politicians who gave him the authority to go to war in the first place. Meanwhile the ignoramuses are left befuddled by the spoon-fed feel-good half-truths because they still can't see the forest for the trees.


The lesson? Americans are fickle and weak-willed. They'll trumpet for war at the drop of a hat. But when they see the real cost of war that's when they change their minds.
That's why throughout our history the people are spoon-fed feel-good half-truths for every war.


"Just kill someone damnit, because I'm mad as hell and I got my little America flag and I want a reason to wave it! Oh...my! Look at the blood and the bombs and the bullets! Is this what war is like!? No, we need to stop this! Oh please! How could the President do this!? He should have told me it'd be like this! He's evil! He's a Nazi!"
You channel the anger to accomplish the goals. You can't fix stupid and you usually can't reason with it either but you can use it.

Anyone who tries to place the blame soley at Bush's feet is a partisan fool. Americans allowed themselves to be fooled while the Congress acted in cowardice and contrary to the Constitution. They knew precisely what they were doing when they gave Bush blanket authority to conduct generalized hostilities. This war is not Bush's fault. It's America's fault. It's my fault. It's your fault.
Bush is not the first nor will he be the last to do such.
 

LennyD

Active member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
393
Reaction score
78
Location
East coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
1) You don't want to hear legal points and yet site the Constitution which is a legal document? That should be your answer right there. The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine which freedoms and liberties are guaranteed. Freedoms and liberties cannot be infringed if they are not defined. Definition requires interpretation of the law. And now we're back at the Supreme Court.

2) Because the left realizes that we needed something like this. By keeping quiet and pushing the blame on president Bush they get what they want without any sort of fallout from a document not popular with their constituents. You'll notice that the left makes a real effort to make people forget that they've been in control of legislative branch for 2 years now. It makes things alot easier.
I am not wanting to discuss every legal point
Wow did I just quote myself :doh

Anyhow point was that I did not want to get into full debate on every single countless legal issue as this can easily over shadow the answers I am looking to get to, and often causes many readers to lose interest because they either can not or just refuse to follow the legal "mumbo jumbo" ;)

I am not sure I buy into your idea of the left knowing we needed something like this as much as I would the idea of government as a whole through the workings of both parties is just eliminating any future potential competition from the citizens of our great country.

I do not want to appear paranoid or whatever, but the idea of eliminating or weakening the rights of American citizens with the excuse of having to combat foreign nationals who may be enlisting Americans etc when those foreigners never had the same rights in the first place just does not make sense.
 

LennyD

Active member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
393
Reaction score
78
Location
East coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
Here's how it appears to me...

Bush wanted to invade Iraq. Americans wanted to invade Iraq. Congress gave Bush the authority to use force. We went to war. Troops start dying, things go wrong, and Americans remember that real wars aren't like the one's they watch on TV. As the 9/11 adreneline rush starts to wear off Americans lose their stomach and Bush's political opponents sieze the opportunity. Bush is villified and detested by many of the same citizens who initially supported the invasion and by many of the same politicians who gave him the authority to go to war in the first place.
I see it more like this:

Bush wanted to invade Iraq. Americans wanted to invade Iraq. Congress gave Bush the authority to use force. We went to war. Troops start dying, things go wrong, and Americans are too stupid to understand the real reasons we go to war and instead must be spoon-fed feel-good half-truths so the average dumbass American is riled up enough to support an incursion into another country that will cost American blood and treasure. (this is a reoccurring event throughout American history. You have to give the people some heroic and noble cause to fight as a distraction for the true intentions of the administrations foreign policy and long term ambitions/goals.) As the spoon-fed feel-good half-truths rush starts to wear off Americans lose their stomach and Bush's political opponents sieze the opportunity. Bush is villified and detested by many of the same citizens who initially supported the invasion and by many of the same politicians who gave him the authority to go to war in the first place. Meanwhile the ignoramuses are left befuddled by the spoon-fed feel-good half-truths because they still can't see the forest for the trees.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
The lesson? Americans are fickle and weak-willed. They'll trumpet for war at the drop of a hat. But when they see the real cost of war that's when they change their minds.
That's why throughout our history the people are spoon-fed feel-good half-truths for every war.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
"Just kill someone damnit, because I'm mad as hell and I got my little America flag and I want a reason to wave it! Oh...my! Look at the blood and the bombs and the bullets! Is this what war is like!? No, we need to stop this! Oh please! How could the President do this!? He should have told me it'd be like this! He's evil! He's a Nazi!"
You channel the anger to accomplish the goals. You can't fix stupid and you usually can't reason with it either but you can use it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
Anyone who tries to place the blame soley at Bush's feet is a partisan fool. Americans allowed themselves to be fooled while the Congress acted in cowardice and contrary to the Constitution. They knew precisely what they were doing when they gave Bush blanket authority to conduct generalized hostilities. This war is not Bush's fault. It's America's fault. It's my fault. It's your fault.
Bush is not the first nor will he be the last to do such.

Not sure if this is going to paste correctly, but I was trying to post both the opinions in combination as together they seem to cover most of the bases etc.

I found this sentence more than interesting, and maybe even somewhat enlightening.;)

You channel the anger to accomplish the goals. You can't fix stupid and you usually can't reason with it either but you can use it.
 

LennyD

Active member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
393
Reaction score
78
Location
East coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Anyhow are the lefties and righties ready to agree that George W Bush did not drag us into war by our ear?

How about the idea that most wanted to see the war happen initially?

Maybe even get into just where the two extremes parted company on the whole issue.

I believe there is a whole lot more here than most are realizing.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
...Anyone who tries to place the blame soley at Bush's feet is a partisan fool. Americans allowed themselves to be fooled ....
That says it all. It's the weak willed American people's fault, because they allowed themselve to be fooled ... by a president and administration that misreprented, misimplied, and flat out lied about why we needed to go to war in a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 or AQ.

I disagree with you contention we Americans are weak willed.

But I agree with you that we were fooled, and maybe let ourselves be. Some still do.

The fact that most Americans will not support a wrongful war when they've learned they were fooled does not indicate weakness and should be a surprise only to the partisan.
 
Last edited:

Ethereal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,178
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That says it all. It's the weak willed American people's fault, because they allowed themselve to be fooled ... by a president and administration that misreprented, misimplied, and flat out lied about why we needed to go to war in a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 or AQ.

I disagree with you contention we Americans are weak willed.

But I agree with you that we were fooled, and maybe let ourselves be. Some still do.

The fact that most Americans will not support a wrongful war when they've learned they were fooled does not indicate weakness and should be a surprise only to the partisan.
I opposed the invasion from the beginning. I told all my idiot flag-waving friends, "The Bush administration is using 9/11 as an excuse. The neo-cons are pushing their agenda of Democratizing the Middle East. Go research PNAC. WMD's are just a dog and pony show. I'm tellllling yooooou."

Any pin-head with half a brain and thirty minutes on the internet could have seen for themself what was happening. They were just too busy waving their little America flags and buying "that new car" to do it. Ignorance is no excuse. The American people are cupable and now we need to finish the job. Americans were too emotional to think critically about the invasion and now they're too emotional to think critically about withdrawl. Who cares what these morons want? Wars are not conducted by public opinion. Finish the job. End of story. Don't like it? Then next time use your head, America.

Also, Congress, in my opinion, is more culpable than Bush. Congress is supposed to act as a check on the Executive Branch, not as an extension of its authority. They acted in pure cowardice by not demanding a formal declaration of war. If we had abided by the Constitution we probably wouldn't be in Iraq right now. How about that! The Constitution serves a purpose, does it? I'm shocked!
 

Marilyn Monroe

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Messages
2,137
Reaction score
304
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Anyhow are the lefties and righties ready to agree that George W Bush did not drag us into war by our ear?

How about the idea that most wanted to see the war happen initially?

Maybe even get into just where the two extremes parted company on the whole issue.

I believe there is a whole lot more here than most are realizing.
Why did most want to see the war happen initially is the question. Because we were told Saddam was a threat. A lot of the original motivation was garbage crap, and we really had no idea. The facts were not really spelled out well. Congress should have been much more curious as to what Saddam's capabilities were since the sanctions had left him impotent for the most part, what could he have had? There just should have been way more scrutiny as to the cost and the need.

The US doesn't have the money to get into a war. We might if we had to stay about a day and then rebuild, but for something to last 5 years, no can do.

I think most realize all to well that this war was a complete dud, and Bush is ultimately responsible.
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That says it all. It's the weak willed American people's fault, because they allowed themselve to be fooled ... by a president and administration that misreprented, misimplied, and flat out lied about why we needed to go to war in a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 or AQ.
It's not like people 'allowed' themselves to be fooled... after 9-11, there was a MASSIVE repitition of catch phrases : 'either you're with us or against us', 'terrorism', 'terrorists', al-quaida, 'september 11', '9-11', weapons of mass destruction, etc... similiar to the technique advertisers use when they place the same ad at the start and end of commercial breaks, sometimes even twice in a row...

We're talking about a multi-billion dollar propaganda machine... telling all americans not to listen to the 'conspiracy theories' regarding 911 (don't question us), you're either with us or against us (you're not a terrorist are you?? then we gotta bomb Afghanistan (then Iraq)), and so on in various different variations.

So, it's not so much that americans' are 'weak willed' in as much as the propaganda not only eliminates a majority of debate, it gets people to willingly ask that something must be done on the various issues (Iraq, Afghanistan, patriot act, etc), so you could say that people were conned into wanting these wars and legislation. (Now, if on the other hand the PNAC document 'A new american century' talked about a 'new pearly harbour' as part of foreknowledge of an outside attack, or because of direct involvement in the plans is less relevant since from the moment the first planes hit, the news has been helping guid our reactions so that we as a people would beg for 'something to be done', initially was the 'war on terror' and so on)

The fact that most Americans will not support a wrongful war when they've learned they were fooled does not indicate weakness and should be a surprise only to the partisan.
That's why, now that the 'haze' of 911 has started to clear people are now seeing a bit of the 'ride' Bush had taken us on as president... probly also why his approval was somewhere in the 20% range last I heard.
 

Vandeervecken

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
744
Reaction score
1
Location
Midland MI USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I agree, the media's treatment of Mr. Bush has been a disgrace. If he received a fraction of the coverage he deserved, he and his ilk would have been impeached, removed from office and thrown in jail long ago.

Well said, the media has in fact pretty much rolled over and played dead with this evil man.
 

sazerac

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
3,082
Reaction score
744
Location
New Orleans
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Well said, the media has in fact pretty much rolled over and played dead with this evil man.
Because if he isn't in jail that must mean the media ignored him. It couldn't mean that there's just nothing there that's sinister.

Abu Ghraib was on the front page of the New York Times for a month. The bad about the Bush administration was never ignored!
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If Obama is not yet God, he will very soon be at the present rate of media worship we are viewing. The TV comedians are going to be unemployed soon simply because they won't jump on him, ie., no material.
Ahhh, the Liberal media. You mean, like these guys?

 
Top Bottom