|
|
|
|
|
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/12/2009 7:30:39 AM |
When did I? I made a opinion and was called an ass. I am getting used to it though. It's the Liberal way.
By your line of thinking, then, you must be a liberal.
Msg. 207:
there's no arguing with idiots.
Msg. 215:
I see why most Americans seriously hate Liberals.
Msg. 149:
Funny how the far left loons are not held to the same standards.
This is just from your few posts in this thread. I'm sure if I went to others, I would find far more. | |
|
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/12/2009 8:25:59 AM | | Excuse me for rounding out numbers. You know what I meant so give it a rest. And I think being free is a bit more important than being under someone's thumb, especially if that thumb belonged to Saddam. | |
|
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/12/2009 8:43:38 AM | Recently I saw an interview with lewis black on the situation room that put the asghanistan and middle east thing in a greater perspective.
If they really wanted hussien or bin laden or any other of those guys dead they could have saved a lot of money and time and simply sent in an assassin. But the corporations like haliburton or any other military contract owner would have made nothing.
Also with the modern tech available today, they could have gone with an air attack and saved many young lives from having to go looking for roadside bombs.
This whole spreading of democracy crap is so transparent, the heavy concentration of multinational corporations are the ones with the finger on the button. The man in the office is either a puppet or in on it.
Like I said before, it really is hard to tell with bush. There hasn't been a president in awhile that wrote his own material for leno on the late show. | |
|
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/12/2009 9:28:12 AM | "I think being free is a bit more important than being under someone's thumb, especially if that thumb belonged to Saddam."
It's amazing that there are some die hard Bush supporters who still follow the propaganda the he catapulted into their brains. The "freedom" thing only came about after the WMDs excuse proved bogus, as well as the Saddam links to al Qaeda and 9/11 were shown to be constructed lies by Bush and his Handlers. The 935 lies that led to the invasion did not mention "freedom". Though Bush had intended to invade Iraq before he was selected as president, he also noted at the same time...
"I mean we’re going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America. Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That’s what it’s meant to do and when it gets overextended, morale drops.” – Oct. 11, 2000
•“I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in national building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.” Oct. 4, 2000
There were dozens of dictators more brutal the Saddam that we did not feel any compelling reason to "free their people". It was always about the oil, Bush's fragile ego, the PNAC agenda, and appeasing certain allies in the region.
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761
“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”
Bush/Cheney and the gang of liars are indeed war criminals that will one day be brought to justice.
Benjamin Ferencz who worked with the Nueuremburg War Crimes Trials noted.
"Eight years ago today as we invaded Afghanistan, the U.S. State Department said that the United States had a "clear right to self defense" following the September 11 attacks.
Here’s what the Bush Doctrine says:
“To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense.”
Please note that not one of the alleged hijackers of September 11, 2001 was from Afghanistan – or Iraq – or even Pakistan. The government of Afghanistan did not attack us. The alleged master perpetrator, Osama bin Laden, whose complicity in the crime remains unproven, was almost certainly in Pakistan – not Afghanistan – at the time.
The UN Charter permits the use of armed force under only two conditions:
1. Self-defense against an armed attack
2. With the approval of the UN Security Council.
The UN Security Council did not authorize use of force against Afghanistan prior to, during, or after the U.S. invasion on October 7, 2001. The U.S. justified its military aggression based on "self-defense."
Congress never passed a war resolution act against Afghanistan. The U.S. government acted, and continues to act, without legal authorization or justification.
Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter defined Crimes Against Peace as "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.“
Our country is engaged in an illegal war of aggression in Afghanistan.
The International Court at Nuremberg declared:
"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
end snip.
Obama's continuation of these wars is also wrong, but he is in part a victim of the former regime, paying the China shop bill after Bush and Co. broke the goods and the laws. | |
|
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/12/2009 10:42:45 AM | .
....You might poll the Christians that still live in Iraq about freedoms.......
GW Bush and Cheney being charged with war crimes is not some fantasy. It has nothing to do with the US system or Obama.
Spanish Judges are working on it... The same judges that chased Pinochet down....
Someday there will be a Warrant.
Bush lovers and Neo-Con's dismiss the actions of the Bush/Cheney administration.
Bush/Cheney freely admit committing war crimes. Bragged ....
Respect and immunity in courts of the world....No more......
Judge Baltasar Garzón is now handling a case against six senior Bush administration lawyers for torture at Guantánamo. Judge Garzón had accepted a lawsuit presented by a number of Spanish organizations — the Asociación Pro Dignidad de los Presos y Presas de España (Organization for the Dignity of Spanish Prisoners), Asociación Libre de Abogados (Free Lawyers Association), the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos de España (Association for Human Rights in Spain) and Izquierda Unida (a left-wing political party) — and three former Guantánamo prisoners (the British residents Jamil El-Banna and Omar Deghayes, and Sami El-Laithi, an Egyptian freed in 2005, who was paralyzed during an incident involving guards at Guantánamo).
Alberto Gonzales Former Attorney General;
Douglas Feith, the former undersecretary of defense for policy;
William J. Haynes II, the Defense Department’s former general counsel;
Jay S. Bybee, Yoo’s superior in the OLC, who signed off on the August 2002 “torture memos”; David Addington, former Vice President****Cheney’s Chief of Staff.
Bush travel plans .... Texas or last resort his ranch in Paraguay....
Cheney will be safe in Dubai ....
Rummie ....... low fruit?
This has nothing to do with the Liberals in the USA....
Charges against Pinochet took years ...
. | |
|
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/12/2009 10:52:23 AM | It's amazing that there are some die hard Bush supporters who still follow the propaganda the he catapulted into their brains. The "freedom" thing only came about after the WMDs excuse proved bogus, as well as the Saddam links to al Qaeda and 9/11 were shown to be constructed lies by Bush and his Handlers. The 935 lies that led to the invasion did not mention "freedom". Though Bush had intended to invade Iraq before he was selected as president, he also noted at the same time...
"I mean we’re going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America. Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That’s what it’s meant to do and when it gets overextended, morale drops.” – Oct. 11, 2000
•“I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in national building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.” Oct. 4, 2000
There were dozens of dictators more brutal the Saddam that we did not feel any compelling reason to "free their people". It was always about the oil, Bush's fragile ego, the PNAC agenda, and appeasing certain allies in the region.
100%.  Especially at the beginning of the above quoted section , when you said, "the 'freedom' thing only came about after the WMD's excuse proved bogus, as well as the Saddam links to alQaeda and 9/11...". "Freeing" ordinary Iraqis was simply never the primary driving concern for the people instrumental in planning and executing this war. Never. No one will ever convince me it was. And they can thank the Bush admin itself for that.
They stated to us all, plain as day, on TV over and over again during the run-up to that invasion, that the primary reasons and concerns behind this war were "finding the WMD's" ; "pre-empting" some kind of supposed strike that was supposedly going to come at any time from Iraq (remember, "the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud..."  ); and also removing Saddam Hussein because he was supposedly "allied" with alQaeda (he was not), and he may have had something to do with 9/11 (he did not)....for example it was even being told to us back then that Muhammad Atta had supposedly met with an "Iraqi intell agent" in Prague (it turned out of course he did not).
Only after caskets and maimed young people started coming back here, after the "Mission Accomplished" flight-deck landing, and it became clear that there WERE no "WMD's", and none of that other stuff they'd sold us on had ever been true either, only then did it suddenly become this great humanitarian mission, and every Marine kicking in a door doing random house-to-house searches should not really be seen by you the Iraqi as any sort of invader or occupier, or nuisance, but simply a great benign "liberator" whose rifle in your face and barked orders at the checkpoint is only being misunderstood by your countrymen. The mercenary interrogator watching sadistically as some grunts pile you in a naked human pyramid, or put ropes around your private parts, or put soiled undergarments on your head and chain you to a rack in an impossible position, well they've been disciplined and they hope there's no hard feelings. After all this was for the greater good of you and your people, all for your freedom. Those types, those "bad apples", they were just cogs in a larger machine they don't really control. They were just a part, regretfully overzealous perhaps, of a truly Nobel-worthy mission, if only you could see the bigger picture... | |
|
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/12/2009 4:36:08 PM | Bush this, Obama that, blah blah....while the same corporations rake in the dough.
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. | |
|
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/13/2009 7:55:10 AM | ^^^ That's true too. I realize to an extent (given the amount of undue corporate influence in DC) the two mainstream accepted parties are just two sides of the same coin. But at the same time what can we really do about this?? We end up, at the end of the day, voting with whichever of the two comes somewhat closest to suiting us for whatever reasons (financial, personal, moral, social , what have you; or sometimes overlapping). OR...we can vote for third party candidates who really may not be half so much in the pockets of the same corporates and lobbying interests and so forth, but who essentially stand NO real chance of ever getting past a primary season. They end up being "write-ins" because they're not even on any real ballot half the time. The mainstream media (also corporate-owned of course) just has it all locked up to where many people will not get a chance to even hear a third party candidate's views (unless the anchors are just sort of mocking him perhaps).
Beyond that, the electoral college system (something which is totally antiquated and could just as well be removed in my opinion) also helps see to it that this remains a "two-party" country. So power just flips back and forth occasionally between the "accepted" two parties with the stamps of approval.
Personally I'd like to see nothing more than viable third (and fourth, and fifth) parties spring up, and have real electoral chances, and have the chance to actually promote their platforms in debates where they're not censored or otherwise stopped from speaking , and they're not mocked by either FOX or MSNBC partisan anchormen on the same corporate payrolls. And also, if the electoral college was finally gotten rid of, the people would finally directly elect their leaders and other party candidates may stand more of a fighting chance.
In IL for instance, it's basically known that the state for the past 20 + years is almost always blue. This is almost solely because of the Cook County area (which has the most people and therefore pulls the weight), and also the (often badly corrupt) Cook County political "machines" around here which are almost always Democrat. Now, even though I'm far from being one myself, Republican-inclined voters , or also even third party-inclined voters around here, essentially have no real vote IMO. They can go into that booth and cast a ballot for whoever they want. It's symbolic at best. Because if they live in Cook County, it's a lock for the blue almost without fail. So where's their real voice in helping elect leaders? Of course that's just one aspect of it; one problem, so to speak. The entire system needs an overhaul IMO, and I'd also not be against term limits on Congress people, to help "drain the swamp" (to use Nancy Pelosi's turn of phrase.....although personally she'd be one of the ones I'd "drain" out as well). | |
|
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/13/2009 10:38:35 AM | \\It's amazing that there are some die hard Bush supporters who still follow the propaganda the he catapulted into their brains..\\
 please please stop, i'm in agony from fits of laughter...
And from the left wingnuts we have quotes from the fountain of truth catapulted into their brains....
http://www.gnn.tv ... guerilla news network ... a blog site
\\Bush/Cheney and the gang of liars are indeed war criminals\\
And there was me thinking the left and liberal wingnuts believe in the principle of 'Innocent until proven guilty', and until anyone is found guilty, it's alleged....
\\The alleged master perpetrator, Osama bin Laden, whose complicity in the crime remains unproven\\
Aww shite - i'm so dumb... I forgot, we do live in a left liberal democracy where certain double standards have to be maintained...
| |
|
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/13/2009 2:47:43 PM | Good to see you in agony Theory. I love the bit where the party of double standards accuses liberals of having them. That is amusing as hell. Tap your toes, grab your boy or ho, and hike the Appalachian trail while saying Amen Jesus. 
As Bushie said, "See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
Some of the propoganda included the 935 lies to war. Feel free to rewrite history for yourself. We cain't get fooled again....
http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/ | |
|
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/13/2009 2:53:18 PM |
And there was me thinking the left and liberal wingnuts believe in the principle of 'Innocent until proven guilty', and until anyone is found guilty, it's alleged....
the wingnuts apparently know the difference between an opinion and a verdict, which we can see that some people don't.
verdict - proven in a court of law
opinion - free for all to voice | |
|
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/13/2009 3:12:17 PM | | Saw the subject title and was kind of afraid to look in Kinda like watching a train wreck . I feel we are all really pissed because the government has been hijacked by politicians . If we voted togeather to do the best thing for the country it would be cool . But hey we could not say My party is right . Also we would not be able to hate people that belive different . Do I admire Bush No . Is Obama any better no . OK carry on with that hate ....LOL This is like beating your head aginst the wall . | |
|
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/13/2009 3:17:23 PM | Interesting viewpoint Dino and I agree about the power flipping back and forth between the two parties, as well as, voting for whatever party seems to suit us at the time. Isn't it interesting that the control seem to pretty much just go back and forth as though they are just handing the torch over for a little while to calm the masses?
I totally agree that the system needs an overhall and would be very supportive of term limits. The problem with term limits though is that it's a local decision and in instances like Cook County which you mentioned, why would the system allow term limits as long as they are controlling who gets in? | |
|
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/13/2009 4:59:05 PM | The "flipping" back and forth of control is an illusion.
The control is always at the Fed and Wall St. | |
|
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/13/2009 5:39:01 PM | | And the control of the Fed and Wall st. is always under the control of the shifting bar of what is capitalism, and far right. The libs and progressives merely try to catch up to increasing levels of evil and greed in order to try to remain relevant in the moral and cultural meltdown...bless their hearts. | |
|
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/13/2009 9:19:33 PM | You are utterly full of sh**.
Where have you been? In a cave?
You don't get how it works buddy.
Special interests give to both sides, often in equal amounts.
You are clueless.
You want me to talk about Dodd, Frank, Rangel, Waters, Rubin, Clinton, Schumer, Summers, Geithner, etc.etc.etc.?
I'm not in the mood, but I could list their enthusiastic involvement with helping to inflate the housing bubble by virtue of the fact that it got them huge dollars with which they were able to buy votes and/or make a killing off the taxpayers. Don't get me started. I eat partisans like you for breakfast.
What are you? Crazy or ignorant? Or in denial? Or maybe just a liar?
The Dems are every bit as dirty.
Why not start at The Baseline Scenario.com
Perhaps an MIT economist can help you out a bit in your hour of need.
That might help you to unload some of your partisan silliness. But then again, some folks lack integrity to the point where they simply refuse to process facts that interfere with their moronic stances. | |
|
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/14/2009 8:10:36 AM | Formerseeayeay..
Why do ya have to go all ad hominem and be so friggin insulting when someone has a different view?
I never said the Dems were above corruption, but merely noted that the Repubs are the masters of it and Dems tend to be amateurs and in the case of the last admin, under scrutiny far more than Repubs.
I'm an independent but vote for Dems more often who support my values. The corruption is very much part of what people perceive via past performance.
Even Repubs admit that they are more corrupt and accept the culture of corruption.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rob_kall_060303_trickle_down_republi.htm
snip.
the OpEdNews.com /Zogby People's poll of 850 Pennsylvania voters, we found that Republicans were far more likely to expect corruption. We asked, "Who is more corrupt, if at all, Republicans or Democrats?" 48% of respondents said Republicans and 9% said Democrats. 41% said both equally. Women said 60% Republicans and 4% Democrats. But it gets most interesting when you compare Republicans and democrats, looking at the crosstabs.
83% of Democrats said Republicans were corrupt, compared to 6% of Republicans saying that Republicans are corrupt Only 21% of Republicans said Democrats are corrupt and only one percent of Democrats said Democrats are corrupt. Most interesting, 71% of Republicans said that both parties are equally corrupt, whereas only 14% of Democrats say both parties are equally corrupt.
If you add up the percentage of Republicans who say that Republicans are corrupt and both parties are corrupt you get a total of 77% of Republicans saying that Republicans are corrupt, compared to 15% of Democrats saying Democrats are corrupt. What does this mean? Republicans assume their representatives are corrupt because they think everyone is corrupt. That's the mindset of a culture of corruption. They see they world as corrupt and they accept it. Let's take a closer look.
end snip..
And, under the Bush regime, there appeared to be a witchhunt for Democratic corruption by his cherry picked AGs.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002420.php
snip.
a new study shows that such federal investigations may have been politicized throughout the Bush administration.
A study of reported federal investigations of elected officials and candidates shows that the Bush administration’s Justice Department pursues Democrats far more than Republicans. 79 percent of elected officials and candidates who’ve faced a federal investigation (a total of 379) between 2001 and 2006 were Democrats, the study found – only 18 percent were Republicans. During that period, Democrats made up 50 percent of elected officeholders and office seekers during the time period, and 41 percent were Republicans during that period, according to the study.
"The chance of such a heavy Democratic-Republican imbalance occurring at random is 1 in 10,000," according to the study's authors.
The vast disparity came not from the more high-profile investigations of state-wide or federal officeholders (the disparity there was 55-44 Democratic), but from the far more numerous investigations of local officials. The study found that 85 percent of the 309 local officials and candidates who faced investigation were Democrats.
end snip..
The fact that the Bush regime was politically motivated to target Dems and set up sting operations directed toward them, was in itself yet another form of corruption.
I hate the political system of finance that sets both parties up for becoming whores to industry and special interests. It's too bad that every day citizens can no longer afford to run for office. The millionaires and billionaires who do, only exacerbate the slide further into corruption. | |
|
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/14/2009 10:25:42 AM | | Richard Nixon was a much better President than George Bush, and Bush's father, did a lot more better in Foreign Affairs than his son did, heck, even his Father chose not to invade Iraq after the first 1991 Gulf War because he knew it would be a war that could not be won. | |
|
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/14/2009 10:59:38 AM | Cheney originally was against it also......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZM
How times change. | |
|
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/14/2009 11:21:08 AM | | What could have made****Cheney change his mind? and even still after all these years, Bush and Cheney will still not admit the Iraq War was a mistake, when are all the troops gonna come home? | |
|
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/14/2009 11:26:21 AM |
You are utterly full of sh**.
Where have you been? In a cave?
You don't get how it works buddy.
Special interests give to both sides, often in equal amounts.
You are clueless.
You want me to talk about Dodd, Frank, Rangel, Waters, Rubin, Clinton, Schumer, Summers, Geithner, etc.etc.etc.?
no we'd like to see your "unbiased, I don't like either side" self post a republican in that list.
the new conservative. so embarrassed by their own party and the failure of their tenets that they are now members of neither party but bash only one.
running scared is what thats called. | |
|
| |
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/18/2009 5:49:32 AM | There ARE a few differences between Obama and Bush beyond intelligence, eloquence, and background.
Bush lied his way into a war of convenience with a need to sate his ego that he was tougher than his daddy and for delusions of end times grandeur. Obama is cleaning up after Bush's delusions.
Bush was at war with the environment, the EPA, science, truth, and protection of human health. Obama is restoring the EPA and scientific basis of policy and has vowed to actually protect the environment and human health.
Bush inherited a booming economy with controlled government spending and turned it into the worst economy since the Great Depression and largest government spending and debt in history. Obama has inherited Bush's disaster and must rebuild.
Bush established his government on secrecy and back room meetings, shutting out FOIA requests and the right of the American people to know what their country is doing. Obama has restored FOIA and transparency in government, giving a seat to everyone who has a stake a place at the table.
Bush tore down standard international agreements on the treatment of prisoners and fundamental rights of prosecution. Obama has restored habeas corpus, has vowed to shut down Gitmo and ended torture of prisoners as it was ordered by the Bush administration.
Bush appointed cronies, donors and lobbyists for high-ranking positions in the administration; Obama has closed the revolving door between positions in the administration and lobbying firms. He also has used professional competency as a qualification for positions.
Bush practiced political warfare from the White House, demonizing the left as traitors and terrorist sympathizers. Bush developed a Nixonian enemies list with hundreds of thousands of protesters on no-fly and terrorist watch lists. Obama is abolishing the politics of division.
Bush pandered to religious extremists and used religious ideology to script policy, disdained, ignored and corrupted scientific analysis and method; Obama is restoring the integrity of science and its application to government policy to actually do what is morally correct.
Bush undermined the U.S. Constitution by trying to modify law with signing statements. Obama has abolished that practice and has ordered a review of every single signing statement made by Bush.
Bush snubbed his nose at international Law and alienated most of the world against the US and our policies. Obama has healed many of those wounds already with his diplomacy intitiatives.
Then there is Juan Cole's top 10 differences.
Top Ten Differences Between Bush & Obama First 7 Months
Obama, unlike Bush:
1. Has no plans to invade any new oil countries.
2. Knows who president of Pakistan is
3. Knows how to safely consume pretzels
4. Does not take orders from his veep
5. Not on vacation 40% of time
6. Clears away Bush's harm, rather than clearing brush on farm
7. Worried about 47 million uninsured, not about 47 thousand idle rich multi-millionaires
8. Not removing oversight from bankers on theory that financiers would never steal from own bank!
9. does not believe US menaced by Gog and Magog
10. Not ignoring threat of al-Qaeda | |
|
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/18/2009 7:24:09 AM | | ^^^ I agree. <img src=http://www.plentyoffish.com/smiles/icon_201.gif border=0> People stating that they are identical or "no different" are making a very large over-statement. I have said before (and still maintain) many mainstream Democrats and Republicans can appear at times, on certain issues in particular, to be "two sides of the same coin". But that having been said, they are not identical. | |
|
| We should ALL admire George Bush
Posted: 10/18/2009 10:39:15 AM |
7. Worried about 47 million uninsured
Wait, I thought Obama said there were 30 million uninsured in the speech he gave.
So we can add "Does not really know how many uninsured he is worried about." to that list to which we could also add:
"Worried about insuring a varible number of uninsured while the rest of the country is worried about the economy." | |
|
|
| Page 10 of 11
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
|
Home
login 
