• 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!

The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace

Billo_Really said:
When you can't answer a simple direct question, what else am I supposed to think?
Click to expand...

You're still missing it... please read all of those things that I quoted. Until then, abused cookie will be sad

1226371013711.jpg
 
EgoffTib said:
You're still missing it... please read all of those things that I quoted. Until then, abused cookie will be sad
Click to expand...
You know what, **** your cookie!

Answer the question.
 
DeeJayH said:
:rofl
why do you even bother

you always seem to end up arguing this same issue with someone
they argue with Revenue #s you argue with Revenue #s as a % of GDP

its like HS boys measuing their peckers
but one is using a metric ruler and the other kid is using a ruler with the dopey system we Americans use (don't know what it is called :shrug: )

Mines bigger
nu-uh mine is
Click to expand...

LOL - that's a good question. I see the same thing over and over. Rush says it a couple times and its taken as rote on the internet.
 
rhinefire said:
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.
Click to expand...
Funny, I thought Sarah Palin was going to be the next godlike creature to hit politics. With all the media fuss and all... Or is she simply worshiped by the cons as the Virgin Mary?
 
Billo_Really said:
I want Bush to be turned over to an International Criminal Court and be tried for war crimes. The SOB doesn't even think a person has a right to ask why they're incarcerated. And that goes against one of the principles this country was founded on. So all these pro-Bush pundits are basically anti-Americans.
Click to expand...

Wow, such ignorance knows no bounds, eh?

Why are you compelled to lie about what Bush thinks about the great writ?

Your comment here reveals a disturbing lack of good faith and large degree of intellectual dishonesty.

First, you simply lie about the position held by someone you disagree with. Bush doesn't oppose habeas corpus for ordinary citizens. He opposes it, as do many other reasonable people, being extended to foreign nationals who have committed acts of war against the US and were captured on the battlefield engaged in making war against the US.

Second, you seem to dismiss the internationally-recognized distinctions between types of combatants and the protections afforded and not afforded to them in order to blindly accuse Bush of opposing habeas for all individuals.

Pathetic.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Funny, I thought Sarah Palin was going to be the next godlike creature to hit politics. With all the media fuss and all... Or is she simply worshiped by the cons as the Virgin Mary?
Click to expand...

Absurd.

The media fuss manifested itself as non-stop outragoues attacks against Palin in a deliberate effort to apint her as an extremist and totally ignorant. It continues today with these anonymous smears that the media dutifully reports without any concern for accuracy.

Yet you thought the media fuss was all about creating a new political God? :shock:

Wow!
 
JMak said:
Bush doesn't oppose habeas corpus for ordinary citizens. He opposes it, as do many other reasonable people, being extended to foreign nationals who have committed acts of war against the US and were captured on the battlefield engaged in making war against the US.

Second, you seem to dismiss the internationally-recognized distinctions between types of combatants and the protections afforded and not afforded to them in order to blindly accuse Bush of opposing habeas for all individuals.

Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, so here we go again with Bush's dumb ass argument that everybody captured in Iraq deserved no benefit of the Geneva Convention. King George was told, in so uncertain terms by the Supreme Court, that he is wrong.

Pathetic is right.
 
ADK_Forever said:
Ahhh, so here we go again with Bush's dumb ass argument that everybody captured in Iraq deserved no benefit of the Geneva Convention. King George was told, in so uncertain terms by the Supreme Court, that he is wrong.

Pathetic is right.
Click to expand...

Tell me, ADK, do you deliberately misrepresent the views held by others or is this just a manifestation of your ignorance?

The Bush administration has never argued that "everybody captured in Iraq deserved no benefit of the Geneva Convention." And the SCOTUS never expressed an opinion on such a question either.

Your intellectual dishonesty is pathetic. I mean, there are legitimate reasons to oppose Bush's actual position on the distinctions between lawful and unlawful enemy combatants, eligibility for POW designation and the protections provided to POWs within Geneva, and the habeas status of enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.

But you won't even go there. Instead, you deliberately lie about Bush's position and for what? To call him stupid, eh?

Well, I think you just demonstrated that you're the "dumbass."

Props...I guess.
 
JMak said:
Absurd.

The media fuss manifested itself as non-stop outragoues attacks against Palin in a deliberate effort to apint her as an extremist and totally ignorant. It continues today with these anonymous smears that the media dutifully reports without any concern for accuracy.

Yet you thought the media fuss was all about creating a new political God? :shock:

Wow!
Click to expand...
I watched faux news last night to see the fawning and softball tossing. I think it's hilarious that Palin, the pitbull, i.e. attack dog, complains about smears... :rofl

She is an extremist, she's a neocon in what little policy opinion she has and she proved that she is ignorant on a wide range of subjects.

And yet there is a con base that worships her. At least Obama is an intelligent deity! :2wave:
 
Slippery Slope said:
She is an extremist, she's a neocon in what little policy opinion she has and she proved that she is ignorant on a wide range of subjects.
Click to expand...

Examples, please?

I don't see her lying that she's going to unilaterally re-open NAFTA, proposing to unilaterally bomb/invade Pakistan, or proposing something like the Global Poverty Act that would redirect hundreds of billions in US taxpayers $$ to the UN.

Did you?

So upon what basis is Palin "extreme?"

And yet there is a con base that worships her.
Click to expand...

What con "base" is this?

BTW - don't think it escaped me that you failed to address my reponse in any substantive way whatsoever... :roll:
 
JMak said:
BTW - don't think it escaped me that you failed to address my reponse in any substantive way whatsoever... :roll:
Click to expand...

I've noticied this is standard operating procedures for most liberals. Such is usually coupled with a complete failure to support their claims with anything but hear-say and/or correlation/causation fallacies.
 
Bumping this because I was challenged on this and noone has addressed it since.

BmanMcfly said:
What you just did is called stealing an intellectual base by presuming something as true which has not been established as, you know, true.

Wanna try again?
Click to expand...

Allright, fair enough... let's just briefly enumerate the ammendments of the constitution.
Amendment I [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)]
Amendment II [Right to Bear Arms (1791)]
Amendment III [Quartering of Troops (1791)]
Amendment IV [Search and Seizure (1791)]
Amendment V [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791)]
Amendment VI [Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel (1791)]
Amendment VII [Common Law Suits - Jury Trial (1791)]
Amendment VIII [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1791)]
Amendment IX [Non-Enumerated Rights (1791)]
Amendment X [Rights Reserved to States (1791)]
Amendment XI [Suits Against a State (1795)]
Amendment XII [Election of President and Vice-President (1804)]
Amendment XIII [Abolition of Slavery (1865)]

(there's more but these are the relevant ones.)



You owe me a beer for all the hassle of this...(from patriot act 2 unless specified)


Section 101 (First) - an individual terrorist is considered a 'foreign power' and stripped of all rights and given the label of 'enemy combatant.' That's ok, cause YOU are not a terrorist.

Section 102 (First) - ANY information gathering can be considered as clandestine intelligence activities for a foreign power. Let's say you like to clip news articles of interest to you, and a cop sees it... are you just enjoying a hobby, or are you gathering 'intelligence' for a foreign power?

Not sure what amendment that would fall in... but you can't make this stuff up.

Section 103 - allows the Federal government to use wartime martial law powers domestically and internationally without Congress declaring that a state of war exists.

Buh-Bye posse comitatus... we won't know how much we missed you until it's too late. (watch 'the siege' to get an idea)

Section 106 - It states that broad general warrants by the secret FSIA court (a panel of secret judges set up in a star chamber system that convenes in an undisclosed location) granted under the first Patriot Act are not good enough. It states that government agents must be given immunity for carrying out searches with no prior court approval. This section throws out the entire Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures, replaces 'probable cause' with 'reasonably certain'.

Section 110 - Removes the sunset clause of the first patriot act.

Section 122 - Unrestricted surveillance of anyone, anywhere, anytime.

Section 126 - Creates the 'Total information Awareness'... where government can go through your bank records, medical records, school records, etc. This is all to determine who all has connections to terrorists, ie, guilty until proven innocent.

SECTION 202 - Allows corporations to keep secret their activities with toxic biological, chemical or radiological materials.

SECTION 205 - Allows top Federal officials to keep all their financial dealings secret, and anyone investigating them can be considered a terrorist. This should be very useful for Dick Cheney to stop anyone investigating Haliburton.

SECTION 303 - sets up national DNA database of suspected terrorists. The database will also be used to stop other unlawful activities. It will share the information with state, local and foreign agencies for the same purposes.

SECTION 313 - As a preventative measure, any companies that spy on their customers for Homeland security gain liability protection.

SECTION 321 - Authorizes foreign governments to spy on the American people and to share information with foreign governments.

So, NOT ONLY are americans allowed to spy... FOREIGN SPIES are allowed to spy?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

SECTION 322 - removes Congress from the extradition process and allows officers of the Homeland Security complex to extradite American citizens anywhere they wish. It also allows Homeland Security to secretly take individuals out of foreign countries.

SECTION 402 - is titled Providing Material Support to Terrorism. The section reads that there is no requirement to show that the individual even had the intent to aid terrorists.

SECTION 403 - expands the definition of weapons of mass destruction to include any activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce.

SECTION 404 - makes it a crime for a terrorist or other criminals to use encryption in the commission of a crime.

SECTION 408 - creates lifetime parole (basically, slavery) for a whole host of crimes.

SECTION 410 - creates no statute of limitations for anyone that engages in terrorist actions or supports terrorists. Remember: any crime is now considered terrorism under the first Patriot Act.

SECTION 411 - expands crimes that are punishable by death. Again, they point to Section 802 of the first Patriot Act and state that any terrorist act or support of terrorist act can result in the death penalty.

SECTION 421 - increases penalties for terrorist financing. This section states that any type of financial activity connected to terrorism will result to time in prison and $10-50,000 fines per violation.

SECTIONS 427 - sets up asset forfeiture provisions for anyone engaging in terrorist activities.

Section 501 - Defines an enemy combatant as any individual violating any provision of section 802 of the first act. (Domestic terrorism = Any act that endangers or potentially endangers human life that is a violation of any federal or state law. ) So, let's just say you cross the street a few seconds before the lights change, you can be picked up in a van and never seen again.

Section 201 - It is a criminal act for any member of government or citizen to release information concerning the whereabouts or the incarceration of detainees.

So, a family member witnessed you get abducted, and starts talking about how you were taken... She can now be called an enemy combatant and be disappeared herself.

Section 301 and 306 - set up a national database of suspected terrorists and radically expand the database to include anyone associated with suspected terrorist groups and anyone involved in crimes or having supported any group designated as terrorist. These sections also set up a national DNA database for anyone on probation or who has been on probation for any crime, and orders State governments to collect the DNA for the Federal government.

SECTION 312 - gives immunity to law enforcement engaging in spying operations against the American people and would place substantial restrictions on court injunctions against Federal violations of civil rights across the board.
Click to expand...

Like I said; GO READ THESE FOR YOURSELF. I couldn't make this stuff up if I wanted to.

Now. you tell me WHAT"S LEFT of the constitution??

SO, as I said.... Ignorance is NO excuse, Everyone that voted for this bill, should be lined up... republican and democrat alike, AND BE EXPOSED AND CHARGED AS THE TREASONOUS SCUM THAT THEY ARE!!!.End of story.

ONLY THEN can we really as a country properly mourn for those that died on 9-11, and restore this country to what it was MEANT to be.... because if it wasn't for 9-11 this bill would have NEVER EVER passed....EVER! Also. it never would have passed if anyone was allowed to read it, or debate the bill.

So, with the secrecy and rush to pass such an OUTRAGEOUS set of legislation... WHY??? Who benefits from this? Saudi terrorists couldn't have accomplished anything like this... if the terrorists hate our freedoms... well, the terrorists won.[/QUOTE]
 
Slippery Slope said:
Funny, I thought Sarah Palin was going to be the next godlike creature to hit politics. With all the media fuss and all... Or is she simply worshiped by the cons as the Virgin Mary?
Click to expand...

Well, when the republican guy was basically a walking corpse, she at least offset that by being a bit of 'republican' eye candy.


JMak said:
Why are you compelled to lie about what Bush thinks about the great writ?

Your comment here reveals a disturbing lack of good faith and large degree of intellectual dishonesty.

First, you simply lie about the position held by someone you disagree with. Bush doesn't oppose habeas corpus for ordinary citizens. He opposes it, as do many other reasonable people, being extended to foreign nationals who have committed acts of war against the US and were captured on the battlefield engaged in making war against the US.

Second, you seem to dismiss the internationally-recognized distinctions between types of combatants and the protections afforded and not afforded to them in order to blindly accuse Bush of opposing habeas for all individuals.

Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Question : Is it also pathetic that much of the views against bush come straight from Bush's mouth himself??

Remember Bush/Cheney brought about the Patriot Acts... so even if it doesn't come straight from his mouth as is; the conclusions, you can come to the same conclusions simply by reading through the patriot acts 1 and 2 and see the implications of the things they support (Ie : virtually everyone either is or potentially is a terrorist, you are guilty untill proven innocent, and being found guilty can lead to you're arrest, deportation and treatment as an 'enemy combatant')

JMak said:
Absurd.

The media fuss manifested itself as non-stop outragoues attacks against Palin in a deliberate effort to apint her as an extremist and totally ignorant. It continues today with these anonymous smears that the media dutifully reports without any concern for accuracy.

Yet you thought the media fuss was all about creating a new political God? :shock:

Wow!
Click to expand...

Well, YA because the election is OVER she lost... so NOW, the establishment is free to smear her in any way possible... a very different outcome should McCain have pulled a victory out of a hat.


JMak said:
Examples, please?

I don't see her lying that she's going to unilaterally re-open NAFTA, proposing to unilaterally bomb/invade Pakistan, or proposing something like the Global Poverty Act that would redirect hundreds of billions in US taxpayers $$ to the UN.

Did you?

So upon what basis is Palin "extreme?"
Click to expand...

Right, but remember she was to be VICE-president. She could support all those 'lovely' ideas... but it's up to McCain. err... would have been up to mccain.

What con "base" is this?

BTW - don't think it escaped me that you failed to address my reponse in any substantive way whatsoever... :roll:
Click to expand...

That's NEOCON base... the same NEOCONS that have been in power for the past 8 years and brought us all those great things like 9-11, war in afghanistan, war in Iraq, and a more local 'war on terrorism'... the same people that brought us the patriot act, and the Banker takeover bill (re: bailout).

Why do you keep insisting that we RESOURCE our opininions REPEATEDLY, and then chew us out when we bring up the same previously sourced point?? Is it really necessary?? Are we allowed to use our own previously sourced posts to source ourselves?? Seems excessive, and makes for no wonder that this 'debate' is still going on when the facts have been repeatedly sourced and the conclusions are definate. Just my opinion.
 
so now NeoCons are to blame for 9-11

how about you throw in the joos in Germany too for good measure
and I am pretty sure the NeoCons are to blame for the Crucifixtion of Christ
 
DeeJayH said:
so now NeoCons are to blame for 9-11

how about you throw in the joos in Germany too for good measure
and I am pretty sure the NeoCons are to blame for the Crucifixtion of Christ
Click to expand...

Yes... as I explained thoroughly in this thread (without mention of Neocons):

http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-terror/37568-what-s-war-terror.html

And no, I'm talking about evidence and facts here... if I saw evidence that 'joos in germany' were involved, I'd bring that up to.

Would you call me conspiracy theorist/anti-semite if I said that Jews were responsible for Christs' crucifixion?? I don't have evidence to back that one up other than what it says in the bible...
 
BmanMcfly said:
Yes... as I explained thoroughly in this thread (without mention of Neocons):

http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-terror/37568-what-s-war-terror.html

And no, I'm talking about evidence and facts here... if I saw evidence that 'joos in germany' were involved, I'd bring that up to.

Would you call me conspiracy theorist/anti-semite if I said that Jews were responsible for Christs' crucifixion?? I don't have evidence to back that one up other than what it says in the bible...
Click to expand...
no
it appears you just want to blame everything bad on NeoCons
that is all
 
DeeJayH said:
no
it appears you just want to blame everything bad on NeoCons
that is all
Click to expand...

Do I have to go back and explain how Clinton played his part in setting up Bush, and how both parties are simply put, arms of the same 'Big brother' system??

I'll paraphrase Noam Chomsky : "If your choices are between two contrived choices, like coke vs pepsi, republican vs democrat, then you can ENCOURAGE debate because from these confines you'll never find real solutions."

NEOCONS are just the most recent and most blatant attacks against the freedoms of americans. If not through 9-11 then through the resulting legislation. The fact is if it was the 'NEOLIBs' that did these same things I would be just as much in attack against them. I don't care about their affiliation, I care about their crimes... 'judge the fruit not the tree' so they say.
 
JMak said:
Tell me, ADK, do you deliberately misrepresent the views held by others or is this just a manifestation of your ignorance?

The Bush administration has never argued that "everybody captured in Iraq deserved no benefit of the Geneva Convention." And the SCOTUS never expressed an opinion on such a question either.

Your intellectual dishonesty is pathetic. I mean, there are legitimate reasons to oppose Bush's actual position on the distinctions between lawful and unlawful enemy combatants, eligibility for POW designation and the protections provided to POWs within Geneva, and the habeas status of enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.

But you won't even go there. Instead, you deliberately lie about Bush's position and for what? To call him stupid, eh?

Well, I think you just demonstrated that you're the "dumbass."

Props...I guess.
Click to expand...

Ooooh, did I hit a noive? :roll:

World Prout Assembly: Bush admits secret prisons, demands Congress sanction drumhead tribunals
President Bush on Wednesday acknowledged the existence of secret US prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency where detainees have been abused and denied all legal rights. Bush made clear that he had authorized the CIA prisons and insisted that they continue to operate. This is an extraordinary admission by a US president, as the existence of secret prisons is a clear violation of international law, which requires that powers holding prisoners captured in wartime allow the International Red Cross access to all incarceration sites.
Click to expand...

Here's a quick link on Bush's belief on captured prisoners' rights:
Bush could bypass new torture ban - The Boston Globe

When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.
Click to expand...

And as far as US citizen's rights, Bush doesn't think even we deserve access to an attorney if captured: :roll:
Since the 2001 attacks, the administration has also asserted the power to bypass domestic and international laws in deciding how to detain prisoners captured in the Afghanistan war. It also has claimed the power to hold any US citizen Bush designates an ''enemy combatant" without charges or access to an attorney.

And in 2002, the administration drafted a secret legal memo holding that Bush could authorize interrogators to violate antitorture laws when necessary to protect national security. After the memo was leaked to the press, the administration eliminated the language from a subsequent version, but it never repudiated the idea that Bush could authorize officials to ignore a law.
Click to expand...

Here's SCOTUS's ruling for you:
SCOTUS ruling on habeas corpus for Gitmo detainees outlines Bush administration failing « Tempus Fugit

June 12, 2008 Today the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration with a ruling 5-4 that asserted that detainees at the Guantanamo Bay facility in Cuba have habeas corpus rights and can thus challenge the lawfulness of their detention.
Click to expand...

So, sweetheart, are you going to argue any of these points? No, I suspect you'll slink off to the back of your cave where you can say, "Oh, I didn't see your post." :roll:

You are sooooo BUSTED! This was actually not fair. You're venting because your neo-con team is being outed as the law breakers they are and patriots that they are not!

So, I guess the ony "dumbass" around here is... uhh... you? Yep, you and your Hannitizing, neo-con "ilks" who can't stand the idea of not being able to run roughshod over the country anymore. Hey, I hear Cuba is accepting deserters. Go for it pal.
 
JMak said:
Wow, such ignorance knows no bounds, eh?

Why are you compelled to lie about what Bush thinks about the great writ?

Your comment here reveals a disturbing lack of good faith and large degree of intellectual dishonesty.

First, you simply lie about the position held by someone you disagree with. Bush doesn't oppose habeas corpus for ordinary citizens. He opposes it, as do many other reasonable people, being extended to foreign nationals who have committed acts of war against the US and were captured on the battlefield engaged in making war against the US.

Second, you seem to dismiss the internationally-recognized distinctions between types of combatants and the protections afforded and not afforded to them in order to blindly accuse Bush of opposing habeas for all individuals.

Pathetic.
Click to expand...
You need to read the Military Commission's Act before you make such a ridiculous statement.

And habeas corpus goes back to the Magna Carta. It is an inalienable right. Why don't you read the Rights of Man while your at it.
 
DeeJayH said:
I can not begin to think how I can make you understand the definition of Victory in Iraq, if you do not even remember the definition of pornography
Click to expand...
I asked you a specific question about when victory can be acheived in Iraq. I did not ask you a question about pornography. If you don't know, say so. If you do, then answer the god-damn question.
 
Billo_Really said:
You need to read the Military Commission's Act before you make such a ridiculous statement.

And habeas corpus goes back to the Magna Carta. It is an inalienable right. Why don't you read the Rights of Man while your at it.
Click to expand...

Save your breath Billo. He and his "ilk" won't read anything that we place in front of them that might prove our points. They argue simply from an emotional point.

You have proved your point beyond any reasonable person's expectations. But, only to people who are... reasonable.

Kudos!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom