NationStates Jolt Archive

In light of the Supreme Court decision to allow governments to take away "personal property" and turn it over to a private corporation for development, President Bush has done something good. He signed a Presidential order prohibiting the Federal Government from seizing personal property for anything other than the public good such as building roads and hospitals.

Maybe he will continue to do good things for the next couple of years. Well, I can hope can't I?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200832,00.html

P.S. This is an Associated Press story posted on FOX.

Bush does something good.
No ...

Good for him.

That's one good compared to how many bads?

Will this stand up before judicial scrutiny?

Will this stand up before judicial scrutiny?

Actually it will since it deals with feds and not the state.

No ...

Damn, you have to read the post not just the title before replying. :D

In light of the Supreme Court decision to allow governments to take away "personal property" and turn it over to a private corporation for development, President Bush has done something good. He signed a Presidential order prohibiting the Federal Government from seizing personal property for anything other than the public good such as building roads and hospitals.

Maybe he will continue to do good things for the next couple of years. Well, I can hope can't I?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200832,00.html

P.S. This is an Associated Press story posted on FOX.

Now, if he'd only stop raping the world he'd be an ok guy.

Good for him.

That's one good compared to how many bads?
He's getting old. He's a religious man. He must have felt the fires of Hell approach.

Now, if he'd only stop raping the world he'd be an ok guy.

And when people stop posting ignorant statements, the internet would be a better place.

Good for him.

That's one good compared to how many bads?

As we said in the military, it only takes one "aw shit" to wipe out 20 "atta boy's" so I guess George has 19 more "atta boys" to go with no "aw shits" in between. :D

So he's 1 for 45,316.

I'm sure Jesus will forgive him. Maybe.

Actually it will since it deals with feds and not the state.

The constitution does not apply to the federal government? Why then would he need do this, at all?

In light of the Supreme Court decision to allow governments to take away "personal property" and turn it over to a private corporation for development, President Bush has done something good. He signed a Presidential order prohibiting the Federal Government from seizing personal property for anything other than the public good such as building roads and hospitals.

Maybe he will continue to do good things for the next couple of years. Well, I can hope can't I?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200832,00.html

P.S. This is an Associated Press story posted on FOX.

I'll give it a few days for the usual display of recriminations and backpeddling... but, if it stands, this is very good news.

And when people stop posting ignorant statements, the internet would be a better place.
No. The internet will only become a better place when we liberate it from its freedom-suppressing regime, and help it establish democracy.

The constitution does not apply to the federal government? Why then would he need do this, at all?

Ok...Bush is the head of the Federal Government. This is a PRESIDENTIAL ORDER. He can legally do this since the order only deals with Federal Seizure of lands and not State seizure of lands.

So he's 1 for 45,316.

I'm sure Jesus will forgive him. Maybe.

Jesus is a softie. I'd much rather know what Prometheus would do.

And when people stop posting ignorant statements, the internet would be a better place.

I agree... Though, I doubt we'll get the yanks to stay off the internet. We'll just have to put up with their ignorance for now.

No. The internet will only become a better place when we liberate it from its freedom-suppressing regime, and help it establish democracy.

Because this is the only website on the internet with a forum. You can't *gasp* go to another one if you don't like this one.

Because this is the only website on the internet with a forum. You can't *gasp* go to another one if you don't like this one.
You have to start somewhere. Freedom is on the march, and we cannot let the terrorists stop us.

You have to start somewhere. Freedom is on the march, and we cannot let the terrorists stop us.

You are retarded. If you don't like what people say here, you can leave, or you can fight back, but fighting back won't solve anything.

I agree... Though, I doubt we'll get the yanks to stay off the internet. We'll just have to put up with their ignorance for now.

:rolleyes:

I guess you didn't realize where I am from.

Ok...Bush is the head of the Federal Government. This is a PRESIDENTIAL ORDER. He can legally do this since the order only deals with Federal Seizure of lands and not State seizure of lands.

But if a company wants to make the government do something that the government can do according to the Constitution, how can the government hide behind a presidential order?

Also, if the ruling does not apply to the Federal government, why is he doing this? Meaningless posturing?

Ok...Bush is the head of the Federal Government. This is a PRESIDENTIAL ORDER. He can legally do this since the order only deals with Federal Seizure of lands and not State seizure of lands.

To clarify, for the gov't illiterate: A presidential order is not a law, it is an order by the executive branch regarding what members of the executive branch may or may not do. A law may overrule it (except under this administration, apparently), but it does not deal with constitutional restriction, because it is a statement of policy, and not an enforceable law (unlesss getting fired counts).

I applaud the order.

You are retarded. If you don't like what people say here, you can leave, or you can fight back, but fighting back won't solve anything.
You have been corrupted by liberal propaganda, disseminated by those who hate America. Do not bow to the terrorists; eradicate them, wherever on the web they may hide. Thank God for George W Bush.

Jesus is a softie. I'd much rather know what Prometheus would do.

I bet Adsagsona will give him a wet willie.

:rolleyes:

I guess you didn't realize where I am from.

Oh, I did. :)

You have been corrupted by liberal propaganda, disseminated by those who hate America. Do not bow to the terrorists; eradicate them, wherever on the web they may hide. Thank God for George W Bush.

So now you view those who practice their free speech and speak exactly what they feel are terrorists?

To clarify, for the gov't illiterate: A presidential order is not a law, it is an order by the executive branch regarding what members of the executive branch may or may not do. A law may overrule it (except under this administration, apparently), but it does not deal with constitutional restriction, because it is a statement of policy, and not an enforceable law (unlesss getting fired counts).

I applaud the order.

Thank you for clarifying it up :)

You have been corrupted by liberal propaganda, disseminated by those who hate America. Do not bow to the terrorists; eradicate them, wherever on the web they may hide. Thank God for George W Bush.

At least the terrorists are keeping the world entertaining.

I bet Adsagsona will give him a wet willie.

As long as it's a willie, I care not about its humidity.

If the government really wants your land, they will find a way to get it.

So now you view those who practice their free speech and speak exactly what they feel are terrorists?
They are either terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers (ie liberals) if their speech is critical of our divine mission. Either you are with us, or you are against us. The choice is yours.

You have been corrupted by liberal propaganda, disseminated by those who hate America. Do not bow to the terrorists; eradicate them, wherever on the web they may hide. Thank God for George W Bush.

I think it's allready started. Go to almost any website and you'll find American 5 year olds saying: "Di3 terrerist scumm!!!!!1111111 Bu5h is teh l33t!!1!!!1 U luv Saddem in t3h butT"

Like the article mentioned, this is largely a symbolic move, since the feds don't do much with eminent domain in the first place, and certainly not involving benefits to the private sector. As the decision in Kelo pointed out, the place to hash this debate out is in the state and local governments, and some states have done just that.

But credit where it's due--I like the move, even though I suspect it was done in part to head off Cornyn's bill and make it largely moot. State and local officials like the power of eminent domain, even if they use it rarely, and they certainly don't want Congress mucking about with it.

They are either terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers (ie liberals) if their speech is critical of our divine mission. Either you are with us, or you are against us. The choice is yours.

*tee hee*

I feel the same way. Now put down that pork chop or I'll kill you.

They are either terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers (ie liberals) if their speech is critical of our divine mission. Either you are with us, or you are against us. The choice is yours.

Wait, so now you're trying to tell me that because I dislike Bush I am a terrorist sympathizer? That's a load of bullshit. Sounds to me like you've fallen victim to the conservative media.

Wait, so now you're trying to tell me that because I dislike Bush I am a terrorist sympathizer? That's a load of bullshit. Sounds to me like you've fallen victim to the conservative media.

hey hey hey...I'm conservative but even I am not buying his load of BS.

I think it's allready started. Go to almost any website and you'll find American 5 year olds saying: "Di3 terrerist scumm!!!!!1111111 Bu5h is teh l33t!!1!!!1 U luv Saddem in t3h butT"

Hehe ... my 8 year old daughter can often be heard saying, "George Bush is a bastard". She doesn't know why or what she's saying, but it's funny to hear her say it.

But, then, when your parents are dirty liberal hippie tree huggers, that's what happens. ;)

Wait, so now you're trying to tell me that because I dislike Bush I am a terrorist sympathizer?

I think he's being sarcastic based on the "with us or against us" black and white mentality of the Busheviks.

Or maybe he's serious.

Whatev.

As I said, the terrorists keep the world entertaining.

hey hey hey...I'm conservative but even I am not buying his load of BS.

Yeah, I apologize. I have a disguist for the words conservative and liberal, and that is honestly the first time I have ever used them, except trying to explain why I hate them, in like two years.

Wait, so now you're trying to tell me that because I dislike Bush I am a terrorist sympathizer? That's a load of bullshit. Sounds to me like you've fallen victim to the conservative media.
Negative. The voice of the media is overwhelmingly one of treason; from the shameless promotion of the homosexual agenda, to the disgusting prominence of the culture of death and the evil atheist conspiracy, the liberal media is hard at work to make America a haven of terrorism and godlessness.

Yeah, I apologize. I have a disguist for the words conservative and liberal, and that is honestly the first time I have ever used them, except trying to explain why I hate them, in like two years.

LOL! Remember that some here act stereotypical.

hey hey hey...I'm conservative but even I am not buying his load of BS.

Awww you know you want to round up us hippies and put us in camps. ;)

(or at least make us bathe and get jobs, I forget which)

They are either terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers (ie liberals) if their speech is critical of our divine mission. Either you are with us, or you are against us. The choice is yours.

Are you either joking, a puppet, or trying to be plain thick, because god knows noone thinks like that.

Negative. The voice of the media is overwhelmingly one of treason; from the shameless promotion of the homosexual agenda, to the disgusting prominence of the culture of death, the evil atheist conspiracy, the liberal media is hard at work to make America a haven of terrorism and godlessness.

Culture of death? What the fuck is that?

Evil atheist conspiracy? Again, what is that?

Sounds to me like you are a stereotyping bastard who is unable to think for himself.

Negative. The voice of the media is overwhelmingly one of treason; from the shameless promotion of the homosexual agenda, to the disgusting prominence of the culture of death and the evil atheist conspiracy, the liberal media is hard at work to make America a haven of terrorism and godlessness.

I think this guy is the the type of person who needs you to scream "NNOOOOOT!" after every sentence so he can get the "sarcasm".

because god knows noone thinks like that.

Actually .... the frightening part about it is .... there *are* people who think like that. It's rare, but it exists. It's like running into a Klansman. You almost can't believe it because you think they went extinct, but there they are.

Negative. The voice of the media is overwhelmingly one of treason; from the shameless promotion of the homosexual agenda, to the disgusting prominence of the culture of death and the evil atheist conspiracy, the liberal media is hard at work to make America a haven of terrorism and godlessness.

Let me guess, you support so-called "Gun Rights" and the death penalty, right?

Awww you know you want to round up us hippies and put us in camps. ;)

(or at least make us bathe and get jobs, I forget which)

Me? Neither. I don't care what ya do :D

Actually .... the frightening part about it is .... there *are* people who think like that. It's rare, but it exists. It's like running into a Klansman. You almost can't believe it because you think they went extinct, but there they are.

Well, we Brits live a sheltered life. The worst we get is Cliff Richard!

Me? Neither. I don't care what ya do :D

Oh good.

*streaks this thread*

Culture of death? What the fuck is that?

Evil atheist conspiracy? Again, what is that?

Sounds to me like you are a stereotyping bastard who is unable to think for himself.
'Thinking' is an irrelevent liberal deception. It is a scientific fact that it leads to godlessness and terrorism.

Well, we Brits live a sheltered life. The worst we get is Cliff Richard!

Every time I hear about Cliff Richard, I think of The Young Ones.

Hehe ... my 8 year old daughter can often be heard saying, "George Bush is a bastard". She doesn't know why or what she's saying, but it's funny to hear her say it.

But, then, when your parents are dirty liberal hippie tree huggers, that's what happens. ;)

She must be in the special fast class for hyperintelligent children.

I dislike forums due to how hard it is to convey sarcasm.

I dislike forums due to how hard it is to convey sarcasm.
You got me. :D

She must be in the special fast class for hyperintelligent children.

Only on the weekends. During the week, she's a super hero.

You got me. :D

The only reason I kept arguing with you is because I've actually had arguments with people who believe exactly what you were being sarcastic about.

The only reason I kept arguing with you is because I've actually had arguments with people who believe exactly what you were being sarcastic about.

Creepy ain't it?

But credit where it's due--I like the move, even though I suspect it was done in part to head off Cornyn's bill and make it largely moot.

And in part to make the Repblicans look good for the upcoming election.

Creepy ain't it?

Pretty much.

You got me. :D

Aaah, you were being sarcastic. That's good, I can lower my blood pressure by a few mmHg.

Awww you know you want to round up us hippies and put us in camps. ;)

(or at least make us bathe and get jobs, I forget which)

Shave your head, give you a bath and get you a job in that order. :D

Shave your head, give you a bath and get you a job in that order. :D

Awwww ... you do care!

He also created the northwestern hawaiian national monument, it saves thousands of reefs and Islands in the remote part of hawaii.

With these latest 7 wannabes being arrested, and all stuff crowding the news, its seeming as though terrorism is becoming a fad nowadays.

He also created the northwestern hawaiian national monument, it saves thousands of reefs and Islands in the remote part of hawaii.

And in 100 years time with climate change, partially caused by him and his corrupt friends in the oil industry, it will all be killed off. Next!

And in 100 years time with climate change, partially caused by him and his corrupt friends in the oil industry, it will all be killed off. Next!

*dies of laughter*

And in 100 years time with climate change, partially caused by him and his corrupt friends in the oil industry, it will all be killed off. Next!
*commits seppuku in despair*

Will this stand up before judicial scrutiny?Well, I'd have to take a closer look at it... but the short answer is: probably.

Whenever the courts say the government can do something, the other branches can always step in and say they'd prefer not to.

The only possible challenge is a separation-of-powers claim. The rules here are muddy. Basically, Bush can do this if a) the order is within the traditional or explicitly constitutional range of his powers; or b) there is a statute that specifically gives him authority over this area.

In a long series of Supreme Court cases beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century, it has long been held that the President, as the head of the Executive branch, has rather wide discretion when it comes to determining policy with respect to government property--e.g. national forests. So the Executive branch, if challenged, will probably rely on this history... unless, of course, they have a specific law to work with.

Of course, they are only likely to be challenged if--for some reason--Congress decides to write a law that appropriates certain personal property for corporate purposes. Generally speaking, unless the President has a specific constitutional mandate (which I don't see here), law always trumps executive orders.

So, it might come down to a matter of statutory interpretation: if there are laws out there granting the president the relevant authority, the courts will have to decide if the new law repeals or invalidates them, or if the new legislation is invalid because it conflicts with long-standing and unrepealed law.

Finally, as I believe someone has already pointed out, this does not apply to the states. See, for instance, Boerne v. Flores.

To reiterate, this will probably hold up, if only because Congress is unlikely to step into the dangerous waters of handing over personal property to corporate owners. So the separation-of-powers issue is likely never to come up.

You got me. :D

Aaaaaaaw dammit, I was hoping for at least another page or two of that before he caught on :D I was chucklng the whole way. Thanks Ginnoria and Haradwaich, you made this thread worth reading, even if by accident :D Although you did take away my chance to rinse Haradwaich for being such a slow-on-the-uptake goon lol.

*commits seppuku in despair*

Ah! Seppuku! The art of killing yourself when you're super pissed and there's no-one else around to kill!

http://www.realultimatepower.net/index4.htm

Aaaaaaaw dammit, I was hoping for at least another page or two of that before he caught on :D I was chucklng the whole way. Thanks Ginnoria and Haradwaich, you made this thread worth reading, even if by accident :D Although you did take away my chance to rinse Haradwaich for being such a slow-on-the-uptake goon lol.


I'm not slow, I've had serious arguments with people who think EXACTLY what she was saying. That's why I kept arguing, I figured she was serious, since I've heard people seriously use those arguments before.

But if a company wants to make the government do something that the government can do according to the Constitution, how can the government hide behind a presidential order?"Can" is the key word.

The Supreme Court has ruled that governments can take personal property and transfer it to corporate ownership, provided the purpose is to serve the public good.

Bush has merely stated that, given the option, the government should not actually do so.

Thus, the real constitutional question would only be raised if Congress wants to do it. Then either the President would back down or the courts would be asked to decide the question. (Which, depending on the circumstances, they might refuse to do... separation-of-powers questions are often deemed "political" issues that cannot be solved judicially.)

Also, if the ruling does not apply to the Federal government, why is he doing this? Meaningless posturing?The ruling does apply to the federal government, but it has the nature of a "can" rather than a "must." Again, Bush's order is merely a "thanks, but we'd rather not."

The reason Bush's order does not apply to the states is this: the only way it would is through the Enforcement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Supreme Court has ruled that this only allows the federal government to enforce strictly constitutional limits on the states. Since the Supreme Court has already decided that the constitution allows this, the President cannot simply prohibit it.

The constitution does not apply to the federal government? Why then would he need do this, at all?

The const. applies to all gov't, state and fed. the 14th applied it to the states I beleive.

I'm not slow, I've had serious arguments with people who think EXACTLY what she was saying. That's why I kept arguing, I figured she was serious, since I've heard people seriously use those arguments before.

Oh I'm sure you're not at all, slow, but that wouldn't stop me from rinsing you for being slow :D That's just the way things go. Roll with it Henry.

And hey don't sweat it - after a while you'll be able to spot sarcasm as opposed to seriousness even on a forum. You'll only need a couple of months. Or better yet, just treat anything as blatant as that as sarcasm rather than stupidity. That way you'll be able to tell, pending the person's response, whether or not they're being serious.

Weeeeeeird. Bush actually *limited* the power of the government? What is this world coming to?

Weeeeeeird. Bush actually *limited* the power of the government? What is this world coming to?

It is coming to an end. Repent your sins and accept the Lord Savior Jesus so you may enjoy the rewards that await you.

In light of the Supreme Court decision to allow governments to take away "personal property" and turn it over to a private corporation for development, President Bush has done something good. He signed a Presidential order prohibiting the Federal Government from seizing personal property for anything other than the public good such as building roads and hospitals.

Maybe he will continue to do good things for the next couple of years. Well, I can hope can't I?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200832,00.html

P.S. This is an Associated Press story posted on FOX.
[ faints! ] **THUD** :D

It is coming to an end. Repent your sins and accept the Lord Savior Jesus so you may enjoy the rewards that await you.

Well, I'm real tempted here to point out the irony of making that ironic remark (oh wait, I'm confusing myself ;)) to a Christian. But maybe I better hadn't.

Bush does something good.

When did Bush do anything bad?

Zukariaa']When did Bush do anything bad?

1st mistake-being Christian.

1st mistake-being Christian.
I'm Christian.. It's not a mistake, thanks.

Zukariaa']I'm Christian.. It's not a mistake, thanks.

I think it is. And you're not changing my opinion on it so don't try.

I think it is. And you're not changing my opinion on it so don't try.
I don't want to change your opinion on it. I have no reason to, I don't know you and don't care if you like it or not, I was just stating that I am Christian.

However, that has nothing to do with this topic. I just don't think Bush has done anything wrong. I think he's an okay president.

Zukariaa']I don't want to change your opinion on it. I have no reason to, I don't know you and don't care if you like it or not, I was just stating that I am Christian.

However, that has nothing to do with this topic. I just don't think Bush has done anything wrong. I think he's an okay president.

I think he's shitty.

He lied to us repeatedly about Iraq.

I don't remember him lieing about Iraq. They suspected that there were WMD's there, and there weren't. At that point we had taken out Saddam, so we couldn't just leave them in anarchy or for Al-Quada. I don't remember them saying that they new for sure that there were WMD's.

Zukariaa']I don't remember him lieing about Iraq. They suspected that there were WMD's there, and there weren't. At that point we had taken out Saddam, so we couldn't just leave them in anarchy or for Al-Quada. I don't remember them saying that they new for sure that there were WMD's.


First it was the WMDs. Bush said that Saddam HAD WMDs. He didn't say he suspected it, he said that Saddam HAD them.

He eventually ran out of excuses and just said "Well the world is better now that he's gone." (not in those words though)

I don't remember him saying for sure that he had them.

And yeah, the world is a better place when it has one less dictator.

Zukariaa']I don't remember him saying for sure that he had them.

And yeah, the world is a better place when it has one less dictator.

But if that was the case, he should've came right out and said that, instead of constantly changing his story.

He never changed the story. The situation changed as the invasion began and ended. First it was about the WMD's, then they found that he didn't have any. The situation changed to,"Well, we took out your government so we should help you get rid of the terrorists bombing everyone and restore a non-dictatorship government."

I don't see anything wrong with that.

Zukariaa']He never changed the story. The situation changed as the invasion began and ended. First it was about the WMD's, then they found that he didn't have any. The situation changed to,"Well, we took out your government so we should help you get rid of the terrorists bombing everyone and restore a non-dictatorship government."

I don't see anything wrong with that.


He said that they had WMDs. Not that they might have them, but that they did.

Zukariaa']I don't see anything wrong with that.

You don't see anything wrong with going to war on false premises?

They never said that they absolutely were 100% sure of WMD's.

Besides that, they found around 500 old chemical weapons that were unuseable. Those are WMD's. Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html)

Seriously, I don't want to argue about this. I agree with nearly everything Bush has done so far, I don't care to change anyones mind and my mind WILL NOT be changed. Thank you and good bye.

Negative. The voice of the media is overwhelmingly one of treason; from the shameless promotion of the homosexual agenda, to the disgusting prominence of the culture of death and the evil atheist conspiracy, the liberal media is hard at work to make America a haven of terrorism and godlessness.

I am going to go overboard and say something I regret... oh god... *cries*

1.) YOU HOMOPHOBIC BASTARD!!! GAYS ARE PEOPLE TOO, AND IF GOD HATED THEM, HE WOULDN'T HAVE MADE THEM, NOW WOULD HE. IF YOU LOVE GOD AND ALL "HIS" WORK, AT LEAST RESPECT ALL HIS WORK!!!

2.) Death itself is not a culture, and has nothing to do with what you said (however, I agree that the level of violence in our culture is very high)!!! Please explain to me what is wrong with Athieism?! Note: FREEDOM OF RELIGION (or lack thereof) in the Constitution !

3.) The liberal f**king media is not trying to undermine America, and the values it stands for. Many, if not all Democrats (aka Liberals) are fiercely patriotic, although they may not stand for the injustice of fighting a war based soley on the USA's dependence on oil. Instead of finding alternate fuel sources, and trying to reduce emissions, no... lets bomb a country who has nothing to do with the US diplomatically, other than that he is a dictator, but then, so is Fidel Castro, no? And we aren't invading Cuba, because it as no OIL! FDR was a "liberal" president, but everyone is in consensus that he was a great president.

Don't say anything that rash, without proof or backup... PLEASE!!!

Culture of death? What the fuck is that?

Evil atheist conspiracy? Again, what is that?

Sounds to me like you are a stereotyping bastard who is unable to think for himself.


Seconded!

Seconded!

We are already established that that person was using sarcasm to prove a point, and they don't actually think what they were writing.

Yeah, I realized that about 3 minutes after posting. Please accept my apologies Ginnoria, I thought you were being serious, and didn't finish the post.

I think it is. And you're not changing my opinion on it so don't try.

Lets not turn this into a holy war ok?

I think he's shitty.

He lied to us repeatedly about Iraq.

The more this gets touted the less respect for the opposition I have. Its a dead horse with no legs under it for Bush did not lie about Iraq.

You don't see anything wrong with going to war on false premises?

I guess one fails to look at the Congressional Declaration of Force against Iraq uh?

I guess one fails to look at the Congressional Declaration of Force against Iraq uh?

We're not looking at Congress. Bush lied to us about why we were in Iraq, repeatedly.

We're not looking at Congress. Bush lied to us about why we were in Iraq, repeatedly.

Just keep repeating this mantra for no one is buying it.

Just keep repeating this mantra for no one is buying it.

No one is? Funny, because up until this forum, no one had disagreed with me on it, at least no one that I had talked to.

No one is? Funny, because up until this forum, no one had disagreed with me on it, at least no one that I had talked to.

Funny thing is, the Dems tried to beat this into the ground in nearly every speech they gave. Guess what? They lost.

No one is buying it and to continue to spout it turns people off. That's another reason why they lost Florida. The Floridians got tired of hearing about it and voted against the dems who kept bringing it up.

Continue to say the samething over and over in politics is a kiss of death. Both parties need to learn that but the dems especially if they want to regain house and senate this year which right now, is unlikely.

Funny thing is, the Dems tried to beat this into the ground in nearly every speech they gave. Guess what? They lost.

No one is buying it and to continue to spout it turns people off. That's another reason why they lost Florida. The Floridians got tired of hearing about it and voted against the dems who kept bringing it up.

Continue to say the samething over and over in politics is a kiss of death. Both parties need to learn that but the dems especially if they want to regain house and senate this year which right now, is unlikely.

You're right.
But merely because we say it and you get sick of it, that doesn't mean it's wrong. That just means you're sick of hearing it.

You're right.
But merely because we say it and you get sick of it, that doesn't mean it's wrong. That just means you're sick of hearing it.

Considering that the Congressional and Presidential records clearly show the fact that there was more than one pretense for war....I'm calling your bs.

Considering that the Congressional and Presidential records clearly show the fact that there was more than one pretense for war....I'm calling your bs.

The President only told us one.
Until that one was disproven.
Then he came up with another one.
And so on.

The President only told us one.
Until that one was disproven.
Then he came up with another one.
And so on.

Wrong again. I suggest you look at his September 2002 speech before the United Nations where he stated more than one reason and WMD was down on that list of reasons.

Wrong again. I suggest you look at his September 2002 speech before the United Nations where he stated more than one reason and WMD was down on that list of reasons.

Hmm. Well why didn't he tell the rest of us all of those?

And they still didn't support him. Maybe that should tell you something.

Hmm. Well why didn't he tell the rest of us all of those?

And they still didn't support him. Maybe that should tell you something.

Now, I'm real iffy about whether the war was justified... the evidence did kinda seem to point to Iraq having WMDs at the time, and Saddam was not exactly a peaceful ruler.

Whether or not theat gave the US justification to invade I don't know - I doubt it. But what I can't figure out is why the UN just sat there and did nothing as Saddam - essentially - repeatedly broke his "parole". Eh? So basically, imo, Saddam should be gone, even if the US shouldn't have made it happen. And the modern UN is a bunch of politicking wimps.

Hmm. Well why didn't he tell the rest of us all of those?

And they still didn't support him. Maybe that should tell you something.

That the rest of world would rather have a pschotic dictator in Iraq who has done nothing but harm to his own people in power. Who has invaded 2 soveriegn nations and was defeated on the 2nd one. (the first practically ended in a draw).

A dictator who decided to disobey international law on more than one occassion. Ignored the United Nations. And decided to threaten his neighbors on a constant basis.

mmm...yea I can see why the UN (well most of the members anyway) didn't want him to leave. They were getting kickbacks from him so why upset that? Thank God those guys are finally getting justice done.

I could go on but with minds like yours it would be rather pointless.

That the rest of world would rather have a pschotic dictator in Iraq who has done nothing but harm to his own people in power. Who has invaded 2 soveriegn nations and was defeated on the 2nd one. (the first practically ended in a draw).

A dictator who decided to disobey international law on more than one occassion. Ignored the United Nations. And decided to threaten his neighbors on a constant basis.

mmm...yea I can see why the UN (well most of the members anyway) didn't want him to leave. They were getting kickbacks from him so why upset that? Thank God those guys are finally getting justice done.

I could go on but with minds like yours it would be rather pointless.

That maybe so, but it's still not the United States' job to police the world. That's the simple fact. We try to, but it's not our job to.

That maybe so, but it's still not the United States' job to police the world. That's the simple fact. We try to, but it's not our job to.

Darn straight it isn't our job but then.....we can't expect the UN to do it now can we since we all know they are incapable of doing so.

In light of the Supreme Court decision to allow governments to take away "personal property" and turn it over to a private corporation for development, President Bush has done something good. He signed a Presidential order prohibiting the Federal Government from seizing personal property for anything other than the public good such as building roads and hospitals.

Maybe he will continue to do good things for the next couple of years. Well, I can hope can't I?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200832,00.html

P.S. This is an Associated Press story posted on FOX.

Considering that the Supreme Court decision more or less made it a purview of STATE, and not Federal government, not to mention it being the states that do this, I have to wonder if this is nothing more than a feel good decision.

It wasn't the federal government doing the confiscation for economic development in recent times last time I checked.

Darn straight it isn't our job but then.....we can't expect the UN to do it now can we since we all know they are incapable of doing so.

That still doesn't give us the right to do it.

No. The internet will only become a better place when we liberate it from its freedom-suppressing regime, and help it establish democracy.
The internet cant be democratic,otherwise people would always be arguing over whether some sites should exist,the internet will only become a better place when all things(exluding virus' etc)are basically legal on the internet

That still doesn't give us the right to do it.

Agreed but then again....who else has the balls to stand up to it?

That the rest of world would rather have a pschotic dictator in Iraq who has done nothing but harm to his own people in power. Who has invaded 2 soveriegn nations and was defeated on the 2nd one. (the first practically ended in a draw).

A dictator who decided to disobey international law on more than one occassion. Ignored the United Nations. And decided to threaten his neighbors on a constant basis.


Funny how closely this description matches the current state of the Union...

Funny how closely this description matches the current state of the Union...

Funny thing that we haven't violated international law nor any domestic law.

In light of the Supreme Court decision to allow governments to take away "personal property" and turn it over to a private corporation for development, President Bush has done something good. He signed a Presidential order prohibiting the Federal Government from seizing personal property for anything other than the public good such as building roads and hospitals.

Maybe he will continue to do good things for the next couple of years. Well, I can hope can't I?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200832,00.html

P.S. This is an Associated Press story posted on FOX.

Its Fox news, so it must not be real :rolleyes:

What about all of the UN laws broken repeatedly by Iraq?
I know the UN is a joke, but to let someone keep breaking the law like
that without any reaction, is mind boggling.

UN: "Ok saddam, we told you not to do that again and you did. We will now put another law prohibiting you from doing that again."
Saddam: "FU*K YOU!"
UN: "Ok Saddam, you stop that right now. Or else we will pass another resolution against you."
Saddam: "FU*CK YOU AGAIN!" (does it anyway)
UN: Ok Saddam, stop doing that or else we will pass another resolution demanding you t stop doing that, or else."
Saddam: "DAMN YOU AND YOUR RESOLUTIONS! FU*CK YOU!!!!!!!
I do what I want, when I want!"
UN: "Ok that's it, you jsut earned yourself another sanction and another resolution demanding you stop that! How do you like that?"
Saddam: "FU*K YOU TO HELL!!"

that is pretty much what was happening daily after Gulf War I.