PDA

View Full Version : I voted Democrat


Preach
08-31-2009, 03:12 AM
I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

I voted Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it....

I voted Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.

I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.... Read More

I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my butt that it is unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.

rockdawg21
08-31-2009, 03:27 AM
Preach on!!!

Buzzard
08-31-2009, 03:56 AM
I voted Republican because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't. Just like it was when Bush was in office.

I voted Republican because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it, and having free speech zones is ok because you're a communist if you don't agree with the party platform.

I voted Republican because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would, as can be seen by the billions of dollars spent chasing down the terrorists in Iraq after 9/11, when most of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and Iraq had nothing to do with it.

I voted Republican because when we pull out of Iraq, they'll be glad that we attacked them based on lies and false information and because Papa Bush didn't get Saddam first. I trust that the real terrorists will stop what they're doing because we didn't go after the real bad guys.

I voted Republican because our vice president Dick Cheney showed me how to be a responsible gun owner.

I voted Republican because I believe that people shouldn't tell me that my gas guzzling SUV and my insatiable appetite for fossil fuel isn't my God given right, eff the rest of the world if I consume more energy than the rest of them.

I voted Republican because I'm not concerned about the constitution, it's just a G-Damned piece of paper. Who cares if we slaughter innocent Iraqi citizens and care about the unborn child until they are born, but forget about them soon after.

I voted Republican because I believe that going to war in an effort to make myself and my friends butt-loads of money in business should be ok, and who cares what the cost in human lives is. They need to break even and redistribute the profits to greedy stockholders.

I voted Republican because I believe George Bush was right when he said the constitution is just a damned piece of paper and I don't care if suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus is unconstitutional because if it's ok with Bush, it's ok with me, unless someone else tries to do the same thing.

I voted Republican because my head is so firmly planted up my butt that it is unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view, even when reasonable evidence is shown that would cause a reasonable person to second think their own self centered views.

:ninja:

NateR
08-31-2009, 04:30 AM
I voted Republican because I believe George Bush was right when he said the constitution is just a damned piece of paper and I don't care if suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus is unconstitutional because if it's ok with Bush, it's ok with me, unless someone else tries to do the same thing.

I voted Democrat because I believe every word that's printed on left-wing propaganda websites, even when the story is proven to have been completely fabricated. I even believe that fake story about President Bush calling the Constitution a "god-damned piece of paper" which was revealed to be a lie quite some time ago.

I voted Democrat because I'm completely ignorant of history and thus I don't realize that suspending habeas corpus for captured enemy combatants during wartime is standard practice. Even Obama's hero, Abraham Lincoln, suspended habeas corpus for Southern soldiers captured during the Civil War. Which is great, because, as a Democrat, I believe it's better to deny Constitutional rights to natural-born American citizens, rather than infringe upon the rights of foreigners and terrorists who hate everything our country stands for and have pledged their lives to destroying us.

I voted Democrat because I believe that terrorists who attack our country and kill our citizens deserve to be relocated to a tropical paradise where they can spend the rest of their lives living off of the taxes of the very same Americans that they want to kill.

I voted Democrat because I believe that the soldiers who sacrifice years of their lives fighting for my freedoms overseas are the true danger to this country and we need to keep an eye on them by putting them on terrorist watchlists as soon as they get back from defending my freedoms.

:rolleyes:

Buzzard
08-31-2009, 04:48 AM
I voted Democrat because I believe every word that's printed on left-wing propaganda websites, even when the story is proven to have been completely fabricated. I even believe that fake story about President Bush calling the Constitution a "god-damned piece of paper" which was revealed to be a lie quite some time ago.

Care to share your sources?

I voted Democrat because I'm completely ignorant of history and thus I don't realize that suspending habeas corpus for captured enemy combatants during wartime is standard practice. Even Obama's hero, Abraham Lincoln, suspended habeas corpus for Southern soldiers captured during the Civil War. Which is great, because, as a Democrat, I believe it's better to deny Constitutional rights to natural-born American citizens, rather than infringe upon the rights of foreigners and terrorists who hate everything our country stands for and have pledged their lives to destroying us

What is a Writ of Habeas Corpus?
A writ of habeas corpus is a judicially enforceable order issued by a court of law to a prison official ordering that a prisoner be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that prisoner had been lawfully imprisoned and, if not, whether he or she should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. The right of habeas corpus is the constitutionally bestowed right of a person to present evidence before a court that he or she has been wrongly imprisoned.

Where Our Right of Habeas Corpus Comes From
The right of writs of habeas corpus are granted in Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution, which states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Care to show your sources where these writs were suspended due to Cases of Rebellion or Invasion?


I voted Democrat because I believe that terrorists who attack our country and kill our citizens deserve to be relocated to a tropical paradise where they can spend the rest of their lives living off of the taxes of the very same Americans that they want to kill.

Care to share your sources showing that Iraqi citizens were behind the terrorist attacks? You do realize that we attacked Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia, don't you?

I voted Democrat because I believe that the soldiers who sacrifice years of their lives fighting for my freedoms overseas are the true danger to this country and we need to keep an eye on them by putting them on terrorist watchlists as soon as they get back from defending my freedoms.

Wasn't it your wonderful President Bush that started this so called "Patriot Act?"

:rolleyes:

Tag, you're it.

VCURamFan
08-31-2009, 07:08 AM
Just to step in for Nate real quick, I'll answer this question for you:

Care to show your sources where these writs were suspended due to Cases of Rebellion or Invasion?He said "during the Civil War". In case you've forgotten, that's where the South rebelled against the Union & attempted to invade Washington D.C.:Whistle:

Buzzard
08-31-2009, 07:15 AM
Just to step in for Nate real quick, I'll answer this question for you:

He said "during the Civil War". In case you've forgotten, that's where the South rebelled against the Union & attempted to invade Washington D.C.:Whistle:

Really? We had a civil war when Bush was in office? I learn something new everyday.

VCURamFan
08-31-2009, 07:23 AM
Nate said that it wasn't the first time they had been suspended by citing the Civil War. You then said they could only be suspended due to rebellion/invasion & asked him to cite when/where there had been a rebellion/invasion. I answered you to support what Nate had said (abuot the Civil War). Since you were responding to his post about the Civil War asking about rebellion/invasion, that's why I assumed that's what you were talking about. If you wanted to discuss a different time period, the onus is on you to make that clear, not me to read your mind. Don't act like a jack-arse just because you can't communicate properly.

As for why during the Bush administration, have you completely forgotten 9/11? I mean, those were hostile actions against our country perpetrated by foreign agents. They came to America & launched an attacked while on our soil. How else do you describe an invasion? You don't need battalions & naval groups.

Buzzard
08-31-2009, 07:39 AM
Nate said that it wasn't the first time they had been suspended by citing the Civil War. You then said they could only be suspended due to rebellion/invasion & asked him to cite when/where there had been a rebellion/invasion. I answered you to support what Nate had said (abuot the Civil War). Since you were responding to his post about the Civil War asking about rebellion/invasion, that's why I assumed that's what you were talking about.Moral, don't assume. If you wanted to discuss a different time period, the onus is on you to make that clear, not me to read your mind. Don't act like a jack-arse just because you can't communicate properly.If you could comprehend what you read, you wouldn't have made the asinine assumption. If you are going to call me names, at least have the balls to say what you mean.

As for why during the Bush administration, have you completely forgotten 9/11? I mean, those were hostile actions against our country perpetrated by foreign agents. Why did we attack Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia. Weren't most of the perpetrators Saudi's? We went after Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11.They came to America & launched an attacked while on our soil. How else do you describe an invasion? You don't need battalions & naval groups.

I wasn't responding to a post about the civil war, Nate responded to my post about Bush suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus. I then responded back.

I voted Democrat because I'm completely ignorant of history and thus I don't realize that suspending habeas corpus for captured enemy combatants during wartime is standard practice.

I then gave the definition o what a writ of Habeas Corpus is and where it came from. I then asked him to show his sources showing where these writs were suspended due to Cases of Rebellion or Invasion? Since Bush suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus and I first spoke of Bush's suspension of them, I asked to see the proof of the cases of rebellion or invasion when Bush suspended these same writs.

I know you are eager to defend NateR, and that is admirable, but twisting what I say to make your point isn't admirable at all.

Preach
09-01-2009, 08:08 PM
Money
Financial shares drop market | Dow

This table charts the key U.S. financial indices by their last reported value and change since the most recent trading day opened. Index Last Change
Dow 9,326.47 -169.81 (-1.79%)
NASDAQ 1,972.87 -36.19 (-1.80%)
S&P 1,000.86 -19.76 (-1.94%)



I am sooooo proud of Obama

NateR
09-05-2009, 06:17 AM
Care to share your sources?

Well, in America, it's innocent until proven guilty. You are the one making the accusation against President Bush, so the burden of proof is on you. I'd like to see what sources you got your information from first (anonymous tips on left-wing propaganda sites don't count).

What is a Writ of Habeas Corpus?
A writ of habeas corpus is a judicially enforceable order issued by a court of law to a prison official ordering that a prisoner be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that prisoner had been lawfully imprisoned and, if not, whether he or she should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. The right of habeas corpus is the constitutionally bestowed right of a person to present evidence before a court that he or she has been wrongly imprisoned.

Where Our Right of Habeas Corpus Comes From
The right of writs of habeas corpus are granted in Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution, which states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."


Yes, exactly, it's granted by the Constitution to American CITIZENS, not enemy combatants captured on foreign soil in the act of trying to kill Americans citizens.

Show me one instance from the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, WW1, WW2, the Korean War, Vietnam, or the Gulf War where we offered the rights of habeas corpus to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.

Care to share your sources showing that Iraqi citizens were behind the terrorist attacks? You do realize that we attacked Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia, don't you?

If you are saying that we are making a huge mistake by counting Saudi Arabia as one of our allies, then I would agree with you wholeheartedly.

However, war is sometimes a complicated thing. Back in 1941, America was attacked at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, so we immediately went to war with Germany. When you oversimplify it like that, it makes no sense. However, there was a lot more going on behind the scenes back in 1941 than was immediately apparent. Exactly the same as the Middle East.

Wasn't it your wonderful President Bush that started this so called "Patriot Act?"

Unfortunately, the Patriot Act requires intelligence and common sense to be enforced correctly. Something the Democratic Party is in critically short supply of these days.

Buzzard
09-05-2009, 08:44 AM
Well, in America, it's innocent until proven guilty. You are the one making the accusation against President Bush, so the burden of proof is on you. I'd like to see what sources you got your information from first (anonymous tips on left-wing propaganda sites don't count).

You said it was proven to be fabricated, I asked for you to share your sources on that. Did you lie and get caught? It shouldn't be hard to provide it if you actually have proof. If you lied, I can see why you won't be able to provide them. Google what I said and you can pick and choose the sources yourself.



Yes, exactly, it's granted by the Constitution to American CITIZENS, not enemy combatants captured on foreign soil in the act of trying to kill Americans citizens.

It was also suspended for American citizens.

Show me one instance from the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, WW1, WW2, the Korean War, Vietnam, or the Gulf War where we offered the rights of habeas corpus to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.

We aren't talking about any of those wars.

In fact, Bush never made an official declaration of war if I recall correctly.


If you are saying that we are making a huge mistake by counting Saudi Arabia as one of our allies, then I would agree with you wholeheartedly.

I wasn't saying that, but I agree with you too on this point. Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia instead of invading Iraq when the majority of these terrorists were Saudis and Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with it?

However, war is sometimes a complicated thing. Back in 1941, America was attacked at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, so we immediately went to war with Germany. When you oversimplify it like that, it makes no sense. However, there was a lot more going on behind the scenes back in 1941 than was immediately apparent. Exactly the same as the Middle East.

There is nothing exactly the same in your example.



Unfortunately, the Patriot Act requires intelligence and common sense to be enforced correctly. Something the Democratic Party is in critically short supply of these days.

Seems that Bush was lacking in those attributes, and the folks that voted that in.

Responses in red.

Bonnie
09-06-2009, 09:31 AM
I think we (voting public) are just pawns that get played by whichever political party happens to be smarter and quicker that particular voting cycle. :wink:

Tyburn
09-06-2009, 11:44 AM
I voted Third party, because between Republicans and Democrats it seems to me its six of one and half a douzen of the other. :mellow:

Actually...I didnt vote at all, because I'm not American :sad:

Rev
09-06-2009, 10:58 PM
I voted liberal because I feel like the guys in the CIA who poured some water over guys who aim to kill us should be punished and have their names put out on the public market so every other terrorist and psycho can target him and his family. What are those guys thinking,by protecting the country who asked them to do so? Dont they know that it aint the way of the liberal to actually do your job or ANY job for that matter.

Buzzard
09-07-2009, 03:46 AM
I voted liberal because I feel like the guys in the CIA who poured some water over guys who aim to kill us should be punished and have their names put out on the public market so every other terrorist and psycho can target him and his family. What are those guys thinking,by protecting the country who asked them to do so? Dont they know that it aint the way of the liberal to actually do your job or ANY job for that matter.

You do realize that the U.S. tried and convicted people at the end of WW2 for war crimes including waterboarding don't you?

Wow, Rev, I'd hate to hear what you preach. Are you like this guy?

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/08/gospel-of-hate-arizona-pastor-steve.html

Chris F
09-07-2009, 06:58 PM
Just to step in for Nate real quick, I'll answer this question for you:

He said "during the Civil War". In case you've forgotten, that's where the South rebelled against the Union & attempted to invade Washington D.C.:Whistle:

This is a historical inaccuracy. The North invaded the South. The South seceded as was their constitutional right and the North did not want to loose all those tax dollars and forced the South back by gun point. BTW they did not even attempt to go to DC till later in the War and it was more to get troop out of Virgina then it was to conquer it. You believe way to much Yankee propaganda and revisionist history. Either that you had football coach as your history teacher. The War for Southern independence/Northern aggression (there was nothing civil about that war)had nothing to do with slavery, or rebellion. It was all about taxation w/o representation.

Chuck
09-07-2009, 08:13 PM
This is a historical inaccuracy. The North invaded the South. The South seceded as was their constitutional right and the North did not want to loose all those tax dollars and forced the South back by gun point. BTW they did not even attempt to go to DC till later in the War and it was more to get troop out of Virgina then it was to conquer it. You believe way to much Yankee propaganda and revisionist history. Either that you had football coach as your history teacher. The War for Southern independence/Northern aggression (there was nothing civil about that war)had nothing to do with slavery, or rebellion. It was all about taxation w/o representation.

This sounds like some hogwash your football coach taught you :wink:

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 08:20 PM
You do realize that the U.S. tried and convicted people at the end of WW2 for war crimes including waterboarding don't you?

Wow, Rev, I'd hate to hear what you preach. Are you like this guy?

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/08/gospel-of-hate-arizona-pastor-steve.html

:laugh: Buzzard, the Crimes of gassing a billion Jews for no reason other then they are Jews...and waterboarding one or two terrorists to SAVE billions of lives...you know...like the ones that WERENT Saved in 9/11...are two different things

This is what a lot of Americans do...they try to match something in their History with something in Global History that equates...and usually the end result is so inaccuarate as to be stupid.

There is no relation between the murders of World War Two, and the Interogation Technique of The War on Terror...they are NOT EVER comparable :laugh:

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 08:25 PM
This is a historical inaccuracy. The North invaded the South. The South seceded as was their constitutional right and the North did not want to loose all those tax dollars and forced the South back by gun point. BTW they did not even attempt to go to DC till later in the War and it was more to get troop out of Virgina then it was to conquer it. You believe way to much Yankee propaganda and revisionist history. Either that you had football coach as your history teacher. The War for Southern independence/Northern aggression (there was nothing civil about that war)had nothing to do with slavery, or rebellion. It was all about taxation w/o representation.

Well, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

From what I understand, several States left the Union pretty much Leagally. BUT then they formed their own Union and even went as far as tryin to Ellect a President.

But some States were almost split between North and South...that is to say they were North officially, but the South occupied, or failed to withdraw from key battlements.

One of which started the war, when the North decided to obliterate one such battlement. Thus you could say the South was then defending itself I suppose.

However...at some point there was definately a wish by BOTH sides to conqure and gain full control of both Unions. Ultimately the North won...but I hear the South will rise again :ninja:

:laugh:

also...im sure some kinda trade ship was involved as a trigger to this war...but this is going on memory :blink:

Chris F
09-07-2009, 08:27 PM
This sounds like some hogwash your football coach taught you :wink:

No Chuck it is what the primary sources prove. But as we all know the winners write the history. You'd be hard to find any real historian who would put their credibility on the line and say The South invaded the North. If the only history you have got was form High School and The History Channel then I can understand the ignorance on the subject. Before I started work on my MA in History I believed those myths as well.

Chuck
09-07-2009, 08:32 PM
No Chuck it is what the primary sources prove. But as we all know the winners write the history. You'd be hard to find any real historian who would put their credibility on the line and say The South invaded the North. If the only history you have got was form High School and The History Channel then I can understand the ignorance on the subject. Before I started work on my MA in History I believed those myths as well.

Now THIS sounds like something your wrestling coach taught you!!! :D

Chris F
09-07-2009, 08:34 PM
Well, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

From what I understand, several States left the Union pretty much Leagally. BUT then they formed their own Union and even went as far as tryin to Ellect a President.

But some States were almost split between North and South...that is to say they were North officially, but the South occupied, or failed to withdraw from key battlements.

One of which started the war, when the North decided to obliterate one such battlement. Thus you could say the South was then defending itself I suppose.

However...at some point there was definately a wish by BOTH sides to conqure and gain full control of both Unions. Ultimately the North won...but I hear the South will rise again :ninja:

:laugh:

also...im sure some kinda trade ship was involved as a trigger to this war...but this is going on memory :blink:

There is no historical evidence that control of the North was ever a war aim for the South. All they wanted was independence from the tyranny of unfair taxation. If you have access I encourage you to read the transcripts of congress prior to the secession. Also the debates on the Missouri Compromise. The history we are fed today is noting more then a hoax to perpetuate the Abe Lincoln myth. Prior to the Civil Rights movement in the 50 and 60's every school text book taught what I said in one form or another.

Chris F
09-07-2009, 08:42 PM
Now THIS sounds like something your wrestling coach taught you!!! :D

my real wrestling coach did teach my history he was also a football coach. :laugh:

My pro wrestling instructor was Canadian so I doubt he ever cared. :)


Fact is Chuck a little time in the primary sources and you would see how wrong you are. Revisionist history is very popular and sells text books bottom line. Just look how they have began to demonize Christians in our history. Major events spark revisionist. The feminist movement changed how women were viewed in history. It varies from event to event. Historians are not suppose to be influenced by popular thought when they write. They are suppose to let the sources tell the story. For example the recent surge in homosexuality ideals has lead to so called historians to write that Abe was gay because he shared a bed with his male secretary. So be careful what you swallow as truth.

Buzzard
09-07-2009, 09:20 PM
:laugh: Buzzard, the Crimes of gassing a billion Jews for no reason other then they are Jews...and waterboarding one or two terrorists to SAVE billions of lives...you know...like the ones that WERENT Saved in 9/11...are two different things

This is what a lot of Americans do...they try to match something in their History with something in Global History that equates...and usually the end result is so inaccuarate as to be stupid.

There is no relation between the murders of World War Two, and the Interogation Technique of The War on Terror...they are NOT EVER comparable :laugh:

Tyburn, please learn how to comprehend what you read and how to see when comparisons fit. There is a relation, only you aren't intelligent enough to see it. Ramble on about something else that has nothing to do with the topic you are replying to. :banghead:

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 09:28 PM
Tyburn, please learn how to comprehend what you read and how to see when comparisons fit. There is a relation, only you aren't intelligent enough to see it. Ramble on about something else that has nothing to do with the topic you are replying to. :banghead:

oh...dear Buzzard...do enlighten dumb Englishman

How does committing a war crime for the sake of nothing but deliberate murder, resulting in the death of an innocent

relate to

trying to garner life saving information out of a guilty perpertrator useing painful methods that dont result in permenant physical injury

pray tell :huh:

Buzzard
09-07-2009, 09:52 PM
oh...dear Buzzard...do enlighten dumb Englishman

How does committing a war crime for the sake of nothing but deliberate murder, resulting in the death of an innocent

relate to

trying to garner life saving information out of a guilty perpertrator useing painful methods that dont result in permenant physical injury

pray tell :huh:

I knew you wouldn't be able to comprehend, and your above post confirms it. Did you not pay attention in class? That's a rhetorical question, please don't launch into a two thousand word essay to answer it and any other topic that is floating in your brain.

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 09:54 PM
I knew you wouldn't be able to comprehend, and your above post confirms it. Did you not pay attention in class? That's a rhetorical question, please don't launch into a two thousand word essay to answer it and any other topic that is floating in your brain.

your discourtesy is unspeakably ugly to me

Buzzard
09-07-2009, 10:07 PM
your discourtesy is unspeakably ugly to me

Your lack of comprehension and the replies you make because of it are the reasons I respond to you the way I do. Your discourtesy in that matter is equally ugly to me.

logrus
09-07-2009, 10:38 PM
The truth is sending a few people running for the hills I see. LMAO

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 11:14 PM
Your lack of comprehension and the replies you make because of it are the reasons I respond to you the way I do. Your discourtesy in that matter is equally ugly to me.

Now look whose the fool. :laugh: I was quoting Hannible Lector in The Silence of The Lambs. :mellow:

Its something he says to Her when she first goes visits him in Prison...their first meeting :ninja:

Call yourself intelligent :tongue0011:

NateR
09-07-2009, 11:19 PM
You said it was proven to be fabricated, I asked for you to share your sources on that. Did you lie and get caught? It shouldn't be hard to provide it if you actually have proof. If you lied, I can see why you won't be able to provide them. Google what I said and you can pick and choose the sources yourself.

Just what I thought, I knew you couldn't find any reliable sources. One of the "sources" is Keith Olberman from MSNBC and I don't trust that man as far as I can throw him.

It was also suspended for American citizens.

Which ones?

We aren't talking about any of those wars.

In fact, Bush never made an official declaration of war if I recall correctly

Actually we are establishing a precedent. Why is Bush getting attacked for conducting a war in the exact same manner as every single other American President? I'm simply exposing your double standard.

You forget that Korea and Vietnam weren't declared wars either. However, I do believe that Iraq was an actual declared war, I'm sure Boomer could shed some light on that.

There is nothing exactly the same in your example.

Really? Care to explain why not?

Seems that Bush was lacking in those attributes, and the folks that voted that in.

I wouldn't mind your double-standards or closed-mindedness if you didn't pretend that they didn't exist. But you try to pass yourself off as an open-minded, free-thinker when statements like this one only reveal that the exact opposite is true.

Also, as a courtesy, it takes a lot of extra work to pull your responses out of the quoted text. So, try to format your reply as I have done with mine above, this way I can more easily address your comments. Otherwise, I just might not feel like putting in all the extra effort.

Chuck
09-07-2009, 11:46 PM
my real wrestling coach did teach my history he was also a football coach. :laugh:

My pro wrestling instructor was Canadian so I doubt he ever cared. :)


Fact is Chuck a little time in the primary sources and you would see how wrong you are. Revisionist history is very popular and sells text books bottom line. Just look how they have began to demonize Christians in our history. Major events spark revisionist. The feminist movement changed how women were viewed in history. It varies from event to event. Historians are not suppose to be influenced by popular thought when they write. They are suppose to let the sources tell the story. For example the recent surge in homosexuality ideals has lead to so called historians to write that Abe was gay because he shared a bed with his male secretary. So be careful what you swallow as truth.

Now you have be quite curious here.... What exactly do I believe that I'm wrong about? :Whistle:

I'm thinking your shop teacher helped mold your education a little? :laugh:

NateR
09-08-2009, 02:01 AM
The truth is sending a few people running for the hills I see. LMAO

I can only assume that you are referring to the conservatives on the board.

No running here, just tired of having the same endless arguments. Especially when the liberals on the board think they can state opinions (like George W. Bush is stupid or Dick Cheney is corrupt) as facts, yet constantly badger those who disagree with them for sources. Even though they have provide no sources for their statements.

Also, while the original email that this thread is based on is cute and there is some truth to some of it, it's hardly 100% factual; thus it's not really worth spending a lot of time defending.

que
09-08-2009, 02:47 AM
i didn't vote because i procrastinated and waited too long to register.

but i don't care, whoever became president in 2008 was going to continue to screw it up anyways. i didn't like any of the candidates. maybe ron paul, but i think his ideals were way too radical. i believe his view of the future is the right direction, but he wanted it to happen too fast. i think to make a future like ron paul wants, it should be done slowly over the course of many decades. he wanted it done within his first term. that would probably not end well.

mccain, obama. heck, even bush for a third term - either way, we are screwed. this country is in this mess because of factors that have been slowly adding up for decades by not one but numerous presidents. and not one president can reverse the mess we are in - not in one term, not even in two terms. it will take decades and many presidents with the same vision to reverse this craphole we have created for ourselves. that's my two cents at least.

it was easy to get into this crisis (even though it has been building for decades) but it will be even harder and it will take even longer to get out of it. huge things need to change. fundamental things. because obviously, we are not doing something right for a very, very, very long time. that much is obvious. there has to be a correction that many people aren't comfortable with. many people are not comfortable with change, they are afraid of it and that is understandable, it is only human nature to be afraid of what you are not used to, to be afraid of changing the way you have been used to for so many decades. but with change there is risk. without risk you cannot have change. there needs to be a leap of faith within this change. what other choice do we have. we have been spiraling downwards for decades and if we don't take a risk of change we will keep spiraling downwards until we become the next rome. we will crumble and be the forgotten empire that once ruled everything. it's either take a risk to change or death.

Buzzard
09-08-2009, 04:45 AM
Now look whose the fool. :laugh: I looked and saw your picture.:laugh:I was quoting Hannible Lector in The Silence of The Lambs. :mellow:Good for you. Just proves my point again.:laugh:

Its something he says to Her when she first goes visits him in Prison...their first meeting :ninja:

Call yourself intelligent :tongue0011:

Yeah, I'm stupid because I haven't seen that movie since it came out and I don't remember movie quotes unless it is from a movie I really liked, and then it has to be an awesome quote.

What movie is this quote from? No googling. Yeah, I liked this movie.

I'd buy that for a dollar.

Chuck
09-08-2009, 04:47 AM
Yeah, I'm stupid because I haven't seen that movie since it came out and I don't remember movie quotes unless it is from a movie I really liked, and then it has to be an awesome quote.

What movie is this quote from? No googling. Yeah, I liked this movie.

Crap I know this one!!!!!!!!! But I can't think of it! Off to Google..........


EDIT: Crap!!! I should have known that one. I was thinking of Running Man!!

NateR
09-08-2009, 04:56 AM
What movie is this quote from? No googling. Yeah, I liked this movie.

Robocop (and no I didn't have to Google it)

My turn:

She wants me! Some woman out there wants me! Now will you turn the corner?

Mac
09-08-2009, 05:01 AM
Robocop (and no I didn't have to Google it)

My turn:

American Graffitti .

Richard dreyfus playing "Curt " riding in a 1959 edsel ranger talking to
Laurie and Steve " cindy williams and ron howard " on thier way to "the hop"

Talking about Susan Summers driving a 1956 thunderbird ,

American Graffiti

NateR
09-08-2009, 05:04 AM
American Graffitti .

Richard dreyfus playing "Curt " riding in a 1959 edsel ranger talking to
Laurie and Steve " cindy williams and ron howard " on thier way to "the hop"

Talking about Susan Summers driving a 1956 thunderbird ,

American Graffiti

Well you can't just post the answer without giving another movie quote. :laugh:

Mac
09-08-2009, 05:04 AM
my turn

" its 106 miles to chicago , we have a full tank of gas , half a pack of cigarettes , its dark and were wearing sunglasses"

NateR
09-08-2009, 05:05 AM
my turn

" its 106 miles to chicago , we have a full tank of gas , half a pack of cigarettes , its dark and were wearing sunglasses"

I know the answer but I'll give someone else a chance.

Mac
09-08-2009, 05:11 AM
I know the answer but I'll give someone else a chance.

Ok , well we will leave that one for everyone else , Heres one for you .


actor 1 =Wait a minute. Who elected you leader of this outfit?


actor 2= I figured it should be the one with the capacity for abstract thought. But if that ain't the consensus view, then hell, let's put it to a vote.

actor 1 = Suits me. I'm voting for yours truly

actor 2 = Well I'm voting for yours truly too.

actor 1 and 2 looking at actor 3

actor 3 = Okay... I'm with you fellas.


Its an easy one , i just wanted to quote it because its one of my favorite parts of the movie.

Neezar
09-08-2009, 05:23 AM
Ok , well we will leave that one for everyone else , Heres one for you .


actor 1 =Wait a minute. Who elected you leader of this outfit?


actor 2= I figured it should be the one with the capacity for abstract thought. But if that ain't the consensus view, then hell, let's put it to a vote.

actor 1 = Suits me. I'm voting for yours truly

actor 2 = Well I'm voting for yours truly too.

actor 1 and 2 looking at actor 3

actor 3 = Okay... I'm with you fellas.


Its an easy one , i just wanted to quote it because its one of my favorite parts of the movie.

:w00t: I know it!

O Brother Where Art Thou?

Josh
09-08-2009, 05:28 AM
my turn

" its 106 miles to chicago , we have a full tank of gas , half a pack of cigarettes , its dark and were wearing sunglasses"

Blues Brothers of course.

Buzzard
09-08-2009, 06:10 AM
Originally Posted by Buzzard
You said it was proven to be fabricated, I asked for you to share your sources on that. Did you lie and get caught? It shouldn't be hard to provide it if you actually have proof. If you lied, I can see why you won't be able to provide them. Google what I said and you can pick and choose the sources yourself.


Just what I thought, I knew you couldn't find any reliable sources. One of the "sources" is Keith Olberman from MSNBC and I don't trust that man as far as I can throw him.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/091205pieceofpaper.htm

http://sciencenotes.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/just-a-god-damned-piece-of-paper/

There are many sources, yet you claimed that it was proven to be fabricated, and harp on Olberman. If you really are having trouble finding reputable sources in your eyes, I don't know how I could be of help to you, as your google is just the same as mine.

You still have not shown any proof of it being a lie, when you already said you have proof. Were you lying on this? I haven't found anything to back your claim. Perhaps you can link them here for all to see.

Originally Posted by Buzzard
It was also suspended for American citizens.


Which ones?


http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/excep/habeas.html

No specific individuals cited here.

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/1-no-habeas-corpus-for-any-person/

Again, no specific individuals cited from my quick perusal.

Reading through those one can get the picture and make their own conclusions. I like many others concluded that American citizens were included. Your mileage may vary.

Originally Posted by Buzzard
We aren't talking about any of those wars.

In fact, Bush never made an official declaration of war if I recall correctly


Actually we are establishing a precedent. Why is Bush getting attacked for conducting a war in the exact same manner as every single other American President? I'm simply exposing your double standard.

You forget that Korea and Vietnam weren't declared wars either. However, I do believe that Iraq was an actual declared war, I'm sure Boomer could shed some light on that.

I'd love to see his official declaration of war on Iraq or Afghanistan.

What precedent are you saying is being established, the denial of constitutional rights to American citizens? Do you believe as Gonzalez believed? If you believe as Gonzalez, do you then believe that you don't have a right to freedom of religion because it isn't expressly stated in it?

I was but a wee tot when the Vietnam War was going on, and wasn't yet born when the Korean War was going on. I was however alive and kicking when Bush went about his business by attacking Iraq, finishing up what his daddy didn't.



Show me one instance from the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, WW1, WW2, the Korean War, Vietnam, or the Gulf War where we offered the rights of habeas corpus to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.


However, war is sometimes a complicated thing. Back in 1941, America was attacked at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, so we immediately went to war with Germany. When you oversimplify it like that, it makes no sense. However, there was a lot more going on behind the scenes back in 1941 than was immediately apparent. Exactly the same as the Middle East.


Originally Posted by Buzzard
There is nothing exactly the same in your example.


Really? Care to explain why not?


Are you seriously trying to compare our going to war with Japan and Germany with our war on terror in Iraq? This is beyond ludicrous and isn't deserving of a response.

Originally Posted by Buzzard
Seems that Bush was lacking in those attributes, and the folks that voted that in.


I wouldn't mind your double-standards or closed-mindedness if you didn't pretend that they didn't exist. But you try to pass yourself off as an open-minded, free-thinker when statements like this one only reveal that the exact opposite is true.

I have an open mind and value my freedom more than I value Bush's attempt to take away constitutional rights and freedoms by enacting the Patriot Act. I thought you wanted less government intrusion. I guess you only want less if Obama is the one enacting something. You sir are the epitome of a close-minded person in my opinion.

What about my statement that I think Bush doesn't have common sense or intelligence shows to you that I am not open-minded or a free-thinker? Have you listened to how Bush butchered the English language and made up words when he didn't know what he was trying to say? I cringed every time that man spoke and the world listened. No wonder the world thinks we are uneducated boobs.


Also, as a courtesy, it takes a lot of extra work to pull your responses out of the quoted text. So, try to format your reply as I have done with mine above, this way I can more easily address your comments. Otherwise, I just might not feel like putting in all the extra effort.

I hope that this format is acceptable for you, as it also took a bit of time to make sure that each comment of mine which you quoted was attributed to the statements that I replied to.

Buzzard
09-08-2009, 06:22 AM
QR: HIJACK!!!

To keep it lighthearted.

I am not a movie quote person as I tend to watch them and forget them. I had no clue on any of the ones posted and some of the movies I haven't seen. I do have some favorites from Spinal Tap and The Princess Bride, as well as some others which are pretty obscure.

Now if we were to get into music lyrics, that's a whole different game.

And to think some on here think I'm just a serious ass, when I'm just an ordinary ass.

Tyburn
09-08-2009, 12:54 PM
I can only assume that you are referring to the conservatives on the board.

No running here, just tired of having the same endless arguments. Especially when the liberals on the board think they can state opinions (like George W. Bush is stupid or Dick Cheney is corrupt) as facts, yet constantly badger those who disagree with them for sources. Even though they have provide no sources for their statements.

Also, while the original email that this thread is based on is cute and there is some truth to some of it, it's hardly 100% factual; thus it's not really worth spending a lot of time defending.

no but Donald Rumsfeild or whatever his surname is...was pretty evil :ninja:

Preach
09-08-2009, 06:39 PM
Wow, Rev, I'd hate to hear what you preach. Are you like this guy?

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/08/gospel-of-hate-arizona-pastor-steve.html


Typical Liberal who can not have a discussion without personal insults.

NateR
09-08-2009, 06:40 PM
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/091205pieceofpaper.htm

http://sciencenotes.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/just-a-god-damned-piece-of-paper/

There are many sources, yet you claimed that it was proven to be fabricated, and harp on Olberman. If you really are having trouble finding reputable sources in your eyes, I don't know how I could be of help to you, as your google is just the same as mine.

You still have not shown any proof of it being a lie, when you already said you have proof. Were you lying on this? I haven't found anything to back your claim. Perhaps you can link them here for all to see.

No, I would not consider the sites you link to as reliable sources for balanced information at all. The website that initially broke the "story" was Capital Hill Blue and it has a history of reporting rumors and lies as facts. However, the liberal media and all those left-wing websites out there were just all to happy to assume that a negative story about President Bush was true, thus they didn't question it's authenticity and just ran with it.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.html

So, three anonymous sources quoted on disreputable website is all the proof you need to say that this story was fabricated. Remember the innocent until proven guilty thing?

http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/excep/habeas.html

No specific individuals cited here.

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/1-no-habeas-corpus-for-any-person/

Again, no specific individuals cited from my quick perusal.

Reading through those one can get the picture and make their own conclusions. I like many others concluded that American citizens were included. Your mileage may vary.

So, the simple fact is that no American citizens were actually denied habeas corpus. Thus, no crime against the Constitution was committed.

Now if you could provide evidence of thousands of Americans being locked up in internment camps with no trial, like that Democrat President, Franklin Roosevelt, did to Japanese-Americans during WW2, and maybe you would have a case.

I was but a wee tot when the Vietnam War was going on, and wasn't yet born when the Korean War was going on. I was however alive and kicking when Bush went about his business by attacking Iraq, finishing up what his daddy didn't.

I was born in 1973, so I don't have any first hand memories of Vietnam or Korea either. However, there are these things called "history books" that are great resources for gathering information about events that happened before you are born.

Even without 9/11 I would have agreed with us going to war with Iraq. Saddam Hussein had been murdering his own citizens and thumbing his nose at the US for entirety of Clinton's ineffective Presidency, so he needed to be removed from power. I actually voted for Bush Jr. the first time because I hoped that he would pick up where his father left off and deal with Iraq.

Are you seriously trying to compare our going to war with Japan and Germany with our war on terror in Iraq? This is beyond ludicrous and isn't deserving of a response.

So, you are dodging the question because your left-wing websites haven't told what to think on this yet?

I hope that this format is acceptable for you, as it also took a bit of time to make sure that each comment of mine which you quoted was attributed to the statements that I replied to.

Yes, much better.

Rev
09-08-2009, 08:51 PM
Typical Liberal who can not have a discussion without personal insults.

LOL I just read what he posted, lol. I didnt even bother watching the vid clip, I was betting it was some liberal junk so I just passed over it.

logrus
09-08-2009, 09:01 PM
No, I would not consider the sites you link to as reliable sources

Could be worse, he could have used Wiki to argue his points. Seems that's pretty much what 99% of the forum does anyways.

NateR
09-09-2009, 01:33 AM
Could be worse, he could have used Wiki to argue his points. Seems that's pretty much what 99% of the forum does anyways.

I think that's a problem on just about every forum on the internet.

Chris F
09-09-2009, 02:52 AM
Now you have be quite curious here.... What exactly do I believe that I'm wrong about? :Whistle:

I'm thinking your shop teacher helped mold your education a little? :laugh:

Sorry I was an AP student not a shop prodigy. :)

What you are wrong about is your assertions that what I said was crap. There is mountains of evidence in the primary sources but you still hold to the revisionist myths and think I am way off. If you had some primary source evidence to back that up, I'd be happy to reconsider.

Buzzard
09-09-2009, 03:12 AM
Typical Liberal who can not have a discussion without personal insults.

Typical conservative who can't comprehend that a question was asked and twists the words to make it sound like an insult. If I wanted to insult the man and say he was like this guy, I would have stated it.

I notice that you haven't jumped in on any of the conservatives and chided them for the personal insults that they have thrown, typical conservative republican double standard.

Of course I seriously doubt that you would chide Nate the Great, that would take actual thinking on your own.

Regarding the pastor in the link, what is your take on him?

Hey Nate, where is the proof that you said you have? Was it a lie? You sure seem to be avoiding it right now, what excuse will you be using?

NateR
09-09-2009, 03:20 AM
Hey Nate, where is the proof that you said you have? Was it a lie? You sure seem to be avoiding it right now, what excuse will you be using?

I already posted it. The fact that the original source was an anonymous tip on an untrustworthy website proves that the story was a lie that only someone predisposed to hating Bush would believe. Again, innocent until proven guilty, you have no real evidence that Bush ever said that, other than baseless accusations from liberal websites. Thus that is the best evidence that it never happened.

Chuck
09-09-2009, 03:32 AM
Sorry I was an AP student not a shop prodigy. :)

What you are wrong about is your assertions that what I said was crap. There is mountains of evidence in the primary sources but you still hold to the revisionist myths and think I am way off. If you had some primary source evidence to back that up, I'd be happy to reconsider.

You need to relax a little brother you're wound too tight. :cool:

You don't have the slightest idea what I think because:

a) I never mentioned my thoughts on the Civil War
b) You never asked :wink:

Personally I could care less... I haven't thought about it since Jr. High.

What you shared seemed so "conspiracy theory" ish that I thought I would have a little fun with you thus my first post with a :wink:, the second post with a :D, and my last post with a :laugh:

Chris my friend it's all good.. relax.. enjoy your night!

Buzzard
09-09-2009, 04:13 AM
I already posted it. The fact that the original source was an anonymous tip on an untrustworthy website proves that the story was a lie that only someone predisposed to hating Bush would believe. Again, innocent until proven guilty, you have no real evidence that Bush ever said that, other than baseless accusations from liberal websites. Thus that is the best evidence that it never happened.

You posted no such thing. Just because a source is anonymous does not prove that the source is wrong. You lied, I accept that. Too bad you can't.

NateR
09-09-2009, 04:15 AM
You posted no such thing. Just because a source is anonymous does not prove that the source is wrong. You lied, I accept that. Too bad you can't.

No, I didn't lie. You just didn't read my post:

The website that initially broke the "story" was Capital Hill Blue and it has a history of reporting rumors and lies as facts. However, the liberal media and all those left-wing websites out there were just all to happy to assume that a negative story about President Bush was true, thus they didn't question it's authenticity and just ran with it.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.html

So, three anonymous sources quoted on disreputable website is all the proof you need to say that this story was fabricated. Remember the innocent until proven guilty thing?

Chris F
09-09-2009, 04:17 AM
You need to relax a little brother you're wound too tight. :cool:

You don't have the slightest idea what I think because:

a) I never mentioned my thoughts on the Civil War
b) You never asked :wink:

Personally I could care less... I haven't thought about it since Jr. High.

What you shared seemed so "conspiracy theory" ish that I thought I would have a little fun with you thus my first post with a :wink:, the second post with a :D, and my last post with a :laugh:

Chris my friend it's all good.. relax.. enjoy your night!

Did you not see the smilley face. I am ribing you back brother. Jeeze why do you all think I am always in the mood to fight. :laugh: Its my friday and believe me I am more then happy tonight. :w00t:

Chuck
09-09-2009, 04:22 AM
Did you not see the smilley face. I am ribing you back brother. Jeeze why do you all think I am always in the mood to fight. :laugh: Its my friday and believe me I am more then happy tonight. :w00t:

Um yeah... I knew that!!!!!

Sheesh... :Whistle:

:D

Chris F
09-09-2009, 06:01 AM
Next guess the quote.

actor 1: Next time you fight try keeping your clothes on

Actor 2 any time any place anywhere, I will be there for you man

Actor 1 I love you my friend

?????

Buzzard
09-09-2009, 06:09 AM
No, I didn't lie. You just didn't read my post:

Here is a link with some thoughts about the story.

http://www.gnn.tv/threads/10799/Bush_on_the_Constitution_It_s_just_a_goddamned_pie ce_of_paper

Fact check did not say it was untrue. It said it was extremely unlikely to be true. Now the link above makes references to Doug Thompson's other stories, and most of them passed the sniff test. So again, you have no proof other than one website which says it is extremely unlikely.

If it was not true, doesn't really matter because Bush's actions spoke louder than his words. Remember, I liked Bush at first and his actions turned me against him, not the media.

Buzzard
09-09-2009, 06:13 AM
Next guess the quote.

actor 1: Next time you fight try keeping your clothes on

Actor 2 any time any place anywhere, I will be there for you man

Actor 1 I love you my friend

?????

Man, I'm horrible at this game. I'll pass. Let me know when we play guess the lyrics.

Neezar
09-09-2009, 06:14 AM
Man, I'm horrible at this game. I'll pass. Let me know when we play guess the lyrics.

Well, you start it. Post some lyrics. :)

NateR
09-09-2009, 06:18 AM
Here is a link with some thoughts about the story.

http://www.gnn.tv/threads/10799/Bush_on_the_Constitution_It_s_just_a_goddamned_pie ce_of_paper

Fact check did not say it was untrue. It said it was extremely unlikely to be true. Now the link above makes references to Doug Thompson's other stories, and most of them passed the sniff test. So again, you have no proof other than one website which says it is extremely unlikely.

If it was not true, doesn't really matter because Bush's actions spoke louder than his words. Remember, I liked Bush at first and his actions turned me against him, not the media.

Again, I don't need to prove that it never happened. You seem to conveniently forget the whole innocent until PROVEN guilty thing when it applies to George W. Bush. No one can prove that it did happen and no one is coming forward and swearing, under oath, that they heard President Bush say this. Thus, it didn't happen. Period. It's just more liberal lies and slander.

There was some stuff on FOX News about it being a fake story as well, but nothing I can easily find on the internet. I'm sure I could find something if I really looked, but since this is America, the burden of proof is on the person making the accusation, which in this case is you. Since you have yet to produce any real evidence that this happened in the first place, then your arguments are invalid. I'm not going to call you a liar, as you seem to enjoy calling me, but I do believe you have allowed yourself to be duped.

Buzzard
09-09-2009, 06:47 AM
Again, I don't need to prove that it never happened. You seem to conveniently forget the whole innocent until PROVEN guilty thing when it applies to George W. Bush.Please, Bush threw away that whole concept. No one can prove that it did happen and no one is coming forward and swearing, under oath, that they heard President Bush say this.Has anyone been asked? Thus, it didn't happen.No, you don't believe it happened. Period. It's just more liberal lies and slander.

There was some stuff on FOX News about it being a fake story as well, but nothing I can easily find on the internet. I'm sure I could find something if I really looked, but since this is America, the burden of proof is on the person making the accusation, which in this case is you. Since you have yet to produce any real evidence that this happened in the first place, then your arguments are invalid. Do you believe that unconfirmed sources can ever be true? I'm not going to call you a liar, as you seem to enjoy calling me, but I do believe you have allowed yourself to be duped.

I called you a liar because you stated that you had proof that it was untrue. You didn't. That is not proof, had you used different words, I wouldn't have called you on it. You linked to a site that said it is extremely unlikely to be true. Big difference. The author of the story stood by it. I guess we'll never know unless someone there fesses up. You want to possibly use FOX News as a possible source, please, isn't that just as biased a source as you could get?

His actions on trampling the constitution were far more grievous to me than his possible saying that the CONUS was a damned piece of paper. If he didn't say it, I owe Mr. Bush an apology. Have him contact me if you wish.:laugh:

NateR
09-09-2009, 07:01 AM
In retrospect, maybe "proved" was the wrong word to use, but we were clearly speaking with tongue firmly in cheek in those initial posts.

You want to possibly use FOX News as a possible source, please, isn't that just as biased a source as you could get?

I figured that would be your reaction, but I don't believe they are really that biased. Maybe a little slanted to the right, but nowhere near as biased as liberal networks like MSNBC, CNN, BBC, ABC, CBS and NBC are.

His actions on trampling the constitution were far more grievous to me than his possible saying that the CONUS was a damned piece of paper.

Yeah, well I don't believe any of that actually happened. You've just bought into all the left-wing lies and slander about President Bush.

What did George W. Bush actually do that was as bad as... let's say locking up all the Japanese-Americans in internment camps without a trial during WW2, even though they had committed no crime?

Liberals try to claim that Bush is the worst President in our history, but conveniently forget the horrible violations of human rights that have been committed by Presidents in the past. I don't see Bush as being guilty of anything even remotely similar to what Franklin Roosevelt did.

Buzzard
09-09-2009, 07:30 AM
In retrospect, maybe "proved" was the wrong word to use, but we were clearly speaking with tongue firmly in cheek in those initial posts.

I apologize then for calling you a liar. I'm sorry.

I figured that would be your reaction, but I don't believe they are really that biased. Maybe a little slanted to the right, but nowhere near as biased as liberal networks like MSNBC, CNN, BBC, ABC, CBS and NBC are.

I think all news sources are somewhat biased actually. One has to pick through the garbage to get the actual news. Most news stations seem to offer up opinions along with the actual happenings.

Yeah, well I don't believe any of that actually happened. You've just bought into all the left-wing lies and slander about President Bush.

There is too much information out there to show what happened for me to link you to it. If something is true, it's not slander.

What did George W. Bush actually do that was as bad as... let's say locking up all the Japanese-Americans in internment camps without a trial during WW2, even though they had committed no crime?

No he didn't to anything as bad as that to American citizens. He did do his fair share of shameful acts though. I wasn't a fan of Clinton but gave Bush a chance. He lost me as a supporter with his actions. I won't say I wouldn't have a beer with the guy, but I won't say that he made the world like us either.

Liberals try to claim that Bush is the worst President in our history, but conveniently forget the horrible violations of human rights that have been committed by Presidents in the past. I don't see Bush as being guilty of anything even remotely similar to what Franklin Roosevelt did.

I tend to remember things that happened during my lifetime. Like you, I wasn't around when Roosevelt was president. What actions of Roosevelt are you talking about?



EDIT:

I'll drop saying that Bush called the CONUS just a piece of paper as I can't prove that he said it. I do think that he was capable at the time of saying it, possibly because of the stressful position he was in.

Rev
09-09-2009, 05:18 PM
Next guess the quote.

actor 1: Next time you fight try keeping your clothes on

Actor 2 any time any place anywhere, I will be there for you man

Actor 1 I love you my friend

?????

BloodSport!!!
What do I win?!?!?!?!?:)

Rev
09-09-2009, 05:20 PM
My turn,

"what we do in life, echos in eternity"

What movie, and who said it?

Chris F
09-09-2009, 08:34 PM
My turn,

"what we do in life, echos in eternity"

What movie, and who said it?


Maxiumnus from Gladiator


Here is one not so popular. One will more then likely need to cheat and use google.

"Hey! Preacher man got himself some new threads"

What movie and who said it.

Crisco
09-09-2009, 09:00 PM
BloodSport!!!
What do I win?!?!?!?!?:)


The best part about that was they had only known eachother for like 3 days. lol.

Crisco
09-09-2009, 09:01 PM
Here's mine



"What the **** is the internet?"

Preach
09-09-2009, 11:20 PM
Who says this?
No one lives forever, no one. But with advances in modern science and my high level income, it's not crazy to think I can live to be 245, maybe 300. Heck, I just read in the newspaper that they put a pig heart in some guy from Russia. Do you know what that means?

Mac
09-09-2009, 11:46 PM
Who says this?
No one lives forever, no one. But with advances in modern science and my high level income, it's not crazy to think I can live to be 245, maybe 300. Heck, I just read in the newspaper that they put a pig heart in some guy from Russia. Do you know what that means?


LOL!!!!!!! Ricky Bobby

Rev
09-10-2009, 08:59 PM
Maxiumnus from Gladiator


Here is one not so popular. One will more then likely need to cheat and use google.

"Hey! Preacher man got himself some new threads"

What movie and who said it.

I have no idea:blink:

Crisco
09-10-2009, 09:02 PM
I have no idea:blink:

It's brokeback montain. duh.

Rev
09-10-2009, 09:02 PM
Here's mine



"What the **** is the internet?"
Jay said that in on of Kevin Smith's movies, I think it was Jay and Silent bob Stike back.

Chris F
09-10-2009, 09:03 PM
I have no idea:blink:

I bet if you googled it you would find out. A clue however is that it is a Christian film, that was filmed in Fresno and Visalia California my old stomping grounds.

Crisco
09-10-2009, 09:05 PM
Jay said that in on of Kevin Smith's movies, I think it was Jay and Silent bob Stike back.

You win!

Bonus one

"What about my dreams??

"I can't build you a candy house Edith it will melt!"

"Not if it never rains"

NateR
09-10-2009, 10:16 PM
I tend to remember things that happened during my lifetime. Like you, I wasn't around when Roosevelt was president. What actions of Roosevelt are you talking about?.

Roosevelt was the President who ordered Japanese-Americans to be placed into internment camps during WW2:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/internment1.html

Tyburn
09-10-2009, 11:17 PM
Roosevelt was the President who ordered Japanese-Americans to be placed into internment camps during WW2:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/internment1.html

Kinda nasty...but also kinda understandable after Pearl I suppose.

I wasnt aware that the United States decided to effectively lock up Japanese Americans, even naturalized by birth ones. Thats been kept uber secret from the rest of the World....that is NOT common knowledge, I know WW2 Degree Level Students who havent heard of this.

You see what the U.S and Britian can do with Terror laws now? you dont need to committ or even be planning to committ an offense to dissapear, on the off chance you might some time in the future decide to do so.

England next week will Establish a "Supreme Court" with nine Judges capable of over rulling the House of Lords. It will be the first time in our Nations History, since The Cromwellian Dissolusion of Parliament during The Republic set up during/after the War that any person, or group of people under ten, outside of the Monarch/effectively above her Judicially, will have ultimate authority.

The Supreme Court will basically act like the European Court of Appeals, but be classed as British rather then European. So what happens is you fight in the law courts, you lose, you appeal to the law courts, you lose again, you go to the House of Lords, you lose, you go to The Home Secretary (who acts as the Monarch) you lose...you go to the Supreme Court...you Lose, you go to the European Courts...you lose, you appeal...you lose and your screwed :laugh:

eric84
09-11-2009, 12:23 AM
Kinda nasty...but also kinda understandable after Pearl I suppose.

I wasnt aware that the United States decided to effectively lock up Japanese Americans, even naturalized by birth ones. Thats been kept uber secret from the rest of the World....that is NOT common knowledge, I know WW2 Degree Level Students who havent heard of this.

You see what the U.S and Britian can do with Terror laws now? you dont need to committ or even be planning to committ an offense to dissapear, on the off chance you might some time in the future decide to do so.

England next week will Establish a "Supreme Court" with nine Judges capable of over rulling the House of Lords. It will be the first time in our Nations History, since The Cromwellian Dissolusion of Parliament during The Republic set up during/after the War that any person, or group of people under ten, outside of the Monarch/effectively above her Judicially, will have ultimate authority.

The Supreme Court will basically act like the European Court of Appeals, but be classed as British rather then European. So what happens is you fight in the law courts, you lose, you appeal to the law courts, you lose again, you go to the House of Lords, you lose, you go to The Home Secretary (who acts as the Monarch) you lose...you go to the Supreme Court...you Lose, you go to the European Courts...you lose, you appeal...you lose and your screwed :laugh:

The internment camps are common knowledge in the United States(or should be). It is taught in history classes that all students take. Now of course most people probably don't remember it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't taught to them. I've done a little research about the camps and from what I have seen/read, the Japanese people as a whole did not feel bitter to the United States government for it. Since I wasn't there, I can't say for sure, just going off things I have read. While I can see why they would do such a thing after Pearl Harbor, there probably was a better way to handle it, but hindsight is always easier.

bradwright
09-11-2009, 01:24 AM
Kinda nasty...but also kinda understandable after Pearl I suppose.

I wasnt aware that the United States decided to effectively lock up Japanese Americans, even naturalized by birth ones. Thats been kept uber secret from the rest of the World....that is NOT common knowledge, I know WW2 Degree Level Students who havent heard of this.

You see what the U.S and Britian can do with Terror laws now? you dont need to committ or even be planning to committ an offense to dissapear, on the off chance you might some time in the future decide to do so.

England next week will Establish a "Supreme Court" with nine Judges capable of over rulling the House of Lords. It will be the first time in our Nations History, since The Cromwellian Dissolusion of Parliament during The Republic set up during/after the War that any person, or group of people under ten, outside of the Monarch/effectively above her Judicially, will have ultimate authority.

The Supreme Court will basically act like the European Court of Appeals, but be classed as British rather then European. So what happens is you fight in the law courts, you lose, you appeal to the law courts, you lose again, you go to the House of Lords, you lose, you go to The Home Secretary (who acts as the Monarch) you lose...you go to the Supreme Court...you Lose, you go to the European Courts...you lose, you appeal...you lose and your screwed :laugh:

i'm surprised that you didn't know that Dave...

Chris F
09-11-2009, 03:57 AM
The internment camps are common knowledge in the United States(or should be). It is taught in history classes that all students take. Now of course most people probably don't remember it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't taught to them. I've done a little research about the camps and from what I have seen/read, the Japanese people as a whole did not feel bitter to the United States government for it. Since I wasn't there, I can't say for sure, just going off things I have read. While I can see why they would do such a thing after Pearl Harbor, there probably was a better way to handle it, but hindsight is always easier.

I have taught college history classes and this event has been ignored. I did talk about it even though it was not in the required text because it was in my opinion a needed lesson. Much of Americans hate crimes have been sugar coated except for the civil rights era. Few people know that most Northern states had laws against blacks even living there. Most Northern factories prohibited black workers. In fact Honest Abe once defended a business man in illinois who mistreated his slave. Many High school texts I have read only mention it in a paragraph, but most leave it out all together, besides football coaches are more worried about game day then America history.

Buzzard
09-11-2009, 04:20 AM
Roosevelt was the President who ordered Japanese-Americans to be placed into internment camps during WW2:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/internment1.html

Ah, gotcha. I used to know a lady who was in one of the internment camps. My girlfriend at the time sang at her church.

Tyburn
09-11-2009, 12:51 PM
i'm surprised that you didn't know that Dave...

its not common knowledge over here I dont think :blink: