NationStates Jolt Archive

Now before you conservatives get all up in a snort and bash the thread with out reading it, or scoffing and chalking it off as democrat propoganda, I am not a Democrat, I am liberal, very Liberal so open your eyes and hear both sides of the argument.

Now Hitler Muscled his way into the governmrnt. George Bush, well I only have to say Floridia. Hitler had his party who had the majority burn down the reichstag (german parliment) and blame it on the Communists to recieve "Emergency Powers". George Bush convieniently did not see the papers warning him about 9/11 and allowed it to happen desroying our commerce builings and damaging our Military nerve center, the very next few days the Patriot Act and othe subsequent laws were made to give the government virtually unlimited power. Hitler blamed every problem on the Jews. Well lets say Bush can only say Muslim Extreists or Iraq. Ill add more as it comes to me. You all can add you similarities or challange it.

Well terrorists attack the WTC towers, and i don't recall the jews attacking Germany, I didn't see Bush getting any emergency powers either.

I don't like Dubya, that Damn right wing nazi republican baby slapping cowboy.

Now before you conservatives get all up in a snort and bash the thread with out reading it, or scoffing and chalking it off as democrat propoganda, I am not a Democrat, I am liberal, very Liberal so open your eyes and hear both sides of the argument.

Now Hitler Muscled his way into the governmrnt. George Bush, well I only have to say Floridia. Hitler had his party who had the majority burn down the reichstag (german parliment) and blame it on the Communists to recieve "Emergency Powers". George Bush convieniently did not see the papers warning him about 9/11 and allowed it to happen desroying our commerce builings and damaging our Military nerve center, the very next few days the Patriot Act and othe subsequent laws were made to give the government virtually unlimited power. Hitler blamed every problem on the Jews. Well lets say Bush can only say Muslim Extreists or Iraq. Ill add more as it comes to me. You all can add you similarities or challange it.

Bust out your tinfoil hat, Alex Jones....

Well terrorists attack the WTC towers, and i don't recall the jews attacking Germany, I didn't see Bush getting any emergency powers either.
War.

Bust out your tinfoil hat, Alex Jones....


No they can see throught tinfoil now, I use an intricate combo of tampons and bubble yum

Ah, but at least Hitler was a good speaker who pulled Germany out of debt. Can't say that for Bush.

Ah, but at least Hitler was a good speaker who pulled Germany out of debt. Can't say that for Bush.
And he was no slack jawed hick either...

To be fair if you compare anyone to Hitler your just flaim baiting. Besides that, granted that I don't like Bush, but he certaintly doesn't deserve that comparisan. First of all Bush never had any one destroy the WTC, it was just his gross incompatence.

To be fair if you compare anyone to Hitler your just flaim baiting. Besides that, granted that I don't like Bush, but he certaintly doesn't deserve that comparisan. First of all Bush never had any one destroy the WTC, it was just his gross incompatence.

I personally feel he and his cronies had their hand in the pie. I will keep it from being a flame fest

Bush has done alot of bad shit. ALOT. But nothing like the halocaust.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/bob/02/55_cheney.jpg
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!

I personally feel he and his cronies had their hand in the pie.
It's possible, but that is something that I would need clear evidence to believe.

I will keep it from being a flame fest.
It's already out of your hands.

Granted, Bush did use 9/11 to push his agenda no matter how insane it was; also he did cheat his way into office, but comparing him to Hitler is childish.

Bush has done alot of bad shit. ALOT. But nothing like the halocaust.
Never said anything about it. Notice the Threads title use of Like not Is Hitler.

I think people also need to remember that Clinton had about a million chances to get Osama bin Laden but he never acted till it was too late.

You know a difference between the two is that Hitler actualy WON his election...

It's possible, but that is something that I would need clear evidence to believe.


It's already out of your hands.

Granted, Bush did use 9/11 to push his agenda no matter how insane it was; also he did cheat his way into office, but comparing him to Hitler is childish.

I don't agree - comparing Bush to Hitler is certainly provocative and controversial, but honestly, some of his supporters and pro-war advocates are so fanatical you have to hit them with a proverbial sledgehammer to interrupt their "I love Bush" mantra...

...still, as with most debates, both sides will prbably walk away thinking exactly what they thought to begin with.

oh, you forgot to mention that bush's first company was funded by saudi bank fraud, his whole maniacal execution spree while govenor of texas (most lethal governor in US history), or his insane political choice of ASHCROFT (he managed to avoid desegregating schools in his home of st louis for ages, and I beleive was held in contempt of the supreme court for his repeated attempts to avoid integration effots). His family was involved in the Iran-Contra affair (selling illegal arms to terrorists to fund a drug cartel in nicaragua, I beleive). In other, fringe-type areas...the NYFD reported bombs in the world trade centers, and it certainly would be to bush's political advantage to plants them. He is most certainly a plutocrat with astonishingly little regaurd for human life - and the political happenings since he has been in power have been rather nazi-like. Comparing him to Hitler is a bit silly, as hitler was much more intellegent, and more of a romantic (albiet a deranged one), than bush - but don't say that it's childish to compare him - it isn't.

don't agree - comparing Bush to Hitler is certainly provocative and controversial, but honestly, some of his supporters and pro-war advocates are so fanatical you have to hit them with a proverbial sledgehammer to interrupt their "I love Bush" mantra...

I don't agree that nothing good can come out of it, just that being calmer can keep both sides from acting like morons, and hopefully start an intellegent debate. I will retract my previous statement calling it "childish" purely because no one has started acting like ass holes, and have actually added some great insight. Plus Hitler pretty much casted aside all religions, while Bush has pushed a EC agenda for his entire administration.

Recently, it's been theorized that Hitler was a homosexual. I don't see Bush as a homosexual. Though, if he were a closet homosexual, it would explain his animosity toward gay marriage.

Hmm....

I think people also need to remember that Clinton had about a million chances to get Osama bin Laden but he never acted till it was too late.

Try something more like "tried to get him but couldn't get the entrenched intelligence community to prioritize it, and still managed to craft a detailed plan of action that he passed along to his successor who subsequently shelved it and got down to the business to planning a war against Iraq".

I believe that Ms. Rice said it best when she said it wasn't a plan, but a series of actionable items. End of sarcasm.

You know a difference between the two is that Hitler actualy WON his election...

That could be argued. He won, yes, but with the system like it was and I think still is, it only takes 30% of the votes to win. That's the one good thing about the american two-party system.

Hitler was a maniacal dictator bent on world conquest, and the extermination of the Jews, and the bith of a race of "supermen".

Bush wants to actually suspend the constitution of America, and postpone the election in November, becuase of "Terrorism".

Lets see...

If Bush were to cancell the election for any length of time, when it took place
even in the midst of WW2, or any other war....

What would that make Bush?

Oh yes....

A dictator, bent on world conquest, who is in bed with some of the richest and most evil governments in the world.

I don't like Dubya, that Damn right wing nazi republican baby slapping cowboy.
He at least has the guts and glory to stand up for himself unlike all you Liberal, socialist, UN ass-kissers

He at least has the guts and glory to stand up for himself unlike all you Liberal, socialist, UN ass-kissers

*stands up for himself*

Why DO you hate America?

He at least has the guts and glory to stand up for himself unlike all you Liberal, socialist, UN ass-kissers

...and just like you....

He doesnt know what hes talking about either.

*stands up for himself*

Why DO you hate America?
Ask your self the same question :mad:

If you want Bush in office you hate America. Plain and simple.

Ask your self the same question :mad:

That question simply doesn't apply to me. I love America, which is why I am very opposed to another four years of seeing our Constitution shredded.

That question simply doesn't apply to me. I love America, which is why I am very opposed to another four years of seeing our Constitution shredded.

Not all of it. They want to leave part of it intact to make new constitutional amendments that take rights AWAY from people. :p

Well they also want to keep the 2nd admendment, but their plans to obliterate the 1st is going quite well.

That question simply doesn't apply to me. I love America, which is why I am very opposed to another four years of seeing our Constitution shredded.
Any democrat who believes in BIGGER government is a greater risk to our constitution than Bush EVER will be The constitution clearly states that there shall be a limited government by the people for the people(paraphrased) not special intrest groups

He didn't say jack crap about bigger government, just that he wants to see the constitution stay intact. Bush is trying to turn America into a George Orwell novel. Nice use of the Gettysburg Adress though.

Any democrat who believes in BIGGER government is a greater risk to our constitution than Bush EVER will be The constitution clearly states that there shall be a limited government by the people for the people(paraphrased) not special intrest groups

Why just "any democrat"? Why not just "anybody"? Did somebody tell you I was a democrat? Or that I believed in bigger government? Does Halliburton count as a special interest?

Do you count the corporations that sponsered G.W with tons of money during the election special interest groups.

NO, he means OTHER politicians' special interet groups. Bush's don't count. :p

Thats what he MUST mean, becuase George Bush recieved more money for his campiagn fund last year than John Kerry has in his whole career.

Simple fact.

mettlinauts: bush did not want the wtcs to blow up and he did not have anything to believe they would. yes he had a cia report that siad al queda might use air lines to attack. that doesnt mean he cud have prevented it.
also the partiot act doesnt' come close to giving the governmetn abesloute power
japaica: the term "rigth wing nazi" is contradictory. nazis were left wing (at least by the spectrum of right being less gov't and left being more) the fact was the Nazis had an economic system akin to the USSR . so if anybody is close to being a nazi its democrats.
also to ur post about bush having their hands in the pie. bush had NO posibe reason for having the wtc destoryed. it cost the economy billions and and hurt every1 INCLUDING bush
Mighty ming :bush DID win. the way our system of governmetn is electors decide the president so he did win .

Anticarnivoria: are you an alias for michael moore??...but to refute you...bushs dad funded his first company(along with friends)..texas has a always had a high execution rate and if you have any knoweldge of american law you know that the govener doesn't give out sentences. ashcroft may be a little nuts but i don't think he did anything (nor cared) about intergration at age 12. the contras in nicuaraga were not a drug cartel (though they may have been involved in drugs like any central american power) but an anti-communist force (this was the cold war remember). the NYFD did not say their were bombs in the wtcs..that would probably have been mentionted since..esp int he 9/11 commison report.also if you watched the towers fall there were not explosiosn in differn't parts. Bush is a plutocrat..as has every president we have ever elected..did you like thomas jefferson? George washington? FDR? JFK? all pluto crats. and disregard for human life??? i would like you to get more specific on that one..

Druthllu: Clinton may have left a list of things to do about terrisom..but considering his awsoeme record with terriosm is it any supprise bush et al were slow to inniitatie it.

Backwoodsquatches: bush didn't suggest postponign the election. sum people suggested to have a plan for it in case of an attack..thats called being prepared (what bush is criticezed of not doing in several other posts i might add) also i would like to see evidence of bush being bent on world conquest.

locke cole: how does that make sense?

druthulhu: uh huh and care to expand on that..

lunatic goofball:there was never a rigth to marry whoever you want (as in whatever gender/speices/number of peole) also what do you call the prohibition

locke cole: care to explain bush not crushing anti-war protests? or michael moore still being alive?

amen sudea

locke cole :his point was that the welfare state is worse

druthuhlu:no but your not exactly coming off as the type to let people solve their own problems

locke cole and lunatic goofballs: of course they count. but most of their intreast invovles lessening the government as they are competent companies

on a side not sorry for this being so long as i had a lot to respond to. also my apologies for spelling errors as its late and i don't have time to edit it.

I call Prohibition repealed. ;)

yes the prohibtion was repealed,but the point is that kind of ammendment is not unpreccedneted. another example was that the feminsit ammendment..equality something..i dunno..also is that the only thing you can comment on in that whole post???

Were those in reply to specific posts? Are we expected to count back our previous posts to know just what the fuck you're talking about?

How do I come off? I want that warmongering quasiarticulate profiteering Constitution shamer out of the white house. How does that somehow imply that I support bigger government?

BTW I support smaller national debt, deficit and spending... that's another reason I would expect some who dislikes big government to want him out as well.

yes the prohibtion was repealed,but the point is that kind of ammendment is not unpreccedneted. another example was that the feminsit ammendment..equality something..i dunno..also is that the only thing you can comment on in that whole post???

It was the only thing directed at only me. :)

druthullu...yes they were i kinda expect you to remeber what you've posted in the alst hour or so, plus this is not exactly a huge thread so yes.

you come off as being a liberal and most liberals are in favor of welfare and medicare and universal heath care and all that BS. if you remeber correctly bush started out his term an isolationist. i doubt he would have altered that if we had not been attacked.

on another note i do disliek bush's financal polices. but kerrys will be worse and will come along with a wimpy foriegn policy.

hope you feel specail lunatic

hope you feel specail lunatic

Of course I'm special. I'm a Goofball. http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-005.gif

I have no idea what one your talking about not making sense. However In terms of the George Orwell novel it was more for dramatic effect and being a smart ass, but using the Patriot Act to get rid of our Miranda Rights, for little or no reason. But this is the one that pisses me off.

locke cole and lunatic goofballs: of course they count. but most of their intreast invovles lessening the government as they are competent companies

How is Enron a competent company?! How can you support companies buying the government?

you come off as being a liberal and most liberals are in favor of welfare and medicare and universal heath care and all that BS.

Oh because welfare is bad, I am sorry that you would rather have poor families starve to death because they can't afford food. Or have people die from curable ailments, because they can only get a job at McDonalds. I'm sorry that you would rather have druggies have no choice for help instead of half way houses.

Now before you conservatives get all up in a snort and bash the thread with out reading it, or scoffing and chalking it off as democrat propoganda, I am not a Democrat, I am liberal, very Liberal so open your eyes and hear both sides of the argument.

Now Hitler Muscled his way into the governmrnt. George Bush, well I only have to say Floridia. Hitler had his party who had the majority burn down the reichstag (german parliment) and blame it on the Communists to recieve "Emergency Powers". George Bush convieniently did not see the papers warning him about 9/11 and allowed it to happen desroying our commerce builings and damaging our Military nerve center, the very next few days the Patriot Act and othe subsequent laws were made to give the government virtually unlimited power. Hitler blamed every problem on the Jews. Well lets say Bush can only say Muslim Extreists or Iraq. Ill add more as it comes to me. You all can add you similarities or challange it.

bullshit.

Kylara

druthullu...yes they were i kinda expect you to remeber what you've posted in the alst hour or so, plus this is not exactly a huge thread so yes.

you come off as being a liberal and most liberals are in favor of welfare and medicare and universal heath care and all that BS. if you remeber correctly bush started out his term an isolationist. i doubt he would have altered that if we had not been attacked.

on another note i do disliek bush's financal polices. but kerrys will be worse and will come along with a wimpy foriegn policy.

So sorry I don't fit so easily into the "all from column A or all from column B" parameters of political definition that our Dark Evil Media Overlords seem to have successfully imprinted upon people like you.

Actually, if he hadn't been an isolationist, we might have been able to stop the attacks ...if he had been able to see the rest of the world beyond his boner for Iraq that is.

And PLEASE tell me how Kerry would have a wimpy foreign policy? The guy is a decorated veteran... you really think he would do a worse job than a rich draft defered deserter?

bullshit.

Kylara

Ooohhh... good answer. :rolleyes:

I have no idea what one your talking about not making sense. However In terms of the George Orwell novel it was more for dramatic effect and being a smart ass, but using the Patriot Act to get rid of our Miranda Rights, for little or no reason. But this is the one that pisses me off.

a) the miranda rights are a court issue and are still there
b) enron was not a competent company hence it was destoryed. now you understand capitilism.

also im going to bed now so i'll answer your posts tomorrow afternoon sometime

Backwoodsquatches: bush didn't suggest postponign the election. sum people suggested to have a plan for it in case of an attack..thats called being prepared (what bush is criticezed of not doing in several other posts i might add) also i would like to see evidence of bush being bent on world conquest.

Then ask yourself why anyone would conquer another nation, without just cause.
Congress says thats what Bush did.

If thats not global domination, one step at a time..what is?

If thats not global domination, one step at a time..what is?

Microsoft Windows.

ok this is realy my last post now
So sorry I don't fit so easily into the "all from column A or all from column B" parameters of political definition that our Dark Evil Media Overlords seem to have successfully imprinted upon people like you.

yes it sucks we only have 2 main parites..but its served us well..but i do wish the gop was more small gov't

Actually, if he hadn't been an isolationist, we might have been able to stop the attacks ...if he had been able to see the rest of the world beyond his boner for Iraq that is.

im sorry but this is the most contradicotry thing i've read( at least on 5 hours sleep)

And PLEASE tell me how Kerry would have a wimpy foreign policy? The guy is a decorated veteran... you really think he would do a worse job than a rich draft defered deserter?

getting shot while your driving a boat is not exactly the bravest thing i can think of plus hes been a forigen policy wimp for the past 20 years..and thats what concerns me.

Mc Donalds.

I have no idea what one your talking about not making sense. However In terms of the George Orwell novel it was more for dramatic effect and being a smart ass, but using the Patriot Act to get rid of our Miranda Rights, for little or no reason. But this is the one that pisses me off.

a) the miranda rights are a court issue and are still there
b) enron was not a competent company hence it was destoryed. now you understand capitilism.

also im going to bed now so i'll answer your posts tomorrow afternoon sometime

Correct. The Miranda ruling has not been overturned or overruled. However, the Fifth Ammendment has been repeatedly ignored by this White House for anyone that they unilaterally decide is a terror suspect.

a) the miranda rights are a court issue and are still there
b) enron was not a competent company hence it was destoryed. now you understand capitilism.


A) Ok let me start off saying that Enron was refering to 2000, Enron was always an incompetent, and they supported them. Or the fact that G.W commited the same kind of things when he was in charge of a company.

B) Using the Patriot Act you can arrest someone for months at a time with little or no evidence that they are terrorists, and suspend their miranda rights. Sorry that I was vague before.

P.S: Learn to use the quote tags.

Maybe there are braver things than getting shot while piloting a boat in a war zone, but skipping out on national guard duty for a year-long drinking binge is not one of them.

Sweet dreams, conservative sheep :)

Don't forget the coke, well it's been fun.

Don't forget the coke.

And an unsolved murder.

Ooohhh... good answer. :rolleyes:

only my opinion.

Kylara

By "suspend their miranda rights" do you mean that you can use what they say against them when you have denied their request for a lawyer?

Actually you are quite right... in ignoring the Fifth Ammendment, the "law" now can hold people without respecting their right to have access to an attorney. And this IS a contravention of the Miranda ruling.

Microsoft Windows.

Look Goofballs..

If your going to use logic, how are we supposed to argue like Howler monkeys?

this is stupid, when you compare someone to hitler, you don't compare them to the smaller attributes of hitler's attributes, you're comparing them to the things hitler is best known for, like the holocaust.

Seriously, i could probably find similarities between John kerry and frikkin Jesus Christ, but that doesn't mean he's a saint, does it?

this is stupid, when you compare someone to hitler, you don't compare them to the smaller attributes of hitler's attributes, you're comparing them to the things hitler is best known for, like the holocaust.

Seriously, i could probably find similarities between John kerry and frikkin Jesus Christ, but that doesn't mean he's a saint, does it?


No..but it would make him a pretty good guy, dont you think?

Are you allowed to say "Frickin' Jesus" anyway?

FACT: Adolph Hitler, as it is widely believed, had one testacle.

FACT: George W. Bush, despite all evidence, has at least one testacle.

:cool:

Look Goofballs..

If your going to use logic, how are we supposed to argue like Howler monkeys?

Sometimes the truth is sillier than any lie. :D

I don't like Dubya, that Damn right wing nazi republican baby slapping cowboy.



:rolleyes:


You remind me why I am a Republican, to be against idiots like you. Hitler and Bush have nothing in common, and Bush won Florida fairly, deal with it!

http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html

Odd for my first post to be linking Godwin's Law.

Sometimes the truth is sillier than any lie. :D


Sometimes the truth is funnier than Groin kicking or even pie-in-the-face.

this is stupid, when you compare someone to hitler, you don't compare them to the smaller attributes of hitler's attributes, you're comparing them to the things hitler is best known for, like the holocaust.

Seriously, i could probably find similarities between John kerry and frikkin Jesus Christ, but that doesn't mean he's a saint, does it?



Don't pay any attention to these braindead Liberals.

FACT: Adolph Hitler, as it is widely believed, had one testacle.
Bull. He had 2.

Plus the one in the jar.

getting shot while your driving a boat is not exactly the bravest thing i can think of plus hes been a forigen policy wimp for the past 20 years..and thats what concerns me.

John F. Kennedy did the same thing in the Second World War.

The man faced the Japanese on a 70-ft plank casket with engines and lived to tell the tale. I'd call that brave.

The same thing with John Kerry. He stood on the deck of the boat and got shot at everyday and returned fire. I call that brave, and anyone who doesn't, doesn't know a damn thing about what bravery is.

Reason I'm not voting Kerry is because I don't agree with his position on some things.

Ciao,

Kylara

:rolleyes:


You remind me why I am a Republican, to be against idiots like you. Hitler and Bush have nothing in common, and Bush won Florida fairly, deal with it!

:(


How sad it must be to define oneself by those one reviles.

I'm tired so I don't feel like going into the Kathrine Harris thing, but I'll just link you to a helpful flash.

http://www.bushflash.com/gta.html

I know you'll call me a dumbass or say that the facts are BS, but they are correct.

http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html

Odd for my first post to be linking Godwin's Law.

*let it sink in for a few seconds, and then LMAOIRL*

Of course this thread is the exception to Godwin's Law.

I'm tired so I don't feel like going into the Kathrine Harris thing, but I'll just link you to a helpful flash.

http://www.bushflash.com/gta.html

I know you'll call me a dumbass or say that the facts are BS, but they are correct.


Nothing from that site is correct. Get over it. From what i have seen from that place, It isd nothing more than pure Left-Wing propaganda, That type of stuff wouldn't fly anywhere in America....Maybe California.

No, this thread was over before it began ;)

I'm tired so I don't feel like going into the Kathrine Harris thing, but I'll just link you to a helpful flash.

http://www.bushflash.com/gta.html

I know you'll call me a dumbass or say that the facts are BS, but they are correct.

S/he really called that one, huh Bitch? ;)

S/he really called that one, huh Bitch? ;)


Watch your mouth.

You can find those facts any where, they are all widely known except by people like you.

This thread is going to fall into name callling in 3 posts, so I'm gone; no point in arguing when nothing good is going to come of it.


What do I win for calling it?

Watch your mouth.

Sorry... I will try not to call you by name again :(

http://www.thousandreasons.org/opinion/010604.html

Heh,
If there ever was a post to exemplify Partisan Bullcrap, from the Left side..this is it.

If you want to get into "Bush stole the election." then lets take a moment to look at the "arguement" presented:

"Jeb hired a private company to purge voters."

Yes, but this project started in 1999 under another company that was not doing the job corretly.

"The Supreme Court handed Bush the Election."

Actually the Supreme Court stepped in to tell the Florida Supreme Court that they were overstepping their bounds.

there's just some of your arguements debunked...but ok

How about "Bush knew about 9/11!"

Well they say he was in Office for 8 months....8 months compared to 8 years...now who was more prepared to have dealt with the terrorist threat, and whom did it accumulate under? Also, I believe the White House had to deal with it's previous occupants attempting to run off with furniture and antiques.

"Bush went to Iraq to get oil!"

If he wanted Oil that badly...he'd have just invaded Mexico and South America. Much easier and lots of Oil down there.

"Bush is connected to the Bin Laden family!"

Well for one, the Bin Laden family disowned Usama from their Family a Long time ago. And if you want to play guilty by association, we can also assume that your Savior Kerry is also tied into all the "criminal wrong-doings" of the Bush family, seeing as they're distant cousins.


I swear you Liberals, love to scream and shout and raise a ruckus, and make Stupid Claims...and then just wait...I'll have a personal insult before the next 4 posts to divert attention from the subject at hand. :rolleyes:

You can find those facts any where, they are all widely known except by people like you.

This thread is going to fall into name callling in 3 posts, so I'm gone; no point in arguing when nothing good is going to come of it.


What do I win for calling it?


WRONG AGAIN! Thos so called "facts" are being widely seen as lies. Go to the south and try that garbage!

Now before you conservatives get all up in a snort and bash the thread with out reading it, or scoffing and chalking it off as democrat propoganda, I am not a Democrat, I am liberal, very Liberal so open your eyes and hear both sides of the argument.

Now Hitler Muscled his way into the governmrnt. George Bush, well I only have to say Floridia. Hitler had his party who had the majority burn down the reichstag (german parliment) and blame it on the Communists to recieve "Emergency Powers". George Bush convieniently did not see the papers warning him about 9/11 and allowed it to happen desroying our commerce builings and damaging our Military nerve center, the very next few days the Patriot Act and othe subsequent laws were made to give the government virtually unlimited power. Hitler blamed every problem on the Jews. Well lets say Bush can only say Muslim Extreists or Iraq. Ill add more as it comes to me. You all can add you similarities or challange it.

Comparing Hitler and Bush is a little far-fetched...though Bush IS heading towards a dangerous path of plotted world domination...

Heh,
If there ever was a post to exemplify Partisan Bullcrap, from the Left side..this is it.

If you want to get into "Bush stole the election." then lets take a moment to look at the "arguement" presented:

"Jeb hired a private company to purge voters."

Yes, but this project started in 1999 under another company that was not doing the job corretly.

"The Supreme Court handed Bush the Election."

Actually the Supreme Court stepped in to tell the Florida Supreme Court that they were overstepping their bounds.

there's just some of your arguements debunked...but ok

How about "Bush knew about 9/11!"

Well they say he was in Office for 8 months....8 months compared to 8 years...now who was more prepared to have dealt with the terrorist threat, and whom did it accumulate under? Also, I believe the White House had to deal with it's previous occupants attempting to run off with furniture and antiques.

"Bush went to Iraq to get oil!"

If he wanted Oil that badly...he'd have just invaded Mexico and South America. Much easier and lots of Oil down there.

"Bush is connected to the Bin Laden family!"

Well for one, the Bin Laden family disowned Usama from their Family a Long time ago. And if you want to play guilty by association, we can also assume that your Savior Kerry is also tied into all the "criminal wrong-doings" of the Bush family, seeing as they're distant cousins.


I swear you Liberals, love to scream and shout and raise a ruckus, and make Stupid Claims...and then just wait...I'll have a personal insult before the next 4 posts to divert attention from the subject at hand. :rolleyes:


AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nobody could have said it better!

For your info I live in the south *shivers*. Also be more afraid to go to Arizona. And man all of those things in that flash were facts look them up, the report its self admited to what was it 15% error, then later looked into it and found a 95% of error. Granted not all of those would have been Gore votes, but a hell of a lot of them would have been.

p.s the shit about the Clintons stealing stuff was fake, no pictures were released and it was just stupid; nice way to make Clinton a scape goat.

For your info I live in the south *shivers*. Also be more afraid to go to Arizona. And man all of those things in that flash were facts look them up, the report its self admited to what was it 15% error, then later looked into it and found a 95% of error. Granted not all of those would have been Gore votes, but a hell of a lot of them would have been.


You must be REAL quiet down there, with the fact 90% of the people are Conservatives!

For your info I live in the south *shivers*. Also be more afraid to go to Arizona. And man all of those things in that flash were facts look them up, the report its self admited to what was it 15% error, then later looked into it and found a 95% of error. Granted not all of those would have been Gore votes, but a hell of a lot of them would have been.


Actually if you want to get into who cost who votes, lets talk about the news media who called Florida for Gore 2hrs before polls closing, even after being asked by Harris not to do so, as not to discourage CST Voters. According to post-election polls, that move by the media cost Bush anywhere over 10,000 Votes.

And if you want to talk about disenfranchisement, lets talk about Gore attempting to discredit ALL Oversea's Military Votes....or does that not matter?

No I am over spoken, I have gone to protests, made my opinions clear to any one who wants to know. Do the votes of the people screwed over not count? Yeah the media has been known to make mistakes.

Must live in Asheville, NC :D one of the strongest Liberal Bastions (surface wise) in the South.

I usually find commenting on peoples spelling and grammar to be an incredibly low act, usually made by someone with no real retort. But, having said that, Anglo Judea, could you possibly paste your comments into a word processing program and run a spellcheck and grammar check - your posts are, quite frankly, unreadable. I know this sounds like an ass of a thing to say, but I really wanted to see what you had to say. As it stands - with so many spelling errors and no capitals to denote the beginning of sentences - I can't decypher it.

Nope, I life in Florida in an unusually rebublican area. I will stand that people in FL should not be allowed to make decisions for any one. Just so you know I moved there. As a compliment though you guys are some of the most bearable Rebublicans I've talked to in awhile.

P.S. There are enough debate threads along these lines, and the only things that made this one unique are gone. So I'm going to get going. Peace!

Hey, If You Want To Compare I Say Bush Is Like The Allied Forces During Ww2. Saddam Is Playing The Part Of Hitler And Ariel Sherron (pardon The Spelling) Is Stalin.
1. Hitler (saddam) Offered The Jews To The Allied Countries Who Said No Thanks. Hitler Said He Would Start Killing Them If They Were Not Taken By The Allies. They Still Said No Thanks. So Hitler Murdered Millions Of People.
2. The Allies (bush) Are Just As Guilty By Not Doing All They Can To Save Those Lives, Knowing They Were In Great Danger. They Then Came Into The War Like The Great Humanatarian Heroes That They Think They Are.
3. Stalin (sherron) Is Going Through Some Tough Times But Is Letting The Other Two Do As Much Of The Dirty Work As He Can So He Doesn't Have To Get Involved In Something That Is His Fault Aswell.

Israel Does Not Have The Right To Be Doing What It Is.
America Is Bullying The World Into The 'american Way Of Life'.
The Un Have Allowed Themselves To Be Bullied.
Taliban Fighters Were Fighting For The Official Government Of Afghanistan And Are Prisoners Of War.

Whatever Happened To Respecting Others?

I Can't Read Your Post Because It Hurts My Eyes. Might You Consider Posting It Again Without All The Capital Letters?

Hey, If You Want To Compare I Say Bush Is Like The Allied Forces During Ww2. Saddam Is Playing The Part Of Hitler And Ariel Sherron (pardon The Spelling) Is Stalin.
1. Hitler (saddam) Offered The Jews To The Allied Countries Who Said No Thanks. Hitler Said He Would Start Killing Them If They Were Not Taken By The Allies. They Still Said No Thanks. So Hitler Murdered Millions Of People.
2. The Allies (bush) Are Just As Guilty By Not Doing All They Can To Save Those Lives, Knowing They Were In Great Danger. They Then Came Into The War Like The Great Humanatarian Heroes That They Think They Are.
3. Stalin (sherron) Is Going Through Some Tough Times But Is Letting The Other Two Do As Much Of The Dirty Work As He Can So He Doesn't Have To Get Involved In Something That Is His Fault Aswell.

Israel Does Not Have The Right To Be Doing What It Is.
America Is Bullying The World Into The 'american Way Of Life'.
The Un Have Allowed Themselves To Be Bullied.
Taliban Fighters Were Fighting For The Official Government Of Afghanistan And Are Prisoners Of War.

Whatever Happened To Respecting Others?


Well, while your post was hard to read...

What is Israel doing that it doesn't have the right to be doing?
Living on land that was unoccupied until they Moved there?
Building a Wall on THEIR own land, and then being forced to pay reparations?

I'm sorry but I don't see Europre deciding to follow the "American Way of Life" and not even Iraq will turn out to be like America.

The UN are bullies themselves, perhaps you'd like to hear the stories from South America where UN Represenatives who are supposed to be providing Humanitarian Aide are offering Young Women food for their families in exchange for sex, or perhaps you'd like to discuss the UN's Oil For Food Scan..er "Charity"

The Taliban was giving sanctuary to Usama Bin Laden, who was the one who helped to orchestrate the death of 3000+ Americans, they didn't want to hand his smelly cave dwelling butt over, then we had the right to go and take him and his allies.

Yes, what happened to respecting others? I've seen us give total respect to multiple nations, and recieve nothing but Hatred in return, so what happened to Believing in One's Nation?

wow ,you people are sick. hitler had 6 million jews and millions of other "undesireables" killed in concentration camps. not to mention he launched a war to take over europe and mos. def. the rest of the world that cost the lives of millions of others. he beleived he was of a superior race and youre comparing him to bush. im not a huge fan of bush either but you can only compare hitler to stalin and vice versa. compare him to someone who actually has similarities and not pick and choose 3 which suit you. i could even find 3 similarities to compare you and hitler. absurd. wake up and stop tryign to flame our president with everything you possibily can. yea he has done some stupid stuff but every president has. hes human after all. and i bet youd screw the country to the shitter if you were in his shoes. even if he has done some stuff you dont agree with give him some respect because hes accomplished more than you ever will. and i bet you dont even acknowledge the good he has done because you hate every single thing hes ever done. do somethign besides this like petition or vote or rally to make your voice heard, not compare our president to hitler.

WRONG AGAIN! Thos so called "facts" are being widely seen as lies. Go to the south and try that garbage!

Oh yes, the South, clearly the power in the Union today. A strong representation of modern America, that South...

You must be REAL quiet down there, with the fact 90% of the people are Conservatives!

And what percent of the people are educated beyond high school? Let's not talk about the South, ok? It's just too easy, and let's face it - barring election years, no one cares about the South.

As for the Bush/Hitler comparison, valid points can be made. Both were pushing ideological agendas. Hitler obviously pushed harder, but then, he didn't have have as many eyes watching over his shoulder (those damned Libruls!). Both came into office under questionable circumstances, and received substantial power by taking advantage of the fears of the day. Lastly, both relied heavily on blind zeal and Nationalism to silence dissent and claim the moral highground.

To say it's a groundless comparison is ignorant, as is to claim it's a perfect comparison. Bush is nowhere near as crafty, intelligent, or charismatic. The media here also hasn't been totally shut out for a number of decades. A combined Neoconservative effort, however, has yielded the sloppy product we see today. Consider Bush the closest this they could produce in this day and age. Hitler was in the right place at the right time, Bush - far less so, far less skillfully.

wow ,you people are sick. hitler had 6 million jews and millions of other "undesireables" killed in concentration camps. not to mention he launched a war to take over europe and mos. def. the rest of the world that cost the lives of millions of others. he beleived he was of a superior race and youre comparing him to bush. im not a huge fan of bush either but you can only compare hitler to stalin and vice versa. compare him to someone who actually has similarities and not pick and choose 3 which suit you. i could even find 3 similarities to compare you and hitler. absurd. wake up and stop tryign to flame our president with everything you possibily can. yea he has done some stupid stuff but every president has. hes human after all. and i bet youd screw the country to the shitter if you were in his shoes. even if he has done some stuff you dont agree with give him some respect because hes accomplished more than you ever will. and i bet you dont even acknowledge the good he has done because you hate every single thing hes ever done. do somethign besides this like petition or vote or rally to make your voice heard, not compare our president to hitler.

It seems easier to insult Bush and belittle him than actually debate anything about him it would seem. Everyone here wants to cry "Millions of Jobs Lost" but they don't want to debate or talk about the millions of jobs regained, the poverty rate dropping, home ownership at it's highest levels EVER...manafacturing rates are at historic highs...but hey...what does it matter? Bush is Hitler according to the left, and that's all that matters.
:headbang: :rolleyes:

It seems easier to insult Bush and belittle him than actually debate anything about him it would seem. Everyone here wants to cry "Millions of Jobs Lost" but they don't want to debate or talk about the millions of jobs regained, the poverty rate dropping, home ownership at it's highest levels EVER...manafacturing rates are at historic highs...but hey...what does it matter? Bush is Hitler according to the left, and that's all that matters.
:headbang: :rolleyes:

Well insulting the shrub is easy. He just makes it sooo easy.

Millions of jobs regained? Does underemployment really count as a job regained?

There are some blaring holes in the job exportation arguments.

1) It will create new jobs.
Problem: If you look at the venture capitolists, they are specifying that funding will require plans for job offshoring.
2) Job retraining
Problem: Since he is hell bent on tax reduction which in turn means less taxes for the states. Where is this retraining going to come from?
3) New types of jobs will appear.
Problem: Ok what are they? Many people realise things change and will prepare. Problem is nobody can say what they are. Don't worry! Trust us they will appear.
4) Now this is a new one. What right do you have to a perminent job! :eek: Ok what right do the foreign companies have to do business here?

As to your so statements of improvments? Where do you get them?

Just a few days ago I heard numbers on a radio economics show:

Insurence rates up 50%
Gas up 45%
Bank fees and "punishment" funds up 120%
Foreclosures up 23%
Power up 35%

There were about 7 other things mention but I can think of them.

The shrub is a great President if you are big business or wealthy. But for the common man....

Hmmm A energy plan designed by enemy companies *coughs enron*
An environment plan designed by logging companies.

Hmmmm excellent president.

Ah yes, the demonic Left...perhaps a few people are just sick of the rollercoaster term he's had and his ineptitude throughout? Maybe some people consider these claims:

I'm a uniter, not a divider. Wrong, on many, many levels. Politically, socially, nationally, internationally - he's been anything but.

I will not use the US as global peacekeepers./will not nationbuild. Also very much not true of his presidency.

I will strengthen our ties with out allies. Nope, really hasn't done that, has he?

Let's not even talk about "Mission Accomplished," or our recent surpassing of 666 military deaths in Iraq. Now, were one to compare Bush to Reagan and the way the Right tries to enshrine beatify both, that would be far more valid than a Bush/Hitler comparison.

Let's not even talk about "Mission Accomplished," or our recent surpassing of 666 military deaths in Iraq. Now, were one to compare Bush to Reagan and the way the Right tries to enshrine beatify both, that would be far more valid than a Bush/Hitler comparison.


Nice Satan reference. ;)

I forgot to add.

The Shrub is no Hitler. Hitler was a gifted speaker. The Shrub can't even say Nuclear.

Hmmm is that why the term WMD was created?

Nice Satan reference. ;)

Heh, sometimes the truth is better than fiction - the count was 666 yesterday (from violent conflict, as I recall, not even overall). Of course, it's 667 today...or, at least, it was this morning.

Oh yeah, I forgot the most recent:

America is safer today... Yeah, we're spawning new terrorists daily and have fanned the fires of hatred against this country with Dubya's big cowboy d---. Meanwhile, Al-Queda sits, plots, regroups, and recruits. But hey, now Saddam can't get us with his nonexistent WMDs.

This quote finishes with a claim to the effect of "...and give me four more years and we'll be completely safe." God (whichever you prefer) help us all if we should reach that level of "security."

Bush was justified in going into iraq not only for the weapons but for liberating the people of iraq. saddam was a murderer who would kill anyone who opposed him. the weapons probably didnt exist but there is the possability that they are now in syria. bush went into iraq to protect americans and by doing so he liberated the people of iraq. the only reason hittler went into another country was to take it over. bush is trying to help iraq become more stable. hitler would take boys from the time they were born and teach them to hate anything and and that the germans were the perfect race and everyone else was weak and worthless. hitler hated the jews just because they are jews. bush did not know about the attacks of 9/11 and to say he did is bullshit. hitler burned books. he attacked other countries. bush protects other countries. to compare bush to hitler is an idiotic and unpatriotic statement. but apparently some people cant look past their stupid ass noses and realize that.

Bush was justified in going into iraq not only for the weapons but for liberating the people of iraq. saddam was a murderer who would kill anyone who opposed him. the weapons probably didnt exist but there is the possability that they are now in syria. bush went into iraq to protect americans and by doing so he liberated the people of iraq. the only reason hittler went into another country was to take it over. bush is trying to help iraq become more stable. hitler would take boys from the time they were born and teach them to hate anything and and that the germans were the perfect race and everyone else was weak and worthless. hitler hated the jews just because they are jews. bush did not know about the attacks of 9/11 and to say he did is bullshit. hitler burned books. he attacked other countries. bush protects other countries. to compare bush to hitler is an idiotic and unpatriotic statement. but apparently some people cant look past their stupid ass noses and realize that.
i would have agreed with you if bush had spent more time negotiating with the remnant extremists and the U.S. forces stopped massacring civilians and abusing prisoners.

i would have agreed with you if bush had spent more time negotiating with the remnant extremists and the U.S. forces stopped massacring civilians and abusing prisoners.

the prisoner abuse was not bushes fault. the soldiers that did that did it out of there own will, no higher authority shit. some people are just messed up perverts

the prisoner abuse was not bushes fault. the soldiers that did that did it out of there own will, no higher authority shit. some people are just messed up perverts
Bushes needs an apostrophe. Should look like: bushes'
And I agree, the prisoner abuse has nothing to do with the bushes.

the prisoner abuse was not bushes fault. the soldiers that did that did it out of there own will, no higher authority shit. some people are just messed up perverts
Dude, you really need to read the Taguba report, and the subsequent reporting by Seymour Hersh if you believe that. I'm not saying that Bush came out and said "we need to torture these people until we get the info we need," but he and his legal counsel certainly laid out the scenario where it could happen by calling the Geneva accords "antiquated" and by looking for "legal" ways to torture people.

I think people also need to remember that Clinton had about a million chances to get Osama bin Laden but he never acted till it was too late.

That is because the Dems need to blame the Republicans. Can't do that if they draw attention to the incompetence of their own filandering idiots.

And you are LIKE an uneducated conspiracy theorist. But notice that I said LIKE.

And you are LIKE an uneducated conspiracy theorist. But notice that I said LIKE.

This was directed towards the person that started the thread. Still learning how to use this system here.

Dude, you really need to read the Taguba report, and the subsequent reporting by Seymour Hersh if you believe that. I'm not saying that Bush came out and said "we need to torture these people until we get the info we need," but he and his legal counsel certainly laid out the scenario where it could happen by calling the Geneva accords "antiquated" and by looking for "legal" ways to torture people.

true, bush may have not been to smart there but he still did not authorize any type of torture or abuse. it's like if your boss talks about moving the buisness somewhere else and then you take all the supplies and stuff and move it without your boss' consent. sure he may have said something about it but that does not mean he he was going to act upon it.

I think comparing Bush to Hitler may be a bit of an exaggeration, but he must be close to one of the worst Presidents in US history. I'm an Aussie, so tear my opinions apart as just coming from some crazy foreigner who doesn't know what he's talking about, but on an international scale he has turned just about the whole world against the US. Despite Australia being a member of the all-conquering coalition of the willing, most Australians havea fairly low opinion of the trigger-happy :sniper: US President. From what I gather, the Brits are even more angry about the Iraq war than we are.

Look, by the time the history books are written about this war it war we will all know that it was based on some first-class bullshit. The Bush administration's use of propaganda (keep repeating a simple message - like "they have weapons of mass distruction and links to terrorists" - over and over and people will accept it as true) is probably where the closest comparisons to the Nazis can be drawn.

When the terrorist link was shown to be non-existant, Bush played up the WMD angle. When we realised there were no WMDs, the war suddenly became about "liberating the Iraqi people". If that justified the war, then why wasn't that a reason given for war BEFORE the invasion began?

Hey, I'm all for liberating the un-liberated, but I'm just wondering when the US is going to "liberate" every other country on the planet that is ruled by a corrupt dictator. I might be waiting for a while...

I think comparing Bush to Hitler may be a bit of an exaggeration, but he must be close to one of the worst Presidents in US history. I'm an Aussie, so tear my opinions apart as just coming from some crazy foreigner who doesn't know what he's talking aboutI have no plans to tear you apart..you are entitled to your opinion..but to many Americans we for once have a President who is more concerned with American interests then the worlds/UN, yes..he may very well have earned the "cowboy" image, but we Americans like shooting from the hip..we like a man of action, we've seen where talking has gotten the world over the last 50 yrs..we will have no Chamberlains here for President, but on an international scale he has turned just about the whole world against the US. Despite Australia being a member of the all-conquering coalition of the willing, most Australians havea fairly low opinion of the trigger-happy :sniper: US President. From what I gather, the Brits are even more angry about the Iraq war than we are.

Look, by the time the history books are written about this war it war we will all know that it was based on some first-class bullshitby the time this war is written bout in the history books you will read a few paragraphs about one part of a larger war that had been fought between those who value Western values over those of the Middle Eastern, you will read bout how democracy took root in the only non-Israeli Middle Eastern nation and was a beacon for the remaining nations of that region to change for the better, you will find that terrorists have a man who is just as willing to use violence against them as they are against the West. The Bush administration's use of propaganda (keep repeating a simple message - like "they have weapons of mass distruction and links to terrorists" - over and over and people will accept it as true) is probably where the closest comparisons to the Nazis can be drawn.

When the terrorist link was shown to be non-existant, Bush played up the WMD angle. When we realised there were no WMDs, the war suddenly became about "liberating the Iraqi people". If that justified the war, then why wasn't that a reason given for war BEFORE the invasion began?

Hey, I'm all for liberating the un-liberated, but I'm just wondering when the US is going to "liberate" every other country on the planet that is ruled by a corrupt dictator. I might be waiting for a whilePerhaps you'd convince your people to liberate those nations we miss? We do what we can with the resources we have...the fact is...we have brought liberty to two nations, what nations has Australia brought liberty too?, America must also base their need to fight on our ability and the national interests..that is just realpolitik...

I think that pretty much sums up a rational explanation.

Will someone please start the "Why Your Mom is like Hitler." thread?

By the time this war is written bout in the history books you will read a few paragraphs about one part of a larger war that had been fought between those who value Western values over those of the Middle Eastern, you will read bout how democracy took root in the only non-Israeli Middle Eastern nation and was a beacon for the remaining nations of that region to change for the better, you will find that terrorists have a man who is just as willing to use violence against them as they are against the West.

"You will find that terrorists have a man who is just as willing to use violence against them as they are against the West".

I love it. Jeez, those terrorists will be shaking in their boots. I mean, those Palestinian terrorists have had it so easy using violence against pacifist Israelis.

The Israeli army has been using violence to try to stop terrorism for about half a century and it hasn't seemed to have worked yet. In fact, I'd say it's pretty obvious that the use of violence to stop terrorism - in Israel's case certainly - only provokes further terrorist acts and creates more terrorists. How many "retaliation" acts can you remember happening between Palestinian extremist groups and the Israeli army?

I can assure you, war will never stop terrorists or terrorism.

"You will find that terrorists have a man who is just as willing to use violence against them as they are against the West".

I love it. Jeez, those terrorists will be shaking in their boots. I mean, those Palestinian terrorists have had it so easy using violence against pacifist Israelis.

The Israeli army has been using violence to try to stop terrorism for about half a century and it hasn't seemed to have worked yet. In fact, I'd say it's pretty obvious that the use of violence to stop terrorism - in Israel's case certainly - only provokes further terrorist acts and creates more terrorists. How many "retaliation" acts can you remember happening between Palestinian extremist groups and the Israeli army?

I can assure you, war will never stop terrorists or terrorism.

why don't they elect you as president instead???

Bush was justified in going into iraq not only for the weapons but for liberating the people of iraq. saddam was a murderer who would kill anyone who opposed him. the weapons probably didnt exist but there is the possability that they are now in syria. bush went into iraq to protect americans and by doing so he liberated the people of iraq. the only reason hittler went into another country was to take it over. bush is trying to help iraq become more stable. hitler would take boys from the time they were born and teach them to hate anything and and that the germans were the perfect race and everyone else was weak and worthless. hitler hated the jews just because they are jews. bush did not know about the attacks of 9/11 and to say he did is bullshit. hitler burned books. he attacked other countries. bush protects other countries. to compare bush to hitler is an idiotic and unpatriotic statement. but apparently some people cant look past their stupid ass noses and realize that.

historical innacuracies.......

hitler invaded other countries for two reasons.
to unite germanic peoples under one flag and to grant them freedoms that they otherwise would not have.
to remove a perceived threat to security or national interest that another country may have presented.

hitler may have hated the jews because they were jews but they also, along with gypsies and communists provided a convenient target to distract the general population from domestic issues and to unite the population against a common enemy much the same as muslims now provide bush with a uniting influence to distract the populace.

to suggest bush knew about the 9/11 attacks is, as you so eloquently put it, "bullshit", but the fact remains that the adminstration were warned of some form of attack from the air and did not heed those warnings. we will never know if that may have saved lives, it is unlikely but the question still remains.

the initial thread makes no mention of book burnings or any other single act of atrocity carried out in the name of the nazi party however, in political language and approach, there are similiarities between bush and hitler although no-one expects bush to follow the same road as we did in the 30's and 40's.

i am not american so my viewpoint is different to that of a us citizen but the point needs to be raised. bush may well be the nicest man in the world on a personal level but the rest of the world sees him as an idiot totally unsuitable for the office he holds. modern politics, rightly or wrongly, is based on public perception and the perception of bush is that of a dangerous, bumbling fool who needed his brothers help to fiddle the election and gain office and all he has achieved since then is to take the country to war. politics and policies aside for a moment is that really the man that you wish to represent you on the world stage?

I am going to ignore the original intent of this thread, as I feel any attempt to compare anyone to as grandiosely evil as hitler is completely contrived. However, I do feel the need to respond to a couple of statements.

Cold Hard Bitch:WRONG AGAIN! Thos so called "facts" are being widely seen as lies. Go to the south and try that garbage!

Thank you very much for your assumption that the rest of us in the south are incapable of reading more than one side of an issue and deciding for ourselves whether or not something is wrong.

Cold Hard Bitch:You must be REAL quiet down there, with the fact 90% of the people are Conservatives!

And thank you again for your misrepresentation. The highest percentage of the vote Bush received in any state during the 2000 election was 68% and that was in Wyoming. (Cite (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html)) Nowhere and in no region of the country did he recieve anywhere close to 90% of the vote. In fact, percentage wise, he was much more excepted in the midwest/rockies states than in the south. The highest southern state was, of course, Texas at 59% of the vote.

Remember kid's, just because 90% of the people you know may believe one way, that is not a large enough sample to be used as a statistic in a debate. You mostly hang out with people like you.

Salishe:we like a man of action, we've seen where talking has gotten the world over the last 50 yrs...

Yeah, it really does suck being the richest and most powerful nation in the world. It sucks having the average lifespan up by 20 years. It sucks having fewer, smaller, and less bloody wars. Damn those past presidents and all that distasteful diplomacy. I want a guy whose going to screw everything up beyond beleif and then refuse to admit when he's wrong. "Shoot first and don't bother with the questions!" I always say.

Salishe: you will read bout how democracy took root in the only non-Israeli Middle Eastern nation and was a beacon for the remaining nations of that region to change for the better, you will find that terrorists have a man who is just as willing to use violence against them as they are against the West.

I honestly hope you are right. I would love for the world to be made a better and more free place by our actions. But I honestly don't believe that is the most likely (or even in the top 100) of scenarios. More likely is, you will read about how, as the government there got stronger and we pulled our own troops out, the people in power began to abuse it to retaliate for the last 50 years of slights, both real and perceived. You will read about the resulting civil/tribal wars and how a large chunk of it turned itself into an Iran-like 'Theocracy' with all the inherent corruption and oppression and support of extremists that goes along with that.

Salishe:Perhaps you'd convince your people to liberate those nations we miss? We do what we can with the resources we have...the fact is...we have brought liberty to two nations, what nations has Australia brought liberty too?, America must also base their need to fight on our ability and the national interests..that is just realpolitik...

It certainly is realpolitik. And there is nothing wrong with reacting as a world leader in a vein along those lines. However it is a bit, shall we say, optimistic to call what we did in either Afghanistan or Iraq, 'liberation'. While I hold out greater hope for Afghanistan than I do for Iraq (because of the greater international involvement at present), we have yet to see the results of our actions in either place come to fruition. In 10 years, it will still likely be premature to call it a liberation. And to answer your question, for a short time, Australia brought liberty to Turkey, though in that case, it was against the will of the Turks.

I don't like Dubya, that Damn right wing nazi republican baby slapping cowboy.
Pretzel choking

Despite Australia being a member of the all-conquering coalition of the willing, most Australians havea fairly low opinion of the trigger-happy :sniper: US President. From what I gather, the Brits are even more angry about the Iraq war than we are.




Yes us Brits hated the conflict Tony blair is losing all the elections and there were rumours of him resigning but nobody believed them and we now have had a these inquiries into the war and legality and "was it a just war"

Personally i say no and most of britain said no and says no

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salishe
By the time this war is written bout in the history books you will read a few paragraphs about one part of a larger war that had been fought between those who value Western values over those of the Middle Eastern, you will read bout how democracy took root in the only non-Israeli Middle Eastern nation and was a beacon for the remaining nations of that region to change for the better, you will find that terrorists have a man who is just as willing to use violence against them as they are against the West.


oh! sooooooo wrong.............history, as the saying goes, is written by the victor, and as such we should excercise a little objectivity when we read it.

we have been reading about a struggle between eastern and western values since the crusades almost a thousand years ago and the only thing that has taught us is that religious conflict is the most bloody and destructive reasoning for war that man has yet devised. who are we to say that democracy will take hold and the lead the region to change for the better. why should it? if the israeli actions over the past few decades show us anything it is that democracy has no bearing to violent conflict in the middle east.

here's a little teaser for you. if, and i quote, "...you will read a few paragraphs about one part of a larger war that had been fought between those who value Western values over those of the Middle Eastern..." how do you know that account won't be written in arabic?

oh, you forgot to mention that bush's first company was funded by saudi bank fraud, his whole maniacal execution spree while govenor of texas (most lethal governor in US history), or his insane political choice of ASHCROFT (he managed to avoid desegregating schools in his home of st louis for ages, and I beleive was held in contempt of the supreme court for his repeated attempts to avoid integration effots). His family was involved in the Iran-Contra affair (selling illegal arms to terrorists to fund a drug cartel in nicaragua, I beleive). In other, fringe-type areas...the NYFD reported bombs in the world trade centers, and it certainly would be to bush's political advantage to plants them. He is most certainly a plutocrat with astonishingly little regaurd for human life - and the political happenings since he has been in power have been rather nazi-like.

As much as I agree, I said please keep all comments of Bush to comparisons of Hitler. sorry to be a turd, I am trying to keep outside info from making it in.

He at least has the guts and glory to stand up for himself unlike all you Liberal, socialist, UN ass-kissers
Can we have a moderator or Admin delete this assholes flame spam?

Thats what he MUST mean, becuase George Bush recieved more money for his campiagn fund last year than John Kerry has in his whole career.

Simple fact.

He also recieved money from he and his dads best friends, the Bin Laden family. (Screw the Hitler Comparison phrase, if you got a good one throw it in)

Mighty ming :bush DID win. the way our system of governmetn is electors decide the president so he did win .

bushs dad funded his first company(along with friends)..
and if you have any knoweldge of american law you know that the govener doesn't give out sentences. .

1 Bush did not win. Every network said that Al Gore had taken Floridia. Then Fox News reported that Bush had taken Floridia, but wait Bush's first cousin is the political correspondence and was incharge of reporting who won. Better yet Gergie's brother was and still is Governor. They were bragging on who they'd take Floridia on way or another. Let us also not forget that Bush's Floridia Campaign MAnager put together a list that Dis-Enfrachized people who "felons". That list was 10,000 names long, all of them black and or poor, hmmmmm if I think correctly most black and or poor people are Democrat. Now Convienately Al gore lost by 542 votes.

2 BUSHS DAD DID NOT FUND HIS FIRST COMPANY! It was the Bin Laden Family.

1. also the partiot act doesnt' come close to giving the governmetn abesloute power

2. japaica: the term "rigth wing nazi" is contradictory. nazis were left wing (at least by the spectrum of right being less gov't and left being more) the fact was the Nazis had an economic system akin to the USSR . so if anybody is close to being a nazi its democrats.
1. Yeah, you have to wait for the PATRIOT Act 2 for that.

2. http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Just visit. The Nazi economic policy was actually centre-right. Their real extremism was as authoritarians. In this way the Republicans are closer to Nazism.
And a finishing note, the Democrats are not left-wing.

He at least has the guts and glory to stand up for himself unlike all you Liberal, socialist, UN ass-kissers
Standing up for ourselves? When was the last time you saw (neo)conservatives take to the streets to stand up for what they believe in?

Any democrat who believes in BIGGER government is a greater risk to our constitution than Bush EVER will be. The constitution clearly states that there shall be a limited government by the people for the people(paraphrased) not special intrest groups
Bush is no champion of small government. Another four years of him will probably increase they size of the American government bigger than it has ever been. Therein lies the difference between conservatives and neo-conservatives.

And what about all Bush's special interest groups, primarily comprised of Christian fundamentalists and oil tycoons?

Ah, but at least Hitler was a good speaker who pulled Germany out of debt. Can't say that for Bush.

What country are you guys living in might i ask? (france maybe?) This past year the United States of America has had the biggest GDP gain in 10 years since the dot com era. Another point i would like to make is how can you blame the economic crisis on Bush? Let me see Bush was sworn in, in the month of January of 01. So you people are going to tell me that he had a "master plan" to take down the WTC's 8 months later? And you are going to tell me in a national tragedy such as this that the economy wont crash? I would like to remind all of you that the economy was weakining in the last couple years of clintons presidency and adding 9-11 hmmm... let me think... And then to compare Bush to hitler you have got to be kidding right. I think the real problem was clinton. And here is why: There were major attacks that happened to the United States during Clintons reign and he did nothing about it. Cobar Towers, numerous emabsies bombed in Africa, USS Cole and others all linked to Osama Bin Laden and Clinton did nothing except fly a couple missiles that missed their targets. I would also like to remind everyone that Clinton reigned in the time of the Rwanda GENOCIDE. And he failed to call it what it really was rhe GENOCIDE of 800,000 people.(and failed to do anything to stop it) And you people call Bush hitler?

This past year the United States of America has had the biggest GDP gain in 10 years since the dot com era.

And yet this past year still hasn't made up for the GDP losses experienced during the first 3 years of his presidency. Nor are you accounting for the fact that the Summer before an election always experiences a great deal of growth.

Comparing Bush and Hitler is a legitimate exercise, and one that Bush (and Blair) have invited by incessantly comparing Saddam Hussein to Hitler. This comparison can be faulted simply by reference to the Nuremberg trials, where the principle charges were not genocide (although this is seen, rightly, as the greatest crime of the Nazis). The main charge was waging a war of aggression, in violation of international law. The US and its allies had no international sanction to invade Iraq. Post facto, the UN has legitimised the occupation, but the invasion was not sanctioned. Therefore, there is a case to be answered.

Of course, Bush and Blair’s comparisons were purely rhetorical. The Hitler they were referring to was not the historical figure, but the incarnation of pure evil. For this reason, many people on the list see no value in the comparison.

If you look at Hitler, and more importantly at the political party that he headed, a number of important differences emerge. Hitler was from a poor background, he served as a corporal in the WWI, was unemployed for long periods, and, most importantly he helped build a mass party. Bush, by comparison, is a scion of the American ruling class. He has no experience of the living conditions of ordinary Americans (eg the millions of Americans who lack any health insurance), and, as others point out, this shows in his absolute lack of rhetorical ability.

However, as the original post pointed out, Bush has used the 911 terrorist attacks to massively increase the powers of the state domestically (bigger government anyone?) and externally, just as Hitler used the Reichstag fire to introduce dictatorship. His administration has also latched onto the ‘clash of civilisations’ idea to justify an open-ended war against ‘terrorists’ wherever they may be.

In the final analysis, Bush is not a Nazi, because he lacks their populist appeal. But he has presided over the biggest attack on civil liberties since WW11 (and if the election is postponed, probably since the Civil War), and done the most to undermine international law since Hitler.

However, Bush is not a freak occurrence: There are concrete historical reasons for the unilateral turn of this administration. US economic power relative to its main rivals in Europe and Asia has been in constant decline since the high point following WW2, when the US accounted for half of global production, and in rapid RELATIVE decline since the 1970s. In one area, however, military power, the US now has an unprecedented advantage over its rivals – fruit of the Cold War. The temptation to use that power is overwhelming – and Clinton started it, sending troops into more conflicts than the previous three Presidents combined. Kerry, for his part, criticises Bush not for going to war, but for not sending enough soldiers to war. He’s pledged to bring peace by sending more soldiers (Richard Nixon, anyone?).

The startling conclusion of this is that, because of the two party ‘democracy’, the hundreds of millions of Americans who oppose the war have NO-One to vote for.

Some Americans have responded by protesting, others by not voting, and a small but extremely vocal (especially on the internet) minority have responded by abandoning rational discussion and drifting closer and closer to fascism. Ann Coulter is one example of irrational far-right populism that strikes a chord that A plutocrat could never do. The free republic website is another. The reaction on that site to the Abu Ghraib torture was to celebrate brutality as the only way to subdue Iraqi resistance. This lesson will have a flow-on effect inside the US as well.
The best thing to do is educate yourself and your friends and resist. Check out www.wsws.org

Now Hitler Muscled his way into the governmrnt. George Bush, well I only have to say Floridia. Hitler had his party who had the majority burn down the reichstag (german parliment) and blame it on the Communists to recieve "Emergency Powers". George Bush convieniently did not see the papers warning him about 9/11 and allowed it to happen desroying our commerce builings and damaging our Military nerve center, the very next few days the Patriot Act and othe subsequent laws were made to give the government virtually unlimited power. Hitler blamed every problem on the Jews. Well lets say Bush can only say Muslim Extreists or Iraq. Ill add more as it comes to me. You all can add you similarities or challange it.

Yes, they have that in common.

They are also both right-wing fanatics, with absolutely no conscience whatsoever. Also, they both believe "God" spoke to them. They are both pro-military. Under both regimes, there was an increase in military spending and unnecessary use of force.

Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles; Bush violated the nuclear arms ban treaty; Hitler mocked the League of Nations and then quit; Bush is undermining the UN by blatantly disobeying any orders and waging unjustified war.

Yes, they have that in common.

They are also both right-wing fanatics, with absolutely no conscience whatsoever. Also, they both believe "God" spoke to them. They are both pro-military. Under both regimes, there was an increase in military spending and unnecessary use of force.

Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles; Bush violated the nuclear arms ban treaty; Hitler mocked the League of Nations and then quit; Bush is undermining the UN by blatantly disobeying any orders and waging unjustified war.


Fanatic..really..ahuh..any more fanatic then the commie-lovin surrender happy monkeys I see at MoveOn.org or ANSWER?

As far as Bush's Christian faith...do not all Christians believe that God listens to their prayers?..or are you insinuating that Bush has made some comment stipulating that God and him had a one on one conversation..because if so...I've never seen that statement..

As for increase in military spending..the largest expenditures of military spending came under Franklin Delano Roosevelt...a Democrat..and Lyndon B.Johnson..a Democrat...

As for the UN...last time I checked..we were not subordinate to it..nowhere in our Constitution does it stipulate that the US government is answerable to any other government other then itself and that nation's representatives. Nowhere does it stipulate that we give up our sovereignity to another body. I don't have a UN passport..I have an American passport..I did not serve in a UN Armed Forces..but in an American Armed Forces..my driver's license was not obtained in a UN DMV..but an American one..and the UN was undermined long ago...the very fact they put Libya as Chairperson of the Human Rights Commission (and I don't care if they did it because their name was rotated ot it) is tantamount to hypocrisy.

Comparing Bush and Hitler is a legitimate exercise, and one that Bush (and Blair) have invited by incessantly comparing Saddam Hussein to Hitler. This comparison can be faulted simply by reference to the Nuremberg trials, where the principle charges were not genocide (although this is seen, rightly, as the greatest crime of the Nazis). The main charge was waging a war of aggression, in violation of international law. The US and its allies had no international sanction to invade Iraq. Post facto, the UN has legitimised the occupation, but the invasion was not sanctioned. Therefore, there is a case to be answered.

Of course, Bush and Blair’s comparisons were purely rhetorical. The Hitler they were referring to was not the historical figure, but the incarnation of pure evil. For this reason, many people on the list see no value in the comparison.

If you look at Hitler, and more importantly at the political party that he headed, a number of important differences emerge. Hitler was from a poor background, he served as a corporal in the WWI, was unemployed for long periods, and, most importantly he helped build a mass party. Bush, by comparison, is a scion of the American ruling class. He has no experience of the living conditions of ordinary Americans (eg the millions of Americans who lack any health insurance), and, as others point out, this shows in his absolute lack of rhetorical ability.

However, as the original post pointed out, Bush has used the 911 terrorist attacks to massively increase the powers of the state domestically (bigger government anyone?) and externally, just as Hitler used the Reichstag fire to introduce dictatorship. His administration has also latched onto the ‘clash of civilisations’ idea to justify an open-ended war against ‘terrorists’ wherever they may be.

In the final analysis, Bush is not a Nazi, because he lacks their populist appeal. But he has presided over the biggest attack on civil liberties since WW11 (and if the election is postponed, probably since the Civil War), and done the most to undermine international law since Hitler.

However, Bush is not a freak occurrence: There are concrete historical reasons for the unilateral turn of this administration. US economic power relative to its main rivals in Europe and Asia has been in constant decline since the high point following WW2, when the US accounted for half of global production, and in rapid RELATIVE decline since the 1970s. In one area, however, military power, the US now has an unprecedented advantage over its rivals – fruit of the Cold War. The temptation to use that power is overwhelming – and Clinton started it, sending troops into more conflicts than the previous three Presidents combined. Kerry, for his part, criticises Bush not for going to war, but for not sending enough soldiers to war. He’s pledged to bring peace by sending more soldiers (Richard Nixon, anyone?).

The startling conclusion of this is that, because of the two party ‘democracy’, the hundreds of millions of Americans who oppose the war have NO-One to vote for.

Some Americans have responded by protesting, others by not voting, and a small but extremely vocal (especially on the internet) minority have responded by abandoning rational discussion and drifting closer and closer to fascism. Ann Coulter is one example of irrational far-right populism that strikes a chord that A plutocrat could never do. The free republic website is another. The reaction on that site to the Abu Ghraib torture was to celebrate brutality as the only way to subdue Iraqi resistance. This lesson will have a flow-on effect inside the US as well.
The best thing to do is educate yourself and your friends and resist. Check out www.wsws.org

Dude, nice post, finally someone who understood my comparison.

Sorry can’t resist the sidetracks

anglo-judea wrote: “the term "rigth wing nazi" is contradictory. nazis were left wing (at least by the spectrum of right being less gov't and left being more) the fact was the Nazis had an economic system akin to the USSR .”

The Nazis actually restored profitability to German capitalism by smashing unions (resulting in the biggest transfer of wealth from the working class to the bosses in history) and by arms spending. He did practice state interventionism, but so did every other capitalist nation at the time, once they realised that the ‘invisible hand’ wasn’t going to fix the Depression.

anglo-judea wrote: “contras in nicuaraga were not a drug cartel (though they may have been involved in drugs like any central american power) but an anti-communist force”

The contras weren’t anti-communist so much as they were anti peasants. Their entire strategy was based on avoiding battle with the army (the ‘communists’) and slaughtering villagers. US support of this terrorist force resulted in the US being convicted by the World Court for state terrorism.

Some one else wrote:
Bush is a plutocrat..as has every president we have ever elected

Abe Lincoln, the greatest ever, wasn’t a plutocrat.

I also can’t let this go past

RightWing Conspirators wrote:
What is Israel doing that it doesn't have the right to be doing?
Living on land that was unoccupied until they Moved there?

Now, do people really believe this lie still. ‘A land without a people for a people without a land’ Try Antarctica, buddy, cause there ain’t any other unoccupied lands.

I agree with you on the Isreal thing

The Democratic Party is the American version of the socialist party. Many of their views are also communist too. Hence, thats why I'm not one. Liberals want to treat crime with a hug and let it go...omg, they should all be shot. Hence, why I'm not a liberal. I'm not a republican either, I dont vote. Quite frankly, because as a country, America sucks ass. It's judicial, law enforcement systems are screwed up, we need a la guadia seville equivelent in America. We need very harsh punishments for criminals, equall to the crime they did. (Eye for an eye) Social Welfare and medicare and stuff to an extent, but not like the democrats want. They are trying to turn us into socialists.

Democrats are not Socialist, as true socialism has castes, forced work, land is not sold and such so please make an intelligent statement.

After reading all of the Bush bashers posts - I can only hope that they are in a minority. I read so many opinions based on emotion and not facts. I read lies and half truth galore and even scarier were things they attributed to President Bush that were actually done by the liberals.

I am hoping that there is another President Reagon out there somewhere to undivide America.

The loonies are taking over.

God bless America and her citizens.

Now before you conservatives get all up in a snort and bash the thread with out reading it, or scoffing and chalking it off as democrat propoganda, I am not a Democrat, I am liberal, very Liberal so open your eyes and hear both sides of the argument.well, I am the opposite, very much so the opposite, so open your eyes and listen to both sides of the arguement.

Now Hitler Muscled his way into the governmrnt. George Bush, well I only have to say Floridia.Which side:
>wanted to disregard all absentee ballots (traditionally conservative)?
>gave cigarettes to the poor if they would vote for Gore?
>tried to change Florida law to benefit Gore?
>dragged us through umphteen different recounts, all of which pointed to Bush, looking for one that counted for Gore that they would release as official?
>had college students vote three, four times? (college students are traditionally liberal)

Stop saying the election was rigged for Bush. You know it, I know it, both sides had their little scams going.

Hitler had his party who had the majority burn down the reichstag (german parliment) and blame it on the Communists to recieve "Emergency Powers".Um, as far as I know, the Capitol Building is still standing and a lot of Bush's agenda has been filibustered or voted down.
George Bush convieniently did not see the papers warning him about 9/11So? Clinton LET OSAMA GET AWAY THREE TIMES! One of those times, the Sudan was holding OBL and all we had to do was pick him up. Clinton did nothing.

The 9/11 commission recently reported that there were 10 opportunities for Bush and Clinton to stop 9/11. Four of these occured under the Clinton administration, six under Bush. However, the commission said that they were all long shots with very low chances of success.
and allowed it to happen desroying our commerce builings and damaging our Military nerve center, the very next few days the Patriot Act and othe subsequent laws were made to give the government virtually unlimited power.Such laws, may I remind you, were passed by Congress, not the President. I have one question for you about the patriot act.
WHERE IS THE WIDESPREAD CIVIL RIGHTS CRISIS THAT THE LEFT HAS BEEN WHINING ABOUT FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS?
We still have freedom of speech, don't we? I mean, you're comparing the President to Hitler, and nobody's kicked your door in. Freedom of the press, check. Freedom of religion... well, you can blame activist judges and the ACLU for that.

Hitler blamed every problem on the Jews. Well lets say Bush can only say Muslim Extreists or Iraq.Tell me... how many Germans were murdered by the Jews before WW2? Hmm?
How many Americans were murdered by the terrorists before 9/11 and up to the present?

I rest my case.

Bush did not legally win Florida's electoral votes, and therefor did not legally win the vote of the Electoral College.

U.S. Code Title 3 requires each state to submit a list of appointed electors, determined by that state's laws and with all disputes resolved by the legislature &/or the judiciary, by a specific deadline. The names on those lists define the apponted electors for each state and the total of appointed electors for the electoral college.

Florida's laws required a recount, and the last word from the judiciary was that such a recount had to be done state wide. That never happened. Therefor Florida never submitted a legally compiled list of electors for the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election. Furthermore, since the list that the did submit should not have been used in the total of all appointed electors from all states, Gore had over 50% of the legally appointed electors' votes, and should have been named President.

I said this in a thread before the server change, but Those Who Will Not Respond To Truth insisted that, even if the names on Florida's list were not there legally, the total number of appointed electors for the whole college would have included the slots wrongly filled by those electors, leaving Gore with an under 50% majority and forcing a statutory House vote.

An actual READING of U.S. Code Title 3 amply shows that this is not true. The total number of electors to determine whether or not a cantidate has a 50%+ majority is the total of appointed electors after all of the states who have met the deadline have submitted their lists. Electors appointed contrary to a state's laws &/or with conflicts that have not been resolved by the legislature &/or the judiciary (NOT by the administration, i.e. Jeb and Katherine) DO NOT COUNT AS APPOINTED ELECTORS, and their empty seats do not count towards the total of appointed electors in the college.



If Cold Hard... Bitch? I thought, being the noun part of her name... and her cronies want to address this they are more than welcome. However when I said it before they vowed to ignore me... apparently when they did not address the facts I made the mistake of repeating them too many times. SO... submitted for the approval of all who value the Rule of Law over political nepotism and constitutional hijacking.



- A.J.H.

P.S.: I am pretty sure it was C.H.B., though I am certain I will hear from her if I am mistaken, probably with words like "moron", one of her perenial favorites.

Anyway it was someone just as "skilled" at actually addressing points raised.

. . .

WHERE IS THE WIDESPREAD CIVIL RIGHTS CRISIS THAT THE LEFT HAS BEEN WHINING ABOUT FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS?

. . .



Well from what's I've just quoted you saying, you are not an Arab or if you are you were born here. Good for you, you get too ignore the suffering of a minority. Unless someone in the administration decides that you might be a terror suspect anyway (maybe you're a Black Muslim?) you get to keep your right to, if arrested, speak with an attorney, be informed of the charges against you, have information pertinant to your incarceration on the public record, be indigted before a grand jury and have formal charges filed within 72(?) hours of arrest, and have a trial before a jury of your peers. You also BTW have the right to be held on state soil (assuming you, your arrest, and what you are accused of were all in the states) and not to be rendered away to other governments which respect your humanity even less.

But you are not a terrorist or their supporter, are you? Neither were, by the administration's own account, the vast majority of those they rounded up and held for months in secret in windowless rooms with lights 24/7 with no attorneys and without telling their families for months starting on 9-12.

But then, you're not an Arab born elsewhere, are you? or a Muslim?



And you're noot a protestor against this current administration, are you? If you were, and if you had ever tried to to protest anywhere near where any of the administration were appearing, you would already know that your First Ammendment Rights have been limited to being excerised in pre-established "Free Speach Zones" (yes, this is their official designation) seperated from the rest of the United States by baricades.

And I don't expect you would drive through Crawford Texas with an anti-Bush bumper sticker on your vehicle, now would you? Not unless you planned to spend the night there.



You haven't noticed it because it wasn't happening to you. Congratulations! You still enjoy all the rights that the majority in this country always has!



- A.J.H.

*SNIP*
Such laws, may I remind you, were passed by Congress, not the President. I have one question for you about the patriot act.
WHERE IS THE WIDESPREAD CIVIL RIGHTS CRISIS THAT THE LEFT HAS BEEN WHINING ABOUT FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS?
We still have freedom of speech, don't we? I mean, you're comparing the President to Hitler, and nobody's kicked your door in. Freedom of the press, check. Freedom of religion... well, you can blame activist judges and the ACLU for that.

The fact that it has not happened is not a valid arguement. The fact is it now can legall happen and it has happened. People suspect of involvement of terrorism are grabbed up. Without the right to a lawyer or a trial. Last count I heard was about 1000 people have "disappeared."

Congress may have made the laws but how long would they have lasted if at all if the Shrub went on TV and said these laws are an affront to the American way of life. Contact your representatives and tell them it's bad. Hmmm no patriot act. He knew about them when they were being written and he blessed them.

Well from what's I've just quoted you saying, you are not an Arab or if you are you were born here. Good for you, you get too ignore the suffering of a minority. Unless someone in the administration decides that you might be a terror suspect anyway (maybe you're a Black Muslim?) you get to keep your right to, if arrested, speak with an attorney, be informed of the charges against you, have information pertinant to your incarceration on the public record, be indigted before a grand jury and have formal charges filed within 72(?) hours of arrest, and have a trial before a jury of your peers. You also BTW have the right to be held on state soil (assuming you, your arrest, and what you are accused of were all in the states) and not to be rendered away to other governments which respect your humanity even less.

But you are not a terrorist or their supporter, are you? Neither were, by the administration's own account, the vast majority of those they rounded up and held for months in secret in windowless rooms with lights 24/7 with no attorneys and without telling their families for months starting on 9-12.

But then, you're not an Arab born elsewhere, are you? or a Muslim?



And you're noot a protestor against this current administration, are you? If you were, and if you had ever tried to to protest anywhere near where any of the administration were appearing, you would already know that your First Ammendment Rights have been limited to being excerised in pre-established "Free Speach Zones" (yes, this is their official designation) seperated from the rest of the United States by baricades.

And I don't expect you would drive through Crawford Texas with an anti-Bush bumper sticker on your vehicle, now would you? Not unless you planned to spend the night there.



You haven't noticed it because it wasn't happening to you. Congratulations! You still enjoy all the rights that the majority in this country always has!



- A.J.H.I'm not a Muslim, I'm not anti-Bush, and you dodged the question.

The fact that it has not happened is not a valid arguement. The fact is it now can legall happen and it has happened. People suspect of involvement of terrorism are grabbed up. Without the right to a lawyer or a trial. Last count I heard was about 1000 people have "disappeared."Yeah, and where was this count, if it exists? And, as expected, I won't believe a left-wing source like moveon.org.

Congress may have made the laws but how long would they have lasted if at all if the Shrub went on TV and said these laws are an affront to the American way of life. Contact your representatives and tell them it's bad. Hmmm no patriot act. He knew about them when they were being written and he blessed them.please, answer the question. What I said below the large font is true, is it not?

I have already answered the question.

The affront to the Consititution is the fact the Patriot Act now makes it possible for such actions to happen.

The question is no longer where the violations have happened but when they will happen.

Yeah, and where was this count, if it exists? And, as expected, I won't believe a left-wing source like moveon.org.


It was an NPR news blip but I know it's lefty so it must be a lie.

How do you trust a secretive administration like the Shrubs?

I have already answered the question.

The affront to the Consititution is the fact the Patriot Act now makes it possible for such actions to happen.

The question is no longer where the violations have happened but when they will happen.


BF..you know full well that the majority of the Patriot Act are parts and parcels of laws already on the books which are utilized against organized crime including RICO statutes..all the Patriot Act does is put all these separate entitites in one legal document...

I'm not a Muslim, I'm not anti-Bush, and you dodged the question.

I didn't think you were, I didn't think you were, and no I did not. You asked where the civil rights losses were, and I pointed them out.

Really I am used to you people not answering the points posted in response to your own, but to accuse me of doing that as a way to get out of addressing the examples, the answers, that I have just given you really shows us a new measure of the pro-Bush side's rhetorical abilities.

- A.J.H.

Yeah, and where was this count, if it exists? And, as expected, I won't believe a left-wing source like moveon.org.

Of course you won't. Well he might have misspoken, because I believe it is common knowledge that around 1100 Arab/Muslims were detained in secret without access to council right after 9-11. Oh, but they were not citizens, right? Look at the IV, V and VI Ammendments, sparky, and tell me where the word "citizen" appears. BTW this is a question. Will you answer it?

please, answer the question. What I said below the large font is true, is it not?

I have, and it is not. Anyway what it is is a question, so how could it be? But what you infer with it is not true either, as I have shown you.



- A.J.H.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3937711/

Note that the number of detainees "at issue in the case" before the Supreme Court was a mere ~700 . Feel free to show your ignorance of how the U.S. legal system works by picking at that little fact.

- A.J.H.

BF..you know full well that the majority of the Patriot Act are parts and parcels of laws already on the books which are utilized against organized crime including RICO statutes..all the Patriot Act does is put all these separate entitites in one legal document...

Wow I guess I misunderstood the Constitution ;)

Sorry but,

The Patriot Act violates the First Amendment:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.

It violates the guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.

It creates a very serious risk that truly innocent individuals could be deported for association with political groups that the government later chooses to regard as terrorist organizations.

Punishes speech protected by the First Amendment, even of lawful permanent residents.

It permits visitors and immigrants to be found "inadmissible" for advocacy that the Secretary of State determines undermines our anti-terrorism efforts. This could conceivably include speeches, Letters to the Editor, or other comments about the government and it's actions.

The Patriot Act violates the 4th Amendment:


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized


allowing foreign intelligence searches for criminal purposes without probable cause of crime.

failing to provide timely notice to persons whose home has been searched. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

allowing the government to seize records in intelligence and terrorism investigations without probable suspicion that the records pertain to a terrorist, spy or other foreign agent.

The Patriot violates the 5th Amendment :


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


allows indefinite incarceration of persons without judicial review thereby denying due process and equal protection of law.

creates a very serious risk that individuals could be deported for association with political groups that the government later chooses to regard as terrorist organizations.


You are ok with this?

Of course you won't. Well he might have misspoken, because I believe it is common knowledge that around 1100 Arab/Muslims were detained in secret without access to council right after 9-11. Oh, but they were not citizens, right? Look at the IV, V and VI Ammendments, sparky, and tell me where the word "citizen" appears. BTW this is a question. Will you answer it?



I have, and it is not. Anyway what it is is a question, so how could it be? But what you infer with it is not true either, as I have shown you.



- A.J.H.

Thank you. That was what I was refering too.

My grandfather was an immigrant so he was in this country before he was a citizen. Such actions bother me.

:rolleyes:


You remind me why I am a Republican, to be against idiots like you. Hitler and Bush have nothing in common, and Bush won Florida fairly, deal with it!


I'll deal with it when you PROVE IT! If that was true then why would no one let it be invesitgated. Scared they might get found out?

I'll deal with it when you PROVE IT! If that was true then why would no one let it be invesitgated. Scared they might get found out?

it has been investigated

not only by the federal government but by countless independent (liberal some might even argue) news agencies and they've all come to the same conlusion

The Democratic Party is the American version of the socialist party. Many of their views are also communist too. Hence, thats why I'm not one. Liberals want to treat crime with a hug and let it go...omg, they should all be shot. Hence, why I'm not a liberal. I'm not a republican either, I dont vote. Quite frankly, because as a country, America sucks ass. It's judicial, law enforcement systems are screwed up, we need a la guadia seville equivelent in America. We need very harsh punishments for criminals, equall to the crime they did. (Eye for an eye) Social Welfare and medicare and stuff to an extent, but not like the democrats want. They are trying to turn us into socialists.

I don't agree with your views... but even so I think you should vote. People who don't vote have no right to complain about they're coutries systems. How do expect to fix you're country by sitting on your ass and watching TV?

it has been investigated

not only by the federal government but by countless independent (liberal some might even argue) news agencies and they've all come to the same conlusion

I'd like to see that.

Wow I guess I misunderstood the Constitution ;)

Sorry but,

The Patriot Act violates the First Amendment:



by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.

It violates the guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.

It creates a very serious risk that truly innocent individuals could be deported for association with political groups that the government later chooses to regard as terrorist organizations.

Punishes speech protected by the First Amendment, even of lawful permanent residents.

It permits visitors and immigrants to be found "inadmissible" for advocacy that the Secretary of State determines undermines our anti-terrorism efforts. This could conceivably include speeches, Letters to the Editor, or other comments about the government and it's actions.

The Patriot Act violates the 4th Amendment:



allowing foreign intelligence searches for criminal purposes without probable cause of crime.

failing to provide timely notice to persons whose home has been searched. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

allowing the government to seize records in intelligence and terrorism investigations without probable suspicion that the records pertain to a terrorist, spy or other foreign agent.

The Patriot violates the 5th Amendment :



allows indefinite incarceration of persons without judicial review thereby denying due process and equal protection of law.

creates a very serious risk that individuals could be deported for association with political groups that the government later chooses to regard as terrorist organizations.


You are ok with this?


Thanks for spelling it out for him, BF :) I was labouring under the mistaken impression that he would actually be willing to read the Bill of Rights.

it has been investigated

not only by the federal government but by countless independent (liberal some might even argue) news agencies and they've all come to the same conlusion

Yes... that Bush would have won a recount? OK... But have any of them addressed the illegal admission of Florida's electors into the electoral college?

1) The law required a recount of the entire state, according to the Supremes.

2) U.S. Code Title 3 requires that all conflicts be resolved by the legislature &/or the judiciary prior to acceptance of elector appointments.

3) neither (1) nor (2) was done.

4) Bush did not legally win the electoral vote.



Oh did these investigations include investigations of the mass purges of the voter rolls?



- A.H.J.

In response to the original post, you can't really say that Gore had the election stolen from him. Look at two of the states that he lost, Arkansas and Tennessee. Why did he lose them? He didn't campaign in either one. Why? Because he assumed he could take his home state and that of Clinton. Sorry man, while I agree that the Florida polls were a complete SNAFU, you can't argue that Gore made a balls-to-the-wall effort to get elected.

As far as comparing Bush and Hitler, you are overlooking something that completely kills your arguement. Hitler wanted a conservative Germany, and used propaganda to reach his end. He also practiced ethnic cleansing. While I am not a fan of Bush, you can't really compare Iraq to the holocaust. Genocide and sparse fighting are not one in the same.

In response to the original post, you can't really say that Gore had the election stolen from him. Look at two of the states that he lost, Arkansas and Tennessee. Why did he lose them? He didn't campaign in either one. Why? Because he assumed he could take his home state and that of Clinton. Sorry man, while I agree that the Florida polls were a complete SNAFU, you can't argue that Gore made a balls-to-the-wall effort to get elected.

As far as comparing Bush and Hitler, you are overlooking something that completely kills your arguement. Hitler wanted a conservative Germany, and used propaganda to reach his end. He also practiced ethnic cleansing. While I am not a fan of Bush, you can't really compare Iraq to the holocaust. Genocide and sparse fighting are not one in the same.

1) So... if you leave your keys in your car and someone drives off with it, it's not stolen because you weren't careful enough? Please, answer my legal argument, re: U.S. Code Title 3, or else openly take the position that Rule of Law is not important.

2) True you are. Bush is not as bad as Hitler. That's not the topic. Might have been better to put "some ways in which " in front of the topic title.



- A.J.H.

Wow I guess I misunderstood the Constitution ;)

Sorry but,

The Patriot Act violates the First Amendment:



by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.

It violates the guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.

It creates a very serious risk that truly innocent individuals could be deported for association with political groups that the government later chooses to regard as terrorist organizations.

Punishes speech protected by the First Amendment, even of lawful permanent residents.

It permits visitors and immigrants to be found "inadmissible" for advocacy that the Secretary of State determines undermines our anti-terrorism efforts. This could conceivably include speeches, Letters to the Editor, or other comments about the government and it's actions.

The Patriot Act violates the 4th Amendment:



allowing foreign intelligence searches for criminal purposes without probable cause of crime.

failing to provide timely notice to persons whose home has been searched. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

allowing the government to seize records in intelligence and terrorism investigations without probable suspicion that the records pertain to a terrorist, spy or other foreign agent.

The Patriot violates the 5th Amendment :



allows indefinite incarceration of persons without judicial review thereby denying due process and equal protection of law.

creates a very serious risk that individuals could be deported for association with political groups that the government later chooses to regard as terrorist organizations.


You are ok with this?


BF...as I said..the vast majority of the Patriot Act is culled from the very statutes necessary to fight organized crime..they help to form a base foundation..am I comfortable with some aspects..yes..am I comfortable with all of it..not necessarily..but I am not willing to concede that the Patriot Act so far has necessarily damaged the civil rights as a whole in this country.

So as I stated..most of the legal aspects of this act can be found in various criminal statutes already on the books....and if they can work on organized crime...terrorists groups to me would be applicable as well.

I gather you disagree with RICO then..because several aspects of the RICO statutes can be found in the Patriot Act

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/sucks11.jpg

All of you democrats, dont have a clue about the war, and bush. you people rely on nothing much more than the democratic media that is full of lies, the following is from a soldier in iraq, proving that the media says nothing much more than bull sh*t: Subject:
Fwd: FW: Interesting Letter from Iraq Army Medic

This informative letter is from a soldier in IRAQ. He is serving as a Medic of his IowaArmy National Guard unit. Following are the words of SFC Ray Reynolds:

As I head off to Baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in Iraq, I
wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media. They
have done a very poor job of covering everything that has happened. I am
sorry that I have not been able to visit all of you during my two-week
leave back home. And just so you can rest at night knowing something is
happening in Iraqthat is note-worthy, I thought I would pass this on to
you. This is the list of things that has happened in Iraq recently:
(Please share it with your friends and compare it to the version that
your paper/TV is putting out.)
* Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.
* School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.
* Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored
there so education can occur.
* The port of Uhm Qasarwas renovated so grain can be off-loaded from
ships faster.
* The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.
* Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time
ever in Iraq.
* The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before
the war.
* 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35%
before the war.
* Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are
in place.
* Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.
* Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
* Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.
* Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side
with US soldiers.
* Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever
* Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to
prevent the spread of germs.
* An interim constitution has been signed.
* Girls are allowed to attend school.
* Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first
time in 30 years.
Don't believe for one second that these people do not want us there. I
have met many, many people from Iraqthat want us there, and in a bad
way. They say they will never see the freedoms we talk about, but they
hope their children will. We are doing a good job in Iraqand I
challenge anyone, anywhere to dispute me on these facts. If you
happen to see John Kerry, be sure to send him to Denison, Iowa. This soldier will set him straight. If you are like me and very disgusted with how this period of rebuilding has been portrayed. Email this to a friend and let them know there are good things happening.
Ray Reynolds, SFC
Iowa Army National Guard
234th Signal Battalion

Democrats are not Socialist, as true socialism has castes, forced work, land is not sold and such so please make an intelligent statement.


just because the democrats wont go as far as doing that they can still be refered to as socialists. I love it how when a republican is attacked its ok but when a democrat is attacked every democrat idiot cries foul. and every democrat thinks that they are somehow smarter than the other 50% of the US. And in response to there are no condidates for the American people to vote for that are anti war there was Denis Kusinich. Where was your tree hugging friends then?

1) So... if you leave your keys in your car and someone drives off with it, it's not stolen because you weren't careful enough? Please, answer my legal argument, re: U.S. Code Title 3, or else openly take the position that Rule of Law is not important.


No, I definitely would not be making that arguement. I agree that wrong is wrong, even if I am the one doing it. I don't know all the details of the legalities of the election in Florida, which is why I don't even want to stick my big toe into that arguement. Mostly because I don't care.


My opinion: Politicians suck because they are all generally the same with their choice of vice being the only thing to distinguish them.

I don't agree with your views... but even so I think you should vote. People who don't vote have no right to complain about they're coutries systems. How do expect to fix you're country by sitting on your ass and watching TV?


I totally agree!

BF...as I said..the vast majority of the Patriot Act is culled from the very statutes necessary to fight organized crime..they help to form a base foundation..am I comfortable with some aspects..yes..am I comfortable with all of it..not necessarily..but I am not willing to concede that the Patriot Act so far has necessarily damaged the civil rights as a whole in this country.

So as I stated..most of the legal aspects of this act can be found in various criminal statutes already on the books....and if they can work on organized crime...terrorists groups to me would be applicable as well.

I gather you disagree with RICO then..because several aspects of the RICO statutes can be found in the Patriot Act

OK yet a third question I don't expect you to answer:

Since you're comfortable with RICO and the necessary "damage to civil rights" that it somehow makes Constitutional, why did we need a PATRIOT Act?

OH wait... maybe because RICO requires judicial review and over the process and does not allow the police and administration arms of the government to unilaterally decide that the statute is applicable.

Actually I am not sure of this. I looked on http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/rico/rico.htm but guess what? They're remodelling!
The USINFO website is undergoing signficant design changes, and the location of the file you are seeking may have moved
So I went to the start page as suggested elsewhere on that page... and through its links... no help... so I did a Search and found the page I had started from. The subsections are just * not * there. Your government at work.

I agree.

[QUOTE=Druthulhu]1) So... if you leave your keys in your car and someone drives off with it, it's not stolen because you weren't careful enough? Please, answer my legal argument, re: U.S. Code Title 3, or else openly take the position that Rule of Law is not important.

2) True you are. Bush is not as bad as Hitler. That's not the topic. Might have been better to put "some ways in which " in front of the topic title.



- A.J.H.[/QUOT

This is where you liberals are idiots. You can compare any US leader to hitler if you want to say that. All you are doing is not making an arguement but trying to demonize a person who you hate by "comparing him." And that right here ladies and gentlemen nulllifies your complete arguement from your own mouth. "some ways in which " or "like" Can be anyone.

By the way,

Bush and Hitler have not one damn thing in common! So dont even try to say that, all you people do is rely on the stupid media to informyou, get it strait; the media is one big fat LIE

All of you democrats, dont have a clue about the war, and bush. you people rely on nothing much more than the democratic media that is full of lies, the following is from a soldier in iraq, proving that the media says nothing much more than bull sh*t: Subject:
Fwd: FW: Interesting Letter from Iraq Army Medic

This informative letter is from a soldier in IRAQ. He is serving as a Medic of his IowaArmy National Guard unit. Following are the words of SFC Ray Reynolds:

As I head off to Baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in Iraq, I
wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media. They
have done a very poor job of covering everything that has happened. I am
sorry that I have not been able to visit all of you during my two-week
leave back home. And just so you can rest at night knowing something is
happening in Iraqthat is note-worthy, I thought I would pass this on to
you. This is the list of things that has happened in Iraq recently:
(Please share it with your friends and compare it to the version that
your paper/TV is putting out.)
* Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.
* School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.
* Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored
there so education can occur.
* The port of Uhm Qasarwas renovated so grain can be off-loaded from
ships faster.
* The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.
* Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time
ever in Iraq.
* The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before
the war.
* 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35%
before the war.
* Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are
in place.
* Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.
* Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
* Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.
* Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side
with US soldiers.
* Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever
* Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to
prevent the spread of germs.
* An interim constitution has been signed.
* Girls are allowed to attend school.
* Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first
time in 30 years.
Don't believe for one second that these people do not want us there. I
have met many, many people from Iraqthat want us there, and in a bad
way. They say they will never see the freedoms we talk about, but they
hope their children will. We are doing a good job in Iraqand I
challenge anyone, anywhere to dispute me on these facts. If you
happen to see John Kerry, be sure to send him to Denison, Iowa. This soldier will set him straight. If you are like me and very disgusted with how this period of rebuilding has been portrayed. Email this to a friend and let them know there are good things happening.
Ray Reynolds, SFC
Iowa Army National Guard
234th Signal Battalion


Silly Kings :p. My friend's dad is a medic in Afghanistan, and people over there are *PISSED* about Iraq. They don't see why we split their forces in order to go into a place that has nothing to do with the "War on Terror."

No, I definitely would not be making that arguement. I agree that wrong is wrong, even if I am the one doing it. I don't know all the details of the legalities of the election in Florida, which is why I don't even want to stick my big toe into that arguement. Mostly because I don't care.


My opinion: Politicians suck because they are all generally the same with their choice of vice being the only thing to distinguish them.

If you're not an American I can't expect you to care, but if you are, you certainly should. You seem reasonable so I advise you to go and read U.S. Code Title 3 and then come back and tell us, based on what we can all agree were the events, whether you think the law was fallowed.



- A.J.H.

Search warrants and “reasonable cause” are still mandatory under the PATRIOT Act.

It also allowed law enforcement and intelligence groups to share information.

And there's been no documented cases of civil rights violations caused by the act.

Until one of these pops up, I'll have nothing against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

[QUOTE=Druthulhu]1) So... if you leave your keys in your car and someone drives off with it, it's not stolen because you weren't careful enough? Please, answer my legal argument, re: U.S. Code Title 3, or else openly take the position that Rule of Law is not important.

2) True you are. Bush is not as bad as Hitler. That's not the topic. Might have been better to put "some ways in which " in front of the topic title.



- A.J.H.[/QUOT

This is where you liberals are idiots. You can compare any US leader to hitler if you want to say that. All you are doing is not making an arguement but trying to demonize a person who you hate by "comparing him." And that right here ladies and gentlemen nulllifies your complete arguement from your own mouth. "some ways in which " or "like" Can be anyone.

"We're" idiots? Do you even KNOW how to use the edit function?

Silly Kings :p. My friend's dad is a medic in Afghanistan, and people over there are *PISSED* about Iraq. They don't see why we split their forces in order to go into a place that has nothing to do with the "War on Terror."

If you would see that we are actualy trying to help another country, other than our on selfish selfs, you may know why were actualy there for the good of them, and anyways there are plenty of us forces there, in iraq and afganistan :sniper:

OK yet a third question I don't expect you to answer:

Since you're comfortable with RICO and the necessary "damage to civil rights" that it somehow makes Constitutional, why did we need a PATRIOT Act?

OH wait... maybe because RICO requires judicial review and over the process and does not allow the police and administration arms of the government to unilaterally decide that the statute is applicable.

Actually I am not sure of this. I looked on http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/rico/rico.htm but guess what? They're remodelling!

So I went to the start page as suggested elsewhere on that page... and through its links... no help... so I did a Search and found the page I had started from. The subsections are just * not * there. Your government at work.

First off..you haven't asked me any other questions..let alone 3 til now, at any rate..why do we need the Patriot...because the Patriot takes not just from RICO, but several laws already on the books, this laws utilize means to identify, charge, and convict organized crime...these same laws are now codified in the Patriot Act to deal with terrorists...and you have a problem dealing with terrorists?...Do you have an alternative legal precedent to utilize?

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/sucks.gif

Search warrants and “reasonable cause” are still mandatory under the PATRIOT Act.

It also allowed law enforcement and intelligence groups to share information.

And there's been no documented cases of civil rights violations caused by the act.

Until one of these pops up, I'll have nothing against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
If so I apologize. I was going to try to read them side-by-side but as I mentioned our government's RICO site is down. So I was unable to compare their respective standards of proof.

SO what of my initial question: terrorism is certainly organized crime, so since we already had RICO, why was PATRIOT needed? Because we had to TELL the CIA, FBI and INS to cooperate with eachother? If that was it the Act would be a Hell of a lot shorter.

And as for incidents popping up, we've let Bush and his thugs get away with enough without them having to invoke it much, haven't we? Oh of course you disagree. Jailing 700+ Arab/Muslims in secret was deemed "OK" by the Supreme Court... well... actually they declined to hear it.

But until it happens to someone that you can be convinced is not a terrorist ("guilty until proven innocent", remember?) you won't care, will you?



- A.J.H.

First off..you haven't asked me any other questions..let alone 3 til now, at any rate..why do we need the Patriot...because the Patriot takes not just from RICO, but several laws already on the books, this laws utilize means to identify, charge, and convict organized crime...these same laws are now codified in the Patriot Act to deal with terrorists...and you have a problem dealing with terrorists?...Do you have an alternative legal precedent to utilize?

Sorry :( I think I had you confused with Reynes.

Point is do we need another precedent? Isn't terrorism already organized crime? Like I said... our .gov isn't making its text available now, so I don't know... does RICO only define it in terms of traditional racketeering activities?



- A.J.H.

If so I apologize. I was going to try to read them side-by-side but as I mentioned our government's RICO site is down. So I was unable to compare their respective standards of proof.

SO what of my initial question: terrorism is certainly organized crime, so since we already had RICO, why was PATRIOT needed? Because we had to TELL the CIA, FBI and INS to cooperate with eachother? If that was it the Act would be a Hell of a lot shorter.

And as for incidents popping up, we've let Bush and his thugs get away with enough without them having to invoke it much, haven't we? Oh of course you disagree. Jailing 700+ Arab/Muslims in secret was deemed "OK" by the Supreme Court... well... actually they declined to hear it.

But until it happens to someone that you can be convinced is not a terrorist ("guilty until proven innocent", remember?) you won't care, will you?



- A.J.H.

I won't care about it until someone's civil rights are actually violated by the PATRIOT Act. Search warrants and reasonable cause are still required by the act, as said before, so there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it at the time. When someone's rights are violated, I'll join you in being against it.

First off..you haven't asked me any other questions..let alone 3 til now, at any rate..why do we need the Patriot...because the Patriot takes not just from RICO, but several laws already on the books, this laws utilize means to identify, charge, and convict organized crime...these same laws are now codified in the Patriot Act to deal with terrorists...and you have a problem dealing with terrorists?...Do you have an alternative legal precedent to utilize?

Salishe, Patriot act dying does not kill Rico.

The laws are on the books! There is no "need" to colocate; that is a BS argument.

But I think I am going to withdraw from this if the arguments are going to be "You're against the Patriot act? So you must be for the terrorists and Drug lords"

Just remember what Ben Franklin said:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty not safety.

I didn't think you were, I didn't think you were, and no I did not. You asked where the civil rights losses were, and I pointed them out.

Really I am used to you people not answering the points posted in response to your own, but to accuse me of doing that as a way to get out of addressing the examples, the answers, that I have just given you really shows us a new measure of the pro-Bush side's rhetorical abilities.

- A.J.H.

"[Y]ou people"? So this one person's "rhetorical abilities" reflect "a new measure of the pro-Bush side"?

Ad Hominem. Hasty Generalization. Guilt By Association.

All logical fallacies, which are sufficient to render your statements logically invalid.

This gives us a logically valid view of your faculties of reason.

I won't care about it until someone's civil rights are actually violated by the PATRIOT Act. Search warrants and reasonable cause are still required by the act, as said before, so there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it at the time. When someone's rights are violated, I'll join you in being against it.

Fair enough :) although the PATRIOT Act is not the topic of this thread. So I take it we can expect you to be against the Bush administration's unconstitutional secret police tactics whether they invoke that Act or not? :)

I won't care about it until someone's civil rights are actually violated by the PATRIOT Act. Search warrants and reasonable cause are still required by the act, as said before, so there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it at the time. When someone's rights are violated, I'll join you in being against it.

You posted the link, but did you even read it all?

3. Physical search warrants

Judicial finding of probable cause of criminality; return on warrant.

Previously, agents were required at the time of the search or soon thereafter to notify person whose premises were searched that search occurred, usually by leaving copy of warrant.

PATRIOT makes it easier to obtain surreptitious or "sneak-and-peek" warrants under which notice can be delayed.


sure they have to get a warrent but now they can enter your premises and don't have to leave the warrent.

If they "forget" to send it; how would a person know the local authorities were there? At most they will think it was a breakin and report it as such....

"[Y]ou people"? So this one person's "rhetorical abilities" reflect "a new measure of the pro-Bush side"?

Ad Hominem. Hasty Generalization. Guilt By Association.

All logical fallacies, which are sufficient to render your statements logically invalid.

This gives us a logically valid view of your faculties of reason.
Galtania, my dear, you are quite correct :) mia culpa.

Now... be a lamb and look through this whole thread and bring me back a count of how many pro-Bush posters and posts have called all anti-Bush posters things like idiots, morons, democrats, etc.? ;) thanks now ;)

You posted the link, but did you even read it all?

3. Physical search warrants

Judicial finding of probable cause of criminality; return on warrant.

Previously, agents were required at the time of the search or soon thereafter to notify person whose premises were searched that search occurred, usually by leaving copy of warrant.

PATRIOT makes it easier to obtain surreptitious or "sneak-and-peek" warrants under which notice can be delayed.


sure they have to get a warrent but now they can enter your premises and don't have to leave the warrent.

If they "forget" to send it; how would a person know the local authorities were there? At most they will think it was a breakin and report it as such....


Delayed notice searches were already legal, now they're just easier to obtain. If they forget to send it, hm, good question, one in which I don't have the answer to. I'm sure the laws, if not already enacted to handle such scenario, will take care of things.

Fair enough although the PATRIOT Act is not the topic of this thread. So I take it we can expect you to be against the Bush administration's unconstitutional secret police tactics whether they invoke that Act or not?

As soon as the Supreme Court declares them so, count me in.

Salishe, Patriot act dying does not kill Rico.

The laws are on the books! There is no "need" to colocate; that is a BS argument.

But I think I am going to withdraw from this if the arguments are going to be "You're against the Patriot act? So you must be for the terrorists and Drug lords"

Just remember what Ben Franklin said:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty not safety.

I never said if you're against the Patriot Act..I asked if a poster was against using the Patriot Act to deal with terrorists, and if so did he/she have an alternative legal precedent to use...And the Patriot Act merely makes it easier to use all known tools with which to take them down...in your opinion placing all these inside the body of the Patriot Act may be BS but that does not negate the need for a interwoven set of codes and increased interaction between federal agencies which the Patriot Act does.

"[Y]ou people"? So this one person's "rhetorical abilities" reflect "a new measure of the pro-Bush side"?

Ad Hominem. Hasty Generalization. Guilt By Association.

All logical fallacies, which are sufficient to render your statements logically invalid.

This gives us a logically valid view of your faculties of reason.

Oh wait... brain fart. I did not say that "You people" anything, now did I? I only pointed out one of "you people" who was showing us a new measure of the rhetorical ability of your side. I even called it a "new measure" to indicate that I had as yet not seen such an example. No one else of "you people" was stated or implied as having any guilt in that matter.

So any apologies I have made with regard to that post, stated or implied, are withdrawn. Sorry.

[QUOTE=Druthulhu]If you're not an American I can't expect you to care, but if you are, you certainly should. You seem reasonable so I advise you to go and read U.S. Code Title 3 and then come back and tell us, based on what we can all agree were the events, whether you think the law was fallowed.QUOTE]


Well, I've been reading the code, but as I don't know the exact details of the Florida election, I won't speculate just yet. At least not while I am still at this place called "work." I will try to get back to it tonight though.

[QUOTE=Druthulhu]If you're not an American I can't expect you to care, but if you are, you certainly should. You seem reasonable so I advise you to go and read U.S. Code Title 3 and then come back and tell us, based on what we can all agree were the events, whether you think the law was fallowed.QUOTE]


Well, I've been reading the code, but as I don't know the exact details of the Florida election, I won't speculate just yet. At least not while I am still at this place called "work." I will try to get back to it tonight though.

Behold! an Hourable Man!

:)

You cannot compare George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler was actually voted into political office.

Not to mention Hitler wrote a book. At the moment I'm not sure if Dubya can read a book.

Yes, the famous Mein Kampf... however Bush has not murdered political opponents, so we have to give him credit there.

Personally, I've heard all the comparisons that people make betwixt Hitler and Bush, and the Weimar Republic and the Current USA... and it's a serious excercise in Selective Observation.

If you take the rise of Hitler and the failings of the Weimar Republic completely out of context at the time (i.e. remove what happened to Germany at the end of WWI, ignore the massive debt and poverty in Germany prior to WW2, ignore the fact that the German people at the time were all but hopeless, and a very charismatic leader gave them hope and pride in their country once more, and pretty much remove everything that made Hitler's rise to power possible) then yes, there's a comparison, but the selective nature of such a conclusion make it a fairly falacious conclusion.

A better comparison for the current state of our nation is really towards the Roman Republic at the height of its power, imho. The political, social, military, and economic situations that Rome sat in at the time, along with the leadership's assumed goals, are a much greater parallel.

But Hitler and Weimar? Not really, no.

Me.

Yes, the famous Mein Kampf... however Bush has not murdered political opponents, so we have to give him credit there.
Do you know that for sure? It's not something he would advertise you know.

You cannot compare Hitler to Bush, or Bush to Hitler. They are unrelated. Sure President Bush seems like a dictator but he was the better option between Gore and himself. Yes, I personally believe so.

If George W. Bush executed political opponents, Senator John Kerry, John Edwards, the entire Senate, Congress, Al Gore, Clinton, Governors. So Bush has not eliminated political opponents.

If George W. Bush executed political opponents, Senator John Kerry, John Edwards, the entire Senate, Congress, Al Gore, Clinton, Governors. So Bush has not eliminated political opponents.
How do you know these aren't doubles whom he installed?

What are you a conspiracy theorist that is stoned? Honestly, he didn't replace, there hasn't been a scientific break-through in cloning and there would be a difference between a replacement and the real thing.

What are you a conspiracy theorist that is stoned?
Ooohh. Funny.

Honestly, he didn't replace, there hasn't been a scientific break-through in cloning and there would be a difference between a replacement and the real thing.
Again I ask, how do you know where they realy stand with things like cloning? Or how well they can prepare a replacement?

Besides, everybody knows that our government's prefered method of assassinating its internal rivals is by sacrificing U.S.A.F. transport jets in staged disasters.

The comparrison of Geroge W Bush to Apolph Hitler is a terrible insult to the Hitler family. Haven't those poor people suffered enough?

Besides, everybody knows that our government's prefered method of assassinating its internal rivals is by sacrificing U.S.A.F. transport jets in staged disasters.
Not if they want to create the illusion that everything is still alright.

The comparrison of Geroge W Bush to Apolph Hitler is a terrible insult to the Hitler family. Haven't those poor people suffered enough?
:D Funniest response I've read so far.

he has two arms, legs, eyes.

Not if they want to create the illusion that everything is still alright.

How old were you during the 80s and 90s?

You should go see "American Psycho". A powerful metaphor for the way we so often do not see things that are just too horrible to accept.

First off all an individual has a different voice, after all the plastic surgery, someone would still be able to down the difference.

Tell me... how many Germans were murdered by the Jews before WW2? Hmm?
How many Americans were murdered by the terrorists before 9/11 and up to the present?

I rest my case.
Tell me how many innocents have died in Iraq

That is his point, I believe, Metal.

just because the democrats wont go as far as doing that they can still be refered to as socialists. I love it how when a republican is attacked its ok but when a democrat is attacked every democrat idiot cries foul. and every democrat thinks that they are somehow smarter than the other 50% of the US. And in response to there are no condidates for the American people to vote for that are anti war there was Denis Kusinich. Where was your tree hugging friends then?
1Republicans are conservative so they are Authoritarian Facists, if what you say is true.
2Another instagatory post, which is aimed at creating flame will result in me reporting you.
3As I said I am not Democrat. Yet I realize that a third party has no chance at winning so I must choose the lesser of two evils. and concidering that Texan has caused enough hell these 4 years I shudder to think what another 4 will do.

How old were you during the 80s and 90s?

You should go see "American Psycho". A powerful metaphor for the way we so often do not see things that are just too horrible to accept.
I was younger in the 80's then I was in the 90's. And now I'm older then I was in the 90's. American Psycho. That would be a nice title if anyone makes a movie about Bush's life. Too bad it's already taken.

Now before you conservatives get all up in a snort and bash the thread with out reading it, or scoffing and chalking it off as democrat propoganda, I am not a Democrat, I am liberal, very Liberal so open your eyes and hear both sides of the argument.

Now Hitler Muscled his way into the governmrnt. George Bush, well I only have to say Floridia. Hitler had his party who had the majority burn down the reichstag (german parliment) and blame it on the Communists to recieve "Emergency Powers". George Bush convieniently did not see the papers warning him about 9/11 and allowed it to happen desroying our commerce builings and damaging our Military nerve center, the very next few days the Patriot Act and othe subsequent laws were made to give the government virtually unlimited power. Hitler blamed every problem on the Jews. Well lets say Bush can only say Muslim Extreists or Iraq. Ill add more as it comes to me. You all can add you similarities or challange it.

I agree, but I fail to see how Bush is 'conservative.' He's extremely pro-big government, radically internationalistic (an adamant supporter of NAFTA, the WTO, and the UN, in spite of his alleged 'defiance' of it), is a huge supporter of foreign aid, a militant enemy of states' rights (the proposed gay marriage amendment and his socialistic 'No Child Left Behind Act'), once praised Woodrow Wilson, appointed hundreds of members of the ultra-leftist, pro-Marxist Council on Foreign Relations to his government, strongly favors government involvement in education, violates the constitution in every way (the gestapo-like Department of Homeland Security and the misnomer 'Patriot' Act, getting us involved in two wars without congressional declarations of war, the No Child Left Behind Act, etc.), has done nothing to shrink government (such as: eliminate the vast majority of Departments, eliminate the IRS and Federal Reserve, abolish the income tax, etc.), I could go on all day...

P.S. For those who disagree, try to refrain from flaming, hm?

I agree, but I fail to see how Bush is 'conservative.' He's extremely pro-big government, radically internationalistic (an adamant supporter of NAFTA, the WTO, and the UN, in spite of his alleged 'defiance' of it), is a huge supporter of foreign aid, a militant enemy of states' rights (the proposed gay marriage amendment and his socialistic 'No Child Left Behind Act'), once praised Woodrow Wilson, appointed hundreds of members of the ultra-leftist, pro-Marxist Council on Foreign Relations to his government, strongly favors government involvement in education, violates the constitution in every way (the gestapo-like Department of Homeland Security and the misnomer 'Patriot' Act, getting us involved in two wars without congressional declarations of war, the No Child Left Behind Act, etc.), has done nothing to shrink government (such as: eliminate the vast majority of Departments, eliminate the IRS and Federal Reserve, abolish the income tax, etc.), I could go on all day...

I never said he was conservative, his party's conservatives call this liberal blabber, thats what I was referring to.

I never said he was conservative, his party's conservatives call this liberal blabber, thats what I was referring to.

All right. Sorry for misquoting you.

as for bush resembling hitler .... they are both fascist pigs, but hilter controlled other people, while bush is the puppet of his adminstration. bush is a problem because he is a brainless buffoon, but the guys behind him are even worse. plus, hitler was a vegetarian and a painter (a very bad one). bush seems to be as big a meat eater as any texas rancher. he should go back to his ranch,which he did during the first few months after his inaguration in which the people threw eggs at his car, obviously showing that when a man becomes a president against many people's wishes, this is anything but a government by the people for the people. this is a government by rich tycoons for big business corporations.

All right. Sorry for misquoting you.
No harm no foul www.jibjab.com <---- funny

Bush violated the nuclear arms ban treaty;

Really? Care to show proof?

And don't mention how FRANCE built Iraq a nuclear reactor and supplied them with fuel for said reactor. And if it wasn't for the Israeli attack on that reactor in '81 the Iraqi's would have had weapons grade material.

Same old sorry logic: It's OK to arm mass murderers, but not OK to remove them from power.


Hitler mocked the League of Nations and then quit; Bush is undermining the UN by blatantly disobeying any orders and waging unjustified war.

Yes. The respectable UN that ALLOWED the Liberian civil war to rage unchecked for 3 years! Then asked the US to send troops as a peace keeping force. Why don't you tell us how much pressure it took from the US for the UN to "authorize" a coalition force to liberate Kuwait?

No harm no foul www.jibjab.com <---- funny

What's it about?

What's it about?
watch and see.

Lets talk about how you are like Hitler.
1. You wear pants.
2. You've seen people wear hats.
3. Your short.
4. You have seen or have ridden in a car.
5. You have eyes toes or both.
Lets talk about how George Bush is not like Hitler.
1. He does not send people to death camps.
2. He has not commited suicide yet.
3. Hes against the killing of children that are Jewish.
4. Hes not as fanatical as Hitler however he is very stupid.

Lets talk about how you are like Hitler.
1. You wear pants.
2. You've seen people wear hats.
3. Your short.
4. You have seen or have ridden in a car.
5. You have eyes toes or both.
Lets talk about how George Bush is not like Hitler.
1. He does not send people to death camps.
2. He has not commited suicide yet.
3. Hes against the killing of children that are Jewish.
4. Hes not as fanatical as Hitler however he is very stupid.
Please before you post read all of the ones before it as we have said he doesnt kill Jews I am comparing him to hi politcal aspects not war aspects.

bump

Ah, but at least Hitler was a good speaker who pulled Germany out of debt. Can't say that for Bush.
True... He also got into power through normal means; daddy bought it for Dubya.