NationStates Jolt Archive

This is why we shouldn't have idealogues in power. Just read. (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia1114,0,707331.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)

WASHINGTON -- The White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush or of leaking damaging information to the media about the conduct of the Iraq war and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, according to knowledgeable sources.

"The agency is being purged on instructions from the White House," said a former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House. "Goss was given instructions ... to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda."

One of the first casualties appears to be Stephen R. Kappes, deputy director of clandestine services, the CIA's most powerful division. The Washington Post reported yesterday that Kappes had tendered his resignation after a confrontation with Goss' chief of staff, Patrick Murray, but at the behest of the White House had agreed to delay his decision till tomorrow.

But the former senior CIA official said that the White House "doesn't want Steve Kappes to reconsider his resignation. That might be the spin they put on it, but they want him out." He said the job had already been offered to the former chief of the European Division who retired after a spat with then-CIA Director George Tenet.
When we wind up in another world war because of these idiots, I don't want to hear anyone who voted for Bush bitching about it, especially if you wind up being drafted. I warned you these fuckers were dangerous.

You are paranoid, aren't you?

This is why we shouldn't have idealogues in power. Just read. (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia1114,0,707331.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)

When we wind up in another world war because of these idiots, I don't want to hear anyone who voted for Bush bitching about it, especially if you wind up being drafted. I warned you these fuckers were dangerous.

How does President Bush doing this differ in any significant way from the "purges" under President Clinton, or for that matter, any other president? I suspect your Kerry leanings are leading you astray again. Tsk! :)

How does President Bush doing this differ in any significant way from the "purges" under President Clinton, or for that matter, any other president? I suspect your Kerry leanings are leading you astray again. Tsk! :)


Less astray then a lot of people and their leanings towards Bush. I mean seriously, there are people who believe that idiot is the most brilliant president in history (they've actually said this to me). I think this is just the beginning of something much worse. You don't just fire people with different political views. Thats just bloody wrong. Against the 1st amendment.

OOC: Pointed at first post.

So??? Any government will purge something from its country when it comes to power. Usually the whiners are the people who voted for the other person and those who didn't vote.

Seriously dude, relax a little. I'm not a republican either, but what's done is done. If all else fails, just move to Canada, or are you one of the people who simply has so much free time that he'd rather rage against the machine than either accept it or walk away from it. Honestly, I do not think Bush is far from the best person to be in charge, but t :rolleyes: he election's over, how long are people gonna keep saying this kind of stuff?

OOC: Pointed at first post.

So??? Any government will purge something from its country when it comes to power. Usually the whiners are the people who voted for the other person and those who didn't vote.
Comes into power? Who's been in charge the last four years?

Seriously dude, relax a little. I'm not a republican either, but what's done is done. If all else fails, just move to Canada, or are you one of the people who simply has so much free time that he'd rather rage against the machine than either accept it or walk away from it. Honestly, I do not think Bush is far from the best person to be in charge, but t :rolleyes: he election's over, how long are people gonna keep saying this kind of stuff?
It's called standing for something and noting publicly--even if you wind up being ignored like Cassandra--that we're in danger. And Eutrusca--if you have anything resmebling proof that Clinton did anything resembling this, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, you can shut the hell up.

Seriously dude, relax a little. I'm not a republican either, but what's done is done. If all else fails, just move to Canada, or are you one of the people who simply has so much free time that he'd rather rage against the machine than either accept it or walk away from it. Honestly, I do not think Bush is far from the best person to be in charge, but t :rolleyes: he election's over, how long are people gonna keep saying this kind of stuff?
I've said this before, but I'm willing to say it again:
Clinton hasn't been in power for four years and conservatives still won't let that go. No, sorry, the democracy only works if we pay attention and ride the asses of those in charge. Thing is, I believe that Incertonia would be just as vigilant if Kerry had been elected because he is engaged. Democracy only works when the electorate is egaged.

Seriously dude, relax a little. I'm not a republican either, but what's done is done. If all else fails, just move to Canada, or are you one of the people who simply has so much free time that he'd rather rage against the machine than either accept it or walk away from it. Honestly, I do not think Bush is far from the best person to be in charge, but t :rolleyes: he election's over, how long are people gonna keep saying this kind of stuff?

Probably not for a long time. The people at my high school say that they are waiting for "comrade Kerry to lead a glorious uprising against the capitalistic government." True words. Luckly, they come from a minority that"will beat your ass if you don't follow their ideals."

Comes into power? Who's been in charge the last four years?

He had a good chance of losing power to Kerry, so he kind of came back to power with the "people".

Well at least this time I split my replies so I noticed that Incertonia would have beat me to both so I don't have to waste any time on Eutrusca...

Comes into power? Who's been in charge the last four years?
No kidding. I suddenly feel like Luke Skywalker, a member of the Rebel Alliance fighting Emperor Bush and Darth Cheney.

Okay, so I'm more like a Jawa than Luke Skywalker, but you get the point.

This is a case of ridiculous civil service protections run amok: it's near impossible for Bush to fire civil servants he doesn't want, so he has to do it under the table. Same as every President since the 1960's. It's a circumvention of the system, but not a sign of impending doom... it's routine. :rolleyes:

He had a good chance of losing power to Kerry, so he kind of came back to power with the "people".
Huh? I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't know what you are trying to say here. I don't understand your defense.

No kidding. I suddenly feel like Luke Skywalker, a member of the Rebel Alliance fighting Emperor Bush and Darth Cheney.

Okay, so I'm more like a Jawa than Luke Skywalker, but you get the point.

I think you have those two mixed up, I mean we all know who is realy in charge and whose a figurehead ;)

This is a case of ridiculous civil service protections run amok: it's near impossible for Bush to fire civil servants he doesn't want, so he has to do it under the table. Same as every President since the 1960's. It's a circumvention of the system, but not a sign of impending doom... it's routine. :rolleyes:
Prove it's routine. No tsks, no eyerolls-demonstrate.

Furthermore, establish why it's okay. "Because Clinton did it" is not an excuse, because one side has someone who abuses the system doesn't give the other side a blank check. Is that this 'accountability' I've been hearing about? We account for what we do by finding someone who did something worse? We've abandoned being better for being 'just as bad?' That's the pardon you want to ride?

{edit-spelling}

Huh? I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't know what you are trying to say here. I don't understand your defense.

I got nothing. You win.

OOC: 400th. post. Yay.

Where is this information from? I'd like to see the story if possible.

Now for those of you who are asking why purges are a bad thing, ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MINDS! The intelligence is supposed to be non-political! Otherwise people just tell the president whatever he wants to hear (eg, there are weapons of mass destruction that France plans to unleash against the world!, or There is a massive Jewish-banking conspiracy centered in Warsaw!, or No, Al-Qaeda's not important--you don't have to worry about them attacking us because you have more important concerns.) and noone will disagree with them.

WAKE UP!

btw, can someone tell me where to find out who Clinton purged?

Where is this information from? I'd like to see the story if possible.

Now for those of you who are asking why purges are a bad thing, ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MINDS! The intelligence is supposed to be non-political! Otherwise people just tell the president whatever he wants to hear (eg, there are weapons of mass destruction that France plans to unleash against the world!, or There is a massive Jewish-banking conspiracy centered in Warsaw!, or No, Al-Qaeda's not important--you don't have to worry about them attacking us because you have more important concerns.) and noone will disagree with them.

WAKE UP!

btw, can someone tell me where to find out who Clinton purged?
They've gone silent for a sec, so I'm hoping they are actually dredging something up. I really do, I actually like it when people I'm arguing with actually come up with something tangible. Otherwise it just deteriorates.

Ummm I dont get it... what is wrong with getting rid of people who leaked CIA intelligence? I believe thats something to be happy about, not up in arms because of someone speculating "abuse of the system". The fact is, if people are leaking information that is not supposed to be known to the general public they should no longer have a job. But of course there is no point in speaking logic to a group of people blinded by the leftist brainwash that "Bush is bad he is going to destroy the world oh no!!"

Prove it's routine. No tsks, no eyerolls-demonstrate.

Furthermore, establish why it's okay. "Because Clinton did it" is not an excuse, because one side has someone who abuses the system doesn't give the other side a blank check. Is that this 'accountability' I've been hearing about? We account for what we do by finding someone who did something worse? We've abandoned being better for being 'just as bad?' That's the pardon you want to ride?

{edit-spelling}

I never singled out or mentioned Bill Clinton, but he's no different than Bush or his predecessors, nor should he have been. Clinton attempted with Anthony Lake what Bush is attempting with Goss.. it's rough breaking civil servants, but the way to do it is through appointments to the Director's position, which every President is entitled to do. The opposition can say with every new appointment that the President at the time is cocooning, but that doesn't make it true.. If we assume that every firing is an attempt to get only positive information, then we're in conspiracy territory... doing so is in no President's best interest, and implies evil on his part, while proving nothing about the civil service, which is still useless.... it's all about the nature of the system..

http://slate.msn.com/id/2068602/

Also, if you want to panic about Bush and civil service, then Homeland Security is your place to go, not the CIA.. remember, Bush is replacing the officials, not the information gatherers... the result is that the same information is dealt with by different people.. saying that this is a Bush conspiracy to conquer the world is lunacy that can't be proved, not the inverse. ;)

Ummm I dont get it... what is wrong with getting rid of people who leaked CIA intelligence? I believe thats something to be happy about, not up in arms because of someone speculating "abuse of the system". The fact is, if people are leaking information that is not supposed to be known to the general public they should no longer have a job. But of course there is no point in speaking logic to a group of people blinded by the leftist brainwash that "Bush is bad he is going to destroy the world oh no!!"

It depends on what is leaked if it is something like ohh lets say the identity of a CIA agent who just happens to be married to someone that critized the president then yes they should not only be fired, but tried for treason same as anyone who then runs that story which not only endangers the life of the agent and any conntacts they may have in other countries, but if the spouse happens to be something like lets say an abassador it ruins there usefulness to the gov. because no one will trust them. Now if on the other hand they are people who come out and say hold on a ment we never said that or yes we said that but only as a possibility or come out to reveal that the goverment is conciling important facts from the public than that is a good step towards preventing govermental shenanagins.

Ummm I dont get it... what is wrong with getting rid of people who leaked CIA intelligence? I
Where does it say that they leaked intelligence?

And if leaking intelligence gets someone fired, Rove should go. I mean, he only was the person who supplied a reporter with the name of a CIA agent. Which, incidentally, is a federal offense.

Ummm I dont get it... what is wrong with getting rid of people who leaked CIA intelligence? I believe thats something to be happy about, not up in arms because of someone speculating "abuse of the system". The fact is, if people are leaking information that is not supposed to be known to the general public they should no longer have a job. But of course there is no point in speaking logic to a group of people blinded by the leftist brainwash that "Bush is bad he is going to destroy the world oh no!!"

The article listed leakers of information among those being purged. The others were said to be liberals. If this is in fact true, and I believe that to a certain degree it very well could be, then it only affirms the general idea behind the "leftist brainwash".

And to the above posters citing Star Wars (sorry, too lazy to go back and quote), I always saw the Emperor as the figurehead myself, while Vader wielded the real power. So I would agree with Bush being Emperor and Cheney wearing the respirator.

Where does it say that they leaked intelligence? The article states that they were fired because they were Democrats.

And if leaking intelligence gets someone fired, Rove should go. I mean, he only was the person who supplied a reporter with the name of a CIA agent. Which, incidentally, is a federal offense.

Goss firing democrats is speculation.. there's no proof being given by the anonymous source.

On the other hand, Rove giving out the name of the CIA agent has absolutely no proof whatsoever, not even from anonymous sources.. :) Time to read past the OpEds and internet conspiracy rags, eh? ;)

The article listed leakers of information among those being purged. The others were said to be liberals. If this is in fact true, and I believe that to a certain degree it very well could be, then it only affirms the general idea behind the "leftist brainwash".

And to the above posters citing Star Wars (sorry, too lazy to go back and quote), I always saw the Emperor as the figurehead myself, while Vader wielded the real power. So I would agree with Bush being Emperor and Cheney wearing the respirator.

If you read any of the expanded background it is quite obviouse the Emperors the boss, however Cheny is the one with the pacemaker so both sides have credit. :p

OT I was wondering who was the reporter that revieled the CIA again and werethey ever prosicuted you think they would have been with national security being as good as it supposedly is I mean if they can arrest a Miami proffessor for a year, because they have the same last name as a suspected terrorist you'ld think that they would arrest someone who didsome thing so blatently traitoris as revealing an undercover agent. Of course that assumes that they didn't want the information revealed which is underdebate at this point what with them think that it was most likely a source frome the whight house :(

No kidding. I suddenly feel like Luke Skywalker, a member of the Rebel Alliance fighting Emperor Bush and Darth Cheney.

Okay, so I'm more like a Jawa than Luke Skywalker, but you get the point.
yeah better to keep to the jawa thing
we dont need the mental image of a heavy breathing dick cheney saying

"incertonia, i am your father"

This is some damned good info. Please bring more. BTW, is it too late to move to Canada?

This is some damned good info. Please bring more. BTW, is it too late to move to Canada?

It's never too late! :)

http://www.cic.gc.ca/

Follow your dreams, my liberal friend, follow your dreams. :)

It's never too late! :)

http://www.cic.gc.ca/

Follow your dreams, my liberal friend, follow your dreams. :)

LOL, thanks, I just passed it onto a friend who has a kayak ready to paddle up to Canada.

Hits from the US on the NZ immigration website went up from 2000 to 10000 a day for a while after the election :D

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

^^^LOL, the sad part is that it is all true. Pepe Dominguez, sorry buddy, I was only kidding about moving to Canada. No matter what, I cannot nor will I ever abandon the United States

It's sad. I live in China ATM, and I feel more safe as a "laowai" (foreigner) under the Chinese government than my own. We'll have to see how things go, but I admit I am concerned. Bush's "purges" may be "routine," but his flawed decision-making process is not. That is what the problem with the "routine" is.


Ge-Ren :(

It's going to be interesting being at the spear point of history in the next couple of years.

so if the democrats win next time, they can purge all the republicans out of the civil service and the military. sounds like the whole concept of a professional civil service and military is out the door. we'll just go back to a rotating system of patronage and hope enough competent people hitch their wagons to each party in each agency of government.

^^^LOL, the sad part is that it is all true. Pepe Dominguez, sorry buddy, I was only kidding about moving to Canada. No matter what, I cannot nor will I ever abandon the United States

The IQ chart is satire from the '96 and 2000 campaigns, and probably '08, '12, etc. ;)

As for Canada, you should keep an open mind.. never limit your options! :)

S N I P

Also, if you want to panic about Bush and civil service, then Homeland Security is your place to go, not the CIA.. remember, Bush is replacing the officials, not the information gatherers... the result is that the same information is dealt with by different people.. saying that this is a Bush conspiracy to conquer the world is lunacy that can't be proved, not the inverse. ;)
I am not about conspiracy but your argument's lack of RL situational awareness is causing you to draw the wrong conclusion. The appointed officials, and the deputies they in turn appoint, direct what is and is not pursued and where resources are allocated. So the appointment of these individuals does indeed impact what the president hears since the Director is well aware of the president's desires and agenda. It may well be that information that would be "inconvenient" for the president to officially 'know' - either for his political advantage or for the advantage of others - can be suppressed.

so if the democrats win next time, they can purge all the republicans out of the civil service and the military. sounds like the whole concept of a professional civil service and military is out the door. we'll just go back to a rotating system of patronage and hope enough competent people hitch their wagons to each party in each agency of government.

Eh.. the military isn't bound by the same rules as the bureaucracy, unless you meant the DoD.. and no matter who wins, the Armed Forces will be 70-80% Republican no matter who is appointed.

Also, if you want an example of partisan appointments, Porter Goss is a lightweight, believe me.. ;)

The IQ chart is satire from the '96 and 2000 campaigns, and probably '08, '12, etc. ;)

As for Canada, you should keep an open mind.. never limit your options! :)

Thanks a lot. I may hide out in the Canadian Rockies, does that count?

The IQ chart is satire from the '96 and 2000 campaigns, and probably '08, '12, etc. ;)

As for Canada, you should keep an open mind.. never limit your options! :)
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/jland_map.jpg

This is why we shouldn't have idealogues in power. Just read. (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia1114,0,707331.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)


When we wind up in another world war because of these idiots, I don't want to hear anyone who voted for Bush bitching about it, especially if you wind up being drafted. I warned you these fuckers were dangerous.


CIA employees "Serve at the pleasure of" The President (ONLY). There is no law against firing leakers/traits, unionized/government employees who operate against (and in violation of) their specific instructions. These jerks (and many more to come) should have been fired (and indicted with crimes against the security of the US) years ago; but Bush delayed (and isolated them) to allow his re-election. He now has 4 years to do all of the right things, without worrying about re-election.

Hillary Rotten Clinton not only fired the entire ("Super-Secret") White House Travel Office, but also used the FBI to (try to) discredit their boss. (He subsequently won in Court.)

THE DRAFT SYSTEM IS OVER. Bush and Kerry both promised. Only democrats in congress proposed to renew it, and have since recinded their dumb idea. Volunteers make better soldiers, and draftees cannot be trusted. The modern US military does not need them, AND DOES NOT WANT THEM.

We ARE IN A WORLD WAR against Muslim terrorists, and the Muslim Dictatorships that support them. IDIOTS (SPECIFICALLY YOU) are WITH THEM. You are not neutral or against them, since you SUPPORT them. You won't hear any "bitching" (for long) if you put a rag on your head, and GO to help them in Iraq/Iran/Syria/Spain/N.Korea/etc. If you are "all-chat/no-action", you still need the rag. There are other places to put it.

Considering the massive failures of the CIA in recent years, they should all get canned IMO. :gundge: :gundge:

How does President Bush doing this differ in any significant way from the "purges" under President Clinton, or for that matter, any other president? I suspect your Kerry leanings are leading you astray again. Tsk! :)

I don't know much about CIA "purges" of the past, but when a president has been shown to treat one area (science) with reckless (and unprecedented) disregard for anything but his own ideals, I have no reason to believe he wouldn't do it in other areas as well. This is why I don't buy it when this administration claims that someone below them "misinformed" them.

When we wind up in another world war because of these idiots, I don't want to hear anyone who voted for Bush bitching about it, especially if you wind up being drafted. I warned you these fuckers were dangerous.
I'd be proud to serve the United States in wartime. I'd graciously accept being drafted. But I'd beat the draft by flat-out enlisting.

Considering the massive failures of the CIA in recent years, they should all get canned IMO. :gundge: :gundge:

What "INTELLIGENCE" do you have. The US, UK, UN, Russia, China, France, Germany, Kerry, etc. ALL agreed that Saddam was a threat, had WMD, and was violating UN demands (31 times).

What "INTELLIGENCE" do you have. The US, UK, UN, Russia, China, France, Germany, Kerry, etc. ALL agreed that Saddam was a threat, had WMD, and was violating UN demands (31 times).

After reading the link, I'm not surprised. It seems we rely heavily on foreign intelligence for most of our data (outsourcing espionage? lol). We need independent verification if we are going to continue this preemption policy.

The ones being purged don't seem to agree. While I appreciate the difficulty in developing our intelligence network to the point that we don't need to rely on other nations will take awhile, I don't think the CIA should be fighting the president on this. he's right IMO.

CIA employees "Serve at the pleasure of" The President (ONLY). There is no law against firing leakers/traits, unionized/government employees who operate against (and in violation of) their specific instructions. These jerks (and many more to come) should have been fired (and indicted with crimes against the security of the US) years ago; but Bush delayed (and isolated them) to allow his re-election. He now has 4 years to do all of the right things, without worrying about re-election.

Hillary Rotten Clinton not only fired the entire ("Super-Secret") White House Travel Office, but also used the FBI to (try to) discredit their boss. (He subsequently won in Court.)

THE DRAFT SYSTEM IS OVER. Bush and Kerry both promised. Only democrats in congress proposed to renew it, and have since recinded their dumb idea. Volunteers make better soldiers, and draftees cannot be trusted. The modern US military does not need them, AND DOES NOT WANT THEM.

We ARE IN A WORLD WAR against Muslim terrorists, and the Muslim Dictatorships that support them. IDIOTS (SPECIFICALLY YOU) are WITH THEM. You are not neutral or against them, since you SUPPORT them. You won't hear any "bitching" (for long) if you put a rag on your head, and GO to help them in Iraq/Iran/Syria/Spain/N.Korea/etc. If you are "all-chat/no-action", you still need the rag. There are other places to put it.
I've been thinking of a proper response to your blather that falls on your apparent cognitive level, and I think I can do no better than to quote Bender: "Kiss my shiny metal ass."

I don't know much about CIA "purges" of the past, but when a president has been shown to treat one area (science) with reckless (and unprecedented) disregard for anything but his own ideals, I have no reason to believe he wouldn't do it in other areas as well. This is why I don't buy it when this administration claims that someone below them "misinformed" them.

I don't know what your favorite science issue is (abortion, stem-cells, alien-invaders), but self-defence is at a higher level (and that's why democrats voted for Bush).

^^^I thought everyone voted for Bush because of "moral issues"?

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/jland_map.jpg

I kinda prefer this one: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/7902

:)

I've been thinking of a proper response to your blather that falls on your apparent cognitive level, and I think I can do no better than to quote Bender: "Kiss my shiny metal ass."

Your metal would be useful in Iraq, and your shiny ass would be good for target practice.

I don't know what your favorite science issue is (abortion, stem-cells, alien-invaders), but self-defence is at a higher level (and that's why democrats voted for Bush).
Please--spare me. Bush got more popular votes because he did a better job of turning out his base this time around. Read the statistics--he did better among Democrats in 2000.

And if the run-up to the war in Iraq has taught us anything, it's taught us that the Bush administration has no qualms about hearing only what it wants to hear when it comes to intelligence matters. Remember how every WMD claim turned out to be pure bullshit? Yeah--the Bush administration treats every issue as a political and ideological one.

I'd be proud to serve the United States in wartime. I'd graciously accept being drafted. But I'd beat the draft by flat-out enlisting.

This is wartime, and there is no draft (and only democrats propose the draft as political dribble). But, can you help argue with the free-love socialists on this site?

Please--spare me. Bush got more popular votes because he did a better job of turning out his base this time around. Read the statistics--he did better among Democrats in 2000.

And if the run-up to the war in Iraq has taught us anything, it's taught us that the Bush administration has no qualms about hearing only what it wants to hear when it comes to intelligence matters. Remember how every WMD claim turned out to be pure bullshit? Yeah--the Bush administration treats every issue as a political and ideological one.

The WMD are in Syria and Iran. We have the evidence. Do you have Satellite TV?

You know what the scariest part is? Bush could get elected again.

Seriously. Look at the 22nd amendment. It says that no person shall be elected to the office of president more than twice, or more than once who has served more than 2 years of a term to which someone else was elected. So, Bush smartly took so much vacation time that he actually served less than half the term to which Al Gore was elected. Thus, two possible elected terms for Bush!

Oh, that was 42% vacation time? Sorry, I thought that was 42% not on vacation. Hehe. My bad. In that case, we're only doomed until '08...

Oh, that was 42% vacation time? Sorry, I thought that was 42% not on vacation. Hehe. My bad. In that case, we're only doomed until '08...

Let's hope. *knocks on wood* He's still got four years to think of something. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he tried to run again in '08.

I don't know what your favorite science issue is (abortion, stem-cells, alien-invaders), but self-defence is at a higher level (and that's why democrats voted for Bush).

"My favorite science"? Oh dear uninformed person,

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1449

"Signers include 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 135 members of the National Academy of Sciences." And that's not even nearly all of the signers.

We aren't talking about any particular science issue. We are talking about science and technological progress in general. We are talking about an administration that will do whatever it can, regardless of the actual facts, to get whatever its preconceived notions tell it.

Do you really think we're safer with a president who cares nothing for what actual experts tell him and just wants whatever his gut tells him to be true?

Also, don't act like Bush won by a landslide - it was far, far, far from it.

This is why we shouldn't have idealogues in power. Just read. (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia1114,0,707331.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)


When we wind up in another world war because of these idiots, I don't want to hear anyone who voted for Bush bitching about it, especially if you wind up being drafted. I warned you these fuckers were dangerous.

To Insultia, who started this Thread. WHERE ARE YOU? You show as "On-Line". Are you giving up?

I'd be proud to serve the United States in wartime. I'd graciously accept being drafted. But I'd beat the draft by flat-out enlisting.

I have got to agree with you about that.

It doesn't matter where the President is. He is always in TOTAL communication, and has the BOX.

I wonder if the Football is really controled using POTUS's biometric data.

The WMD are in Syria and Iran. We have the evidence. Do you have Satellite TV?
I do not have satellite tv, but you have no evidence--I feel quite assured of that.

To Insultia, who started this Thread. WHERE ARE YOU? You show as "On-Line". Are you giving up?
I often show up as online when I am away from my computer. I've never yet run from a debate, especially not from someone as puerile as you. When you've got something substantial to debate about, we'll talk.

Please--spare me. Bush got more popular votes because he did a better job of turning out his base this time around. Read the statistics--he did better among Democrats in 2000.

And if the run-up to the war in Iraq has taught us anything, it's taught us that the Bush administration has no qualms about hearing only what it wants to hear when it comes to intelligence matters. Remember how every WMD claim turned out to be pure bullshit? Yeah--the Bush administration treats every issue as a political and ideological one.

WMD AS USED BY SADDAM ON THE KURDS AND THE IRANIANS. Where do you think it went?

WMD AS USED BY SADDAM ON THE KURDS AND THE IRANIANS. Where do you think it went?
Oh--you mean the WMD that predated the first Gulf War? The ones that the UN inspectors destroyed in the early and mid-90s? The ones that haven't existed in years? God, you really are a simple creature.

I do not have satellite tv, but you have no evidence--I feel quite assured of that.

But they said so on FOX news!!!

I do not have satellite tv, but you have no evidence--I feel quite assured of that.


I often show up as online when I am away from my computer. I've never yet run from a debate, especially not from someone as puerile as you. When you've got something substantial to debate about, we'll talk.

PUERILE. You have a spell-checker; get a a context/meaning checker.

PUERILE. You have a spell-checker; get a a context/meaning checker.
I used the word exactly as I intended it, and I contend that it fits you perfectly.

It's called standing for something and noting publicly--even if you wind up being ignored like Cassandra--that we're in danger. And Eutrusca--if you have anything resmebling proof that Clinton did anything resembling this, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, you can shut the hell up.

Um ... I have no intention of "shutting up," as you should know from prior run-ins with me. :)

Every President has the right, under the Constitution, to select, hire, fire, replace, etc., any or all the members of his cabinet.

Oh--you mean the WMD that predated the first Gulf War? The ones that the UN inspectors destroyed in the early and mid-90s? The ones that haven't existed in years? God, you really are a simple creature.

but but but...we've always been at war with east asia...

Oh--you mean the WMD that predated the first Gulf War? The ones that the UN inspectors destroyed in the early and mid-90s? The ones that haven't existed in years? God, you really are a simple creature.

WMD were used by Saddam on the Kurds AFTER the first Gulf war, and against Iran (good use), and the UN is a dupe group; AND THIS IS A SIMPLE THING TO UNDERSTAND. AND DON'T CALL ME GOD, please.

Every President has the right, under the Constitution, to select, hire, fire, replace, etc., any or all the members of his cabinet.

This is true of course.

But it doesn't change the fact that we have the right to examine the ways in which they do so. And when the administration fires advisors simply because they won't tell the administration exactly what it wants to hear, regardless of the actual facts, we have a right to be worried.

I used the word exactly as I intended it, and I contend that it fits you perfectly.

Please explain your obtuse understanding.

This is true of course.

But it doesn't change the fact that we have the right to examine the ways in which they do so. And when the administration fires advisors simply because they won't tell the administration exactly what it wants to hear, regardless of the actual facts, we have a right to be worried.

The Executive Branch is independent of the other two (test: can you name them?)

This is true of course.

But it doesn't change the fact that we have the right to examine the ways in which they do so. And when the administration fires advisors simply because they won't tell the administration exactly what it wants to hear, regardless of the actual facts, we have a right to be worried.

The "right," yes. The justification? Hmmm.

WMD were used by Saddam on the Kurds AFTER the first Gulf war, and against Iran (good use), and the UN is a dupe group; AND THIS IS A SIMPLE THING TO UNDERSTAND. AND DON'T CALL ME GOD, please.
Back it up. punk. I've researched that question extensively, and you're wrong. The last time Hussein gassed anyone was prior to the first Gulf War. And if you can't back it up, you owe me an apology.

And by the way, idiot, I wasn't calling you god.

The Executive Branch is independent of the other two (test: can you name them?)

And the legislative and judicial branches have exactly what to do with the fact that the Bush administration fires people if they aren't yes-men?

Please explain your obtuse understanding.
Puerile is defined by the Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary as juvenile, childlike and silly. That's you and your arguments to a tee.

Back it up. punk. I've researched that question extensively, and you're wrong. The last time Hussein gassed anyone was prior to the first Gulf War. And if you can't back it up, you owe me an apology.

And by the way, idiot, I wasn't calling you god.

Did y'all have words before you fell out? Heh!

He's right, by the way. Saddam gassed the Kurds after the Gulf War I.

The "right," yes. The justification? Hmmm.

I was simply pointing out that the knowledge that they will *definitely* do it in one area makes all of the advisor choices suspect. To me, that is justification enough to question my government and make sure they aren't being stupid.

but but but...we've always been at war with east asia...

WMD's were used ever since they were invented, including World War I. Read the Classics of the 1900's.

I was simply pointing out that the knowledge that they will *definitely* do it in one area makes all of the advisor choices suspect. To me, that is justification enough to question my government and make sure they aren't being stupid.

Hmmm. I would say that we should always question the government to make sure they're not being any more stupid than usual. :)

Did y'all have words before you fell out? Heh!

He's right, by the way. Saddam gassed the Kurds after the Gulf War I.
Back it up. Every news article I've seen on the subject notes that Hussein's massacre of the Kurds post Gulf War I was done with helicopter gunships--not with chemical weapons. The only gassing was done during the Iran-Iraq war, prior to Gulf War I.

Hmmm. I would say that we should always question the government to make sure they're not being any more stupid than usual. :)

And I would agree.

But does the obvious evidence that this administration has been more stupid than usual in the area of science not lead you to be more suspicious of all desicions requiring advisors?

Back it up. Every news article I've seen on the subject notes that Hussein's massacre of the Kurds post Gulf War I was done with helicopter gunships--not with chemical weapons. The only gassing was done during the Iran-Iraq war, prior to Gulf War I.


If all the articles you read come from the same newspaper as the one the article for which this thread is named for (which I did a little research on, for the good of objectivity (for those who don't know, that means not bieng biased) and I noticed that not in over 100 articles was there a negative thing about any Democrat. Just providing some background), then I wouldn't trust it.

WMD's were used ever since they were invented, including World War I. Read the Classics of the 1900's.

which has exactly what to do with anything?

If all the articles you read come from the same newspaper as the one the article for which this thread is named for (which I did a little research on, for the good of objectivity (for those who don't know, that means not bieng biased) and I noticed that not in over 100 articles was there a negative thing about any Democrat. Just providing some background), then I wouldn't trust it.
I got my information the same way most people do--google is your friend, bub. If you can prove me wrong, do it. Find articles that report on the use of WMD by Saddam Hussein after the 1991 Gulf War. I don't think you'll be able to do it.

Puerile is defined by the Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary as juvenile, childlike and silly. That's you and your arguments to a tee.

The dictionary is correct. And the word applies to weak, crybabies. (Is that you?)

The dictionary is correct. And the word applies to weak, crybabies. (Is that you?)
You know, if you spent more time looking up articles to prove me wrong on Hussein's WMD use and less time trying to insult me, maybe you'd have a touch more respect around here. Or are you having trouble backing up your claims? :rolleyes:

Never trust Google.

link (http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a%2f%2fweb.ask.com%2fweb%3fq%3dWhat%2bYear%2bDid%2bSaddam%2bGas%2bthe%2bKurds%253f%2 6o%3d0%26page%3d1&q=What+Year+Did+Saddam+Gas+the+Kurds%3f&u=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fr%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d017B1A3DEA90FB214%26sid%3d343a03b6843a03b6 8%26qid%3dCC9EDBDECAEE604E9CDE0D9D29DDC6BF%26io%3d9%26sv%3dza5cb0dbb%26o%3d0%26ask%3dWhat%2bYear%2bD id%2bSaddam%2bGas%2bthe%2bKurds%253f%26uip%3d43a03b68%26en%3dte%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3dBremer%2bpromises%2bSaddam%2bwill%2bpay%2bfor%2bKurds%2bgas%2battack.%2b17%252f03%252f200 4.%26ac%3d3%26qs%3d6%26pg%3d1%26ep%3d1%26te_par%3d123%26te_id%3d%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.abc.net.au%2 fnews%2fnewsitems%2fs1067672.htm&s=a&bu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.abc.net.au%2fnews%2fnewsitems%2fs1067672.htm&qte=0&o=0&abs=Bremer+promises+Saddam+will+pay+for+Kurds+gas+attack+...+He+says+the+incident+16+years+ago+serve s+as+proof+that+last+year's+US+led+invasion+of+Iraq...&tit=Bremer+promises+Saddam+will+pay+for+Kurds+gas+attack.+17%2f03%2f2004.&bin=&cat=wp&purl=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fi%2fb.html%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d017B1A3DEA90FB214%26sid%3d343a 03b6843a03b68%26qid%3dCC9EDBDECAEE604E9CDE0D9D29DDC6BF%26io%3d%26sv%3dza5cb0dbb%26o%3d0%26ask%3dWhat %2bYear%2bDid%2bSaddam%2bGas%2bthe%2bKurds%253f%26uip%3d43a03b68%26en%3dbm%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3d%26ac%3d24%26qs%3d6%26pg%3d1%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fmyjeeves.ask.com%2faction%2fsnip&Complete=1)

And I would agree.

But does the obvious evidence that this administration has been more stupid than usual in the area of science not lead you to be more suspicious of all desicions requiring advisors?

I assume the "obvious evidence" to which you refer was the administration's unwillingness to approve cloning of human embryos for stem cell research. I posted my response to this on another thread. Basically, what I contend is that it actually indicates a lack of faith in science to say, in effect, that scientists will be unable to find an alternate or even better way to conduct such research.

I got my information the same way most people do--google is your friend, bub. If you can prove me wrong, do it. Find articles that report on the use of WMD by Saddam Hussein after the 1991 Gulf War. I don't think you'll be able to do it.

He gassed the Kurds AFTER 1991. Add "MEMORY DRUGS" for your welfare list for next month.

He gassed the Kurds AFTER 1991. Add "MEMORY DRUGS" for your welfare list for next month.

Care to prove it?

He gassed the Kurds AFTER 1991. Add "MEMORY DRUGS" for your welfare list for next month.
Say it all you want--you still haven't proven it. And writing it in caps doesn't make it any more true.

He gassed the Kurds AFTER 1991. Add "MEMORY DRUGS" for your welfare list for next month.

jeebus h. w. christ on a pogo stick.

source?

I assume the "obvious evidence" to which you refer was the administration's unwillingness to approve cloning of human embryos for stem cell research. I posted my response to this on another thread. Basically, what I contend is that it actually indicates a lack of faith in science to say, in effect, that scientists will be unable to find an alternate or even better way to conduct such research.

Actualy he mentioned earlier that his evedence was a letter condeming the administrations stance on the sciences signed by several nobel prize winners.

Actualy he mentioned earlier that his evedence was a letter condeming the administrations stance on the sciences signed by several nobel prize winners.

Whoops! I missed that! My bad.

Whoops! I missed that! My bad.

Thats allright we forgive you ;)

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm



I found this interesting

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm



I found this interesting

Take it somewhere else; we've already discussed and disproved it.

Say it all you want--you still haven't proven it. And writing it in caps doesn't make it any more true.

Ignoring facts does not make them false. And what about your false use of the word PURGE (which iplies wrong-doing).

I'm always willing to (meaningfully) debate pontificators (with no experience) like you and your henchmen, IF YOU STICK TO THE FACTS.

WMD were used by Saddam on the Kurds AFTER the first Gulf war, and against Iran (good use), and the UN is a dupe group; AND THIS IS A SIMPLE THING TO UNDERSTAND. AND DON'T CALL ME GOD, please.

Okay so the fact that all evidence gathered in Iraq in the last several years shows NO WMD's nor the recent presence thereof apparently means nothing to you. Furthermore, the fact that we have evidence that the weapons not destroyed by weapons inspectors were in fact destroyed by Hussein.
And as for using chemical weapons against the Kurds, that was done with US military approval, damn near encouragement. Whose military you gonna blame that one on? Carter's?
Also, you consider using chemical weapons against Iran a good thing. That's very interesting considering what VX gas actually does. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Furthermore, you're saying that international treaties, US government position, and near-global consensus on the fact that chemical weapons should NEVER be used are irrelevent when the target is Iran. Or is it just when it's Muslims, as your previous posts suggested?
Last, if you think the UN is a "dupe group," is your solution for the United States to take its place and govern the world? If so, what you're talking about is flat imperialism and global conquest. If not, learn what the leaders you so vehemently defend call for, because groups like the New American Century DO want to replace the UN with US influence.

i demand a new troll. this one is broken.

Take it somewhere else; we've already discussed and disproved it.

Take your "disapproval" to Iran.

Take your "disapproval" to Iran.

You are an idiot. Did you even look at the link, or are you just attacking me because your penis is so small?

Okay so the fact that all evidence gathered in Iraq in the last several years shows NO WMD's nor the recent presence thereof apparently means nothing to you. Furthermore, the fact that we have evidence that the weapons not destroyed by weapons inspectors were in fact destroyed by Hussein.
And as for using chemical weapons against the Kurds, that was done with US military approval, damn near encouragement. Whose military you gonna blame that one on? Carter's?
Also, you consider using chemical weapons against Iran a good thing. That's very interesting considering what VX gas actually does. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Furthermore, you're saying that international treaties, US government position, and near-global consensus on the fact that chemical weapons should NEVER be used are irrelevent when the target is Iran. Or is it just when it's Muslims, as your previous posts suggested?
Last, if you think the UN is a "dupe group," is your solution for the United States to take its place and govern the world? If so, what you're talking about is flat imperialism and global conquest. If not, learn what the leaders you so vehemently defend call for, because groups like the New American Century DO want to replace the UN with US influence.

Wake up, jealous jerk. What would your useless country do?

Wake up, jealous jerk. What would your useless country do?

Please be more clear in what you say and ask. What useless country? Pisgah? And how am I being jealous?

You are an idiot. Did you even look at the link, or are you just attacking me because your penis is so small?

What is a small P. I didn't know you had one.

And try to respond to my points while you're at it. Don't talk about meaningful dialogue if you're just going to insult everyone without adressing what they say.

What is a small P. I didn't know you had one.

This is a small P:

p

Not really sure what you're trying to get at.

new troll, new troll!

this one is boring and obvious

Back it up. Every news article I've seen on the subject notes that Hussein's massacre of the Kurds post Gulf War I was done with helicopter gunships--not with chemical weapons. The only gassing was done during the Iran-Iraq war, prior to Gulf War I.

This is true.. the mass murder done after Gulf I was mainly bullet-to-the-base-of-the-skull-to-mass-grave style stuff. ;) Not proof that Saddam's WMD were gone, just cheaper, I'd guess.

Please be more clear in what you say and ask. What useless country? Pisgah? And how am I being jealous?

Thanks for being honest. Muslim Americans have NOT spoken out against terrorism in 'their own country". We know their useless plan, and we will make new rules to watch them.

Gee Timbuckpoo, that was helpful. More stupidity.
Blindliberals, still waiting to hear back from you. You're previous response made no sense.

Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo! Poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo! Poo poo poo poo!

Another smart Kerry voter above^.

Thanks for being honest. Muslim Americans have NOT spoken out against terrorism in 'their own country". We know their useless plan, and we will make new rules to watch them.

What do you mean by "in their own country." Unless I misunderstand this qualifying bit, they have definitely spoken out against terrorism. And what do you mean new rules to watch them? You suggest surveillance against all Muslim Americans?

You're still not being clear.

Ans so the Bush purge begins
damn it I thought you were saying all the anti bush threads were going to be purged, since he won!~! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :headbang: :headbang: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge:
:P

What do you mean by "in their own country." Unless I misunderstand this qualifying bit, they have definitely spoken out against terrorism. And what do you mean new rules to watch them? You suggest surveillance against all Muslim Americans?

You're still not being clear.

Read something.

Read something.


What?

Please explain what you mean. Read in reference to what? I'd like to be educated by this discussion but I find learning from you a painfully slow process.

damn it I thought you were saying all the anti bush threads were going to be purged, since he won!~! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :headbang: :headbang: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge:
:P

Another KerryIST. We will help you to move (PERMANTLY) to Canadia.

What?

Please explain what you mean. Read in reference to what? I'd like to be educated by this discussion but I find learning from you a painfully slow process.

Ignore him. He's just a troll.

Hey Blind, "damn it I thought you were saying all the anti bush threads were going to be purged, since he won!~! " doesn't sound to me like he's a Kerry supporter. He's not happy that the threads aren't being purged. I mean, that amounts to wanting to shut someone up because of their political opinion, something that even Bush oppo...wait never mind.

What?

Please explain what you mean. Read in reference to what? I'd like to be educated by this discussion but I find learning from you a painfully slow process.

Ask a clear question, please. I will give you a clear answer, if possibloe.

Ask a clear question, please. I will give you a clear answer, if possibloe.

I just did! You told me to read something and I asked what you wanted me to read about.

Hey Blind, "damn it I thought you were saying all the anti bush threads were going to be purged, since he won!~! " doesn't sound to me like he's a Kerry supporter. He's not happy that the threads aren't being purged. I mean, that amounts to wanting to shut someone up because of their political opinion, something that even Bush oppo...wait never mind.

Who put you in charge.

Who put you in charge.

WHAT!?!?!

Please start making some sense!

I just did! You told me to read something and I asked what you wanted me to read about.

Sorry, ask me again (briefly), and I will answer immediately; but you must (should) respond.

Okay here is the last bit of our conversation that I would like an answer about:

Me: What do you mean by "in their own country." Unless I misunderstand this qualifying bit, they have definitely spoken out against terrorism. And what do you mean new rules to watch them? You suggest surveillance against all Muslim Americans?

You're still not being clear.

You: Read something.

Me: Read in reference to what?



Okay? Would you please answer this?

Take your "disapproval" to Iran.

Disproved means to gain evidence that a particular statement or theory does not work in its intended goal. For example, if I were to say that more pollution is good for the environment but research papers and data proves otherwise. That is to disprove.

Disapproval on the other hand, means that you do not agree with something.

These are 2 seperate meanings to 2 seperate words. Please get them right if you wish to avoid misunderstandings.

Next point. WMDs. Meaning, Weapons of Mass Destruction. To my understanding, neither chemical nor biological weapons fall into that category. Why? Consider the following. Chemical weapons are essentially gas deployed armaments which are lethal to human beings. They do not cause wide scale destruction nor is their area of effect extremely wide although that depend on the winds.

Biological weapons however may spread rather far but still do not cause destruction on a wide scale.

The only true WMDs to date are those that use the fission and/or fusion process of atoms to generate their effect. Ergo, nuclear weapons. This is due to their extremely large area of effect coupled with radiation, giving it both destructive properties as well as the added effect of poisoning the land and people, very much like chemical weapons. 2 in 1 so to speak.

I believe chemical and biological weapons were added to the list because it made it more convenient to scare the general public into hating a wider range of countries.

So much for you answering me immediately, BlindLiberals. I really can't stay up any longer. It's 2:30 where I am. So I'll look at this thread tomorrow and post any responses to what you write. In the meantime, if you're still going to respond, I've asked a lot of questions to which you've given me only a couple straight responses. If you wouldn't mind going back through what I've posted (I think it starts in page 6 or 7) I would appreciate it if I could see some more of your perspective on what I've referred to. Thanks a bunch for an interesting discussion but in the mean time I have to sleep.

Another KerryIST. We will help you to move (PERMANTLY) to Canadia.
There is no such place as Canadia, learn english.

Disproved means to gain evidence that a particular statement or theory does not work in its intended goal. For example, if I were to say that more pollution is good for the environment but research papers and data proves otherwise. That is to disprove.

Disapproval on the other hand, means that you do not agree with something.

These are 2 seperate meanings to 2 seperate words. Please get them right if you wish to avoid misunderstandings.

Next point. WMDs. Meaning, Weapons of Mass Destruction. To my understanding, neither chemical nor biological weapons fall into that category. Why? Consider the following. Chemical weapons are essentially gas deployed armaments which are lethal to human beings. They do not cause wide scale destruction nor is their area of effect extremely wide although that depend on the winds.

Biological weapons however may spread rather far but still do not cause destruction on a wide scale.

The only true WMDs to date are those that use the fission and/or fusion process of atoms to generate their effect. Ergo, nuclear weapons. This is due to their extremely large area of effect coupled with radiation, giving it both destructive properties as well as the added effect of poisoning the land and people, very much like chemical weapons. 2 in 1 so to speak.

I believe chemical and biological weapons were added to the list because it made it more convenient to scare the general public into hating a wider range of countries.

You lost, thank God.

There is no such place as Canadia, learn english.

DUH, I was trying to accomodate by speeking Canadish. (Get it, j'ks; incllding deliberatte spppellling errrors.) Western Canada will join the US within 10 years. Eastern Canada can go to Franks, with Kerry and Massataxes).

You lost, thank God.

Another Kerry blind-dupe.^

You lost, thank God.

Note to Kerry Losers; GET SOMETHING.

blind liberals do you hate kerry or bush

This is true.. the mass murder done after Gulf I was mainly bullet-to-the-base-of-the-skull-to-mass-grave style stuff. ;) Not proof that Saddam's WMD were gone, just cheaper, I'd guess.
Thanks for backing me up on that, Pepe. Not that it'll matter to BlindLiberals or Eutrusca, but I appreciate the confirmation from someone on the opposite side of the political fence.

And Saddam hadn't gotten rid of his chemical weapons at the time, but he wasn't able to get to them easily--the coalition and the UN weapons teams were in the post-war process of destroying his stockpiles and any use of them would certainly have triggered further repercussions. Look, Hussein was a bastard, and I hope he rots in jail till he dies. I just want to keep the record straight as to what he did.

Disproved means to gain evidence that a particular statement or theory does not work in its intended goal. For example, if I were to say that more pollution is good for the environment but research papers and data proves otherwise. That is to disprove.

Disapproval on the other hand, means that you do not agree with something.

These are 2 seperate meanings to 2 seperate words. Please get them right if you wish to avoid misunderstandings.

Next point. WMDs. Meaning, Weapons of Mass Destruction. To my understanding, neither chemical nor biological weapons fall into that category. Why? Consider the following. Chemical weapons are essentially gas deployed armaments which are lethal to human beings. They do not cause wide scale destruction nor is their area of effect extremely wide although that depend on the winds.

Biological weapons however may spread rather far but still do not cause destruction on a wide scale.

The only true WMDs to date are those that use the fission and/or fusion process of atoms to generate their effect. Ergo, nuclear weapons. This is due to their extremely large area of effect coupled with radiation, giving it both destructive properties as well as the added effect of poisoning the land and people, very much like chemical weapons. 2 in 1 so to speak.

I believe chemical and biological weapons were added to the list because it made it more convenient to scare the general public into hating a wider range of countries.

YOUR MISunderstanding is obvious. WMD=NBC=Nuclear/Biological/Chemical.

Thanks for backing me up on that, Pepe. Not that it'll matter to BlindLiberals or Eutrusca, but I appreciate the confirmation from someone on the opposite side of the political fence.

And Saddam hadn't gotten rid of his chemical weapons at the time, but he wasn't able to get to them easily--the coalition and the UN weapons teams were in the post-war process of destroying his stockpiles and any use of them would certainly have triggered further repercussions. Look, Hussein was a bastard, and I hope he rots in jail till he dies. I just want to keep the record straight as to what he did.

Your "appreciation" of each others' uninformed opinions is cute.

i demand a new troll. this one is broken.

I concur. Is there any money in the troll fund?

Maybe we just need to jiggle him a bit though... he sounds sort of like a stuck record...

I mean, watch. His response will be some random 'OMGCOMMUNIST' one-liner. To cut short the 'move to Canada' point, I would do so gladly. Luckily I live on the other side of the world to America, so when Bush blows you up, I'll just have to close the windows to avoid the dust storms. (I'd offer our spare room to any American refugees, but unfortunately our spare room is currently full of boxes :()

why don't we just state the obvious here: secret police are a tool of a fascist; when any of them refuse to be tools, they have to be flushed out. In nazi germany it was a violent process with the SS killing all of the SA -- here it is more tame; they simply get fired and go home.

is it a bad thing that the CIA agents will now have to pass a political litmus test? is it a bad thing that one political party will have a monopoly on the intelligence community? should the president be able to micromanage everyone who serves under him? is a vote for president bush a vote for an all republican CIA?

who cares? this happens -- fascism doesn't have to be a bad thing, just try not to get disappeared...

Who needs the CIA or FBi when you have American Inquisition! :p

why don't we just state the obvious here: secret police are a tool of a fascist; when any of them refuse to be tools, they have to be flushed out. In nazi germany it was a violent process with the SS killing all of the SA -- here it is more tame; they simply get fired and go home.

is it a bad thing that the CIA agents will now have to pass a political litmus test? is it a bad thing that one political party will have a monopoly on the intelligence community? should the president be able to micromanage everyone who serves under him? is a vote for president bush a vote for an all republican CIA?

who cares? this happens -- fascism doesn't have to be a bad thing, just try not to get disappeared...

You've been playing too many computer games. And you are an embarrassment to real Texans. Your junk-car must have broke down on your way from Mass. to Mexico.

Your "appreciation" of each others' uninformed opinions is cute.
And your cowardice when it comes to actually arguing any point whatsoever has earned you a trip to the ignore list. See ya.

And your cowardice when it comes to actually arguing any point whatsoever has earned you a trip to the ignore list. See ya.

Your ability to ignore is well-earned. Let's see if your friends agree.

I am not about conspiracy but your argument's lack of RL situational awareness is causing you to draw the wrong conclusion. The appointed officials, and the deputies they in turn appoint, direct what is and is not pursued and where resources are allocated. So the appointment of these individuals does indeed impact what the president hears since the Director is well aware of the president's desires and agenda. It may well be that information that would be "inconvenient" for the president to officially 'know' - either for his political advantage or for the advantage of others - can be suppressed.

Which is another time-honored practice by Presidents of both political persuasions. It's called "plausable deniability."

This is why we shouldn't have idealogues in power. Just read. (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia1114,0,707331.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)


When we wind up in another world war because of these idiots, I don't want to hear anyone who voted for Bush bitching about it, especially if you wind up being drafted. I warned you these fuckers were dangerous.
Total bullcrap.
These kinds of shake-ups happen every time there is a change in leadership of an agency, or a change of administration. You can come out from underneath your bed now.

Total bullcrap.
These kinds of shake-ups happen every time there is a change in leadership of an agency, or a change of administration. You can come out from underneath your bed now.

Right On. (and INCONTINENCE is probably unavailable, for a while) Presidents select and replace their cabinet (and ALL EXECUTIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEES) as they wish BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (regardless of government-employee-unions). Bush is probably spending a small part of his "CAPITAL" by sending the Clinton Traitors back to Arkansas. He could have done this 4 years ago, but he learned from his Dad. Now he has 4 more years, and the traitors are being fired ASAP.

Seriously dude, relax a little. I'm not a republican either, but what's done is done. If all else fails, just move to Canada, or are you one of the people who simply has so much free time that he'd rather rage against the machine than either accept it or walk away from it. Honestly, I do not think Bush is far from the best person to be in charge, but t :rolleyes: he election's over, how long are people gonna keep saying this kind of stuff?

You cant escape Americas influence. Its the most powerful and influential country in the world. You have to make a stand. And make it a practical one, not a poorly thought out idealogical one.

This is why we shouldn't have idealogues in power. Just read. (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia1114,0,707331.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)


When we wind up in another world war because of these idiots, I don't want to hear anyone who voted for Bush bitching about it, especially if you wind up being drafted. I warned you these fuckers were dangerous.

You liberals lost, in spite of your attempts to cheat. Next time (in 2 years), republicans will control the ability to monitor your attempts to cheat. Election fraud is a felony, and sleazy democrats will go to JAIL.

I assume the "obvious evidence" to which you refer was the administration's unwillingness to approve cloning of human embryos for stem cell research. I posted my response to this on another thread. Basically, what I contend is that it actually indicates a lack of faith in science to say, in effect, that scientists will be unable to find an alternate or even better way to conduct such research.

No, actually, that is not the evidence I refer to, not all of it anyways.

I have posted this link many, many, many times and you have apparently ignored it, but I will post it again.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1449

"Signers include 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 135 members of the National Academy of Sciences"

The stem cell controversy isn't even mentioned here, at least not in the main bulk of the report, and not in a way that anyone who didn't already know the technology could understand anyways.

The point is that the administration has censored and politicized science in *all* areas to an unprecedented degree. If you look at the list of scientists who signed on, you will find people from all political backgrounds, some who worked for Republican presidents in the past.

The Bush administration has made a habit of firing any advisors that might tell them something they don't want to hear, and hiring yes-men who will say whatever the administration wants, but have little to no standing in their field, as replacements.

No, actually, that is not the evidence I refer to, not all of it anyways.

I have posted this link many, many, many times and you have apparently ignored it, but I will post it again.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1449

"Signers include 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 135 members of the National Academy of Sciences"

The stem cell controversy isn't even mentioned here, at least not in the main bulk of the report, and not in a way that anyone who didn't already know the technology could understand anyways.

The point is that the administration has censored and politicized science in *all* areas to an unprecedented degree. If you look at the list of scientists who signed on, you will find people from all political backgrounds, some who worked for Republican presidents in the past.

The Bush administration has made a habit of firing any advisors that might tell them something they don't want to hear, and hiring yes-men who will say whatever the administration wants, but have little to no standing in their field, as replacements.

I pointed this out to him a few pages back and he apologiesed and said he'd read things more carefuly in the future. :)

I pointed this out to him a few pages back and he apologiesed and said he'd read things more carefuly in the future. :)

Yeah, I noticed after I posted - thanks.

(But I had written the whole post out, so I didn't feel like deleting it =)

You liberals lost, in spite of your attempts to cheat. Next time (in 2 years), republicans will control the ability to monitor your attempts to cheat. Election fraud is a felony, and sleazy democrats will go to JAIL.
Yes and the republicans won with their attempts to cheat so go figure.


Originally Posted by Non Aligned States
Disproved means to gain evidence that a particular statement or theory does not work in its intended goal. For example, if I were to say that more pollution is good for the environment but research papers and data proves otherwise. That is to disprove.

Disapproval on the other hand, means that you do not agree with something.

These are 2 seperate meanings to 2 seperate words. Please get them right if you wish to avoid misunderstandings.

Next point. WMDs. Meaning, Weapons of Mass Destruction. To my understanding, neither chemical nor biological weapons fall into that category. Why? Consider the following. Chemical weapons are essentially gas deployed armaments which are lethal to human beings. They do not cause wide scale destruction nor is their area of effect extremely wide although that depend on the winds.

Biological weapons however may spread rather far but still do not cause destruction on a wide scale.

The only true WMDs to date are those that use the fission and/or fusion process of atoms to generate their effect. Ergo, nuclear weapons. This is due to their extremely large area of effect coupled with radiation, giving it both destructive properties as well as the added effect of poisoning the land and people, very much like chemical weapons. 2 in 1 so to speak.

I believe chemical and biological weapons were added to the list because it made it more convenient to scare the general public into hating a wider range of countries.

That is a good argument. Anyone who takes a reasonable amount of time in class in critical thinking learns that it is a misleading term and slanted to use WMD.
When all common logic dictates that its not a WMD unless its actually a weapon on mass destruction.

One can argue that its NBC's but its not. At least NBC's stood for what they were. WMD's don't represent what they are!

So why do politicians use lies and misleading names to get stuff passed. Shouldn't they trust the public? That way the public must have actually liked your ideas if you get voted in.

They use lies/fear/etc to say in power. Being a politician gives you a varying degree of power and what human would not like to hold power for as long as possible?

You morons treat the hardworking people in the government like they're just another number. They're people, too. They need jobs, they need to work. Firing or forcing people to quit because of their political views is morally wrong. The president is a moron and so was his father. I'm not a liberal, I'm not a conservative, I'm just a citizen with my own views.

This is why we shouldn't have idealogues in power. Just read. (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia1114,0,707331.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)


When we wind up in another world war because of these idiots, I don't want to hear anyone who voted for Bush bitching about it, especially if you wind up being drafted. I warned you these fuckers were dangerous.
Trite and petty.

Choke down the bile, and focus on something else.

You morons treat the hardworking people in the government like they're just another number. They're people, too. They need jobs, they need to work. Firing or forcing people to quit because of their political views is morally wrong. The president is a moron and so was his father. I'm not a liberal, I'm not a conservative, I'm just a citizen with my own views.

They are elected officials. If they don't properly do their jobs (as decided by the voter), they lose those jobs.

Firing a politician for unsatisfactory political views is no different from firing a construction worker who keeps building things that fall down.

Firing a politician for unsatisfactory political views is no different from firing a construction worker who keeps building things that fall down.

I disagree.

For democracy to work you need a system of checks and balances. When you remove, say, people with Liberal or Democratic political views out of government because they're not Republican or Conservative is not going to help the equilibrium of the situation. You need hot water and cold water, otherwise you get burned or you freeze your ass off.

And the analogy of the construction worker more applies to someone like an extremist party. Blue and Red both want to build the damn building but extremists want to rupture it.

They are elected officials. If they don't properly do their jobs (as decided by the voter), they lose those jobs.

Firing a politician for unsatisfactory political views is no different from firing a construction worker who keeps building things that fall down.

I think he was refering to the nonelected agents that are being fired for their political views. Not the elected officials.

You liberals lost, in spite of your attempts to cheat. Next time (in 2 years), republicans will control the ability to monitor your attempts to cheat. Election fraud is a felony, and sleazy democrats will go to JAIL.

Hmmm...Please explain what you mean by attempts to cheat. Trying to get a recount going? That's looking at the results again, not cheating.
Shame those who committed election fraud in Florida in 2000 not only didn't go to jail but actually were brought into the Bush administration. Example: Katharine Harris who founded a committee [edit: she didn't found a committee, she hired a company--ChoicePoint] to purge voters from predominantly black (and thus predominantly democratic) counties in Florida from the voting registers if they had the same name or birthday as convicted felons from Florida. Note: this is not conspiracy; this has been proven. Look it up. So yeah, when you say republicans will contol the elections in two years that makes me optimistic.
Second: electronic voting machines have demonstrated substantial flaws. Diebold, who makes more of them than any other company, gave over 100,000 dollars to the Bush campaign. I'd say that doesn't make them democrats. In one county in Ohio, Diebold machines added more votes to the Bush tally than the number of people in that entire county! So are Diebold employees in jail? Nope. As for a recount in Ohio, I'd say it's useless since Bush won by so much that it's absurd to hope the >100K votes can be proven fraudulent. They weren't.
Don't accuse liberals of voting fraud if you're not willing to address these facts.
By the way, it's been almost a day. Think maybe you can answer me as you promised to do "immediately" or were you just being a jackass?

Note: this is not conspiracy; this has been proven. Look it up.
No it hasn't. All the "proof" thats out there comes from the same guy who says Bush stole the 2004 elections, too. :rolleyes:

I think he was refering to the nonelected agents that are being fired for their political views. Not the elected officials.

Ah. Well, *that* is a different story.

Not everything about this comes from Greg Palast:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/01/24/unregulated.databases.idg/

http://www.bhhrg.org/CountryReport.asp?ChapterID=583&CountryID=56&ReportID=189&keyword=

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/15/florida_voters/index_np.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,949709,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A99749-2001May30&notFound=true

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010430&s=lantigua

http://www.freep.com/news/politics/black13_20001213.htm

You've been playing too many computer games. And you are an embarrassment to real Texans. Your junk-car must have broke down on your way from Mass. to Mexico.

that's a good point... maybe if I played more computer games I'd be as blissfully ignorant as you.

Real Texans? hahahhhahahaha
Have you ever been to Texas?

Let me ask you something son, do you know what the Republican Party, The Green Pary, and the Libertarian Pary have in common?

They all three ran presidential candidates claiming to be from Texas. Of course Bush is a goddamn yankee-carpet bagger, but the other two are natural born. So, I guess the point is -- being Texan doesn't dictate you politics, it dictates you dick size. And just so you know son, I already have a girl friend -- and no, I don't swing your way.

I find it hard to believe US citizens are posting on this wesbite and generally don't mind that Bush is purging the intelligence agency of personnel - not based on their level of skill etc, but purely to discriminate against people who don't hold hard-right republican views, replacing them with "yes men" who persue the President's agenda rather than try and provide informed judgements that are in the interest of the US. I cannot even believe that the President has the power to replace CIA agents with neo-con sympathisers. The entire white house staff is comprised of people with the same politics views (esp. with Powell gone), even Clinton/Kennedy etc kept several people on with "extreme" views. The role of the President is to surround himself with a variety of assessments and world views in order to make an informed decision, not to produce an echo amoung his advisors. This is a very dangerous precedent, especially given the CIA's massive failing over 9/11 and Iraq (which have still not been properly investigated or had people held to account) - instead, those that spoke publically about the CIA's errors and White House interference have their patriotism repaid with the sack.

I cannot even believe that the President has the power to replace CIA agents with neo-con sympathisers.

it's politics first, war on terror second.

or is it?

is the war on terror a political tool as well?