NationStates Jolt Archive

the word is that after president bush commuted the sentences of the border patrol guys today that he is done with all commutations and pardons.

so since he has issued no blanket pardons for anyone in his administration who should be first against the wall?

id like to start with karl rove for the crime of using the justice department to frame the governor of alabama, Bradley Schlozman for political hiring in the justice department, and the staff of the interior department who traded influence for drugs and sex.

i want the president and vice president to be investigated for authorizing war crimes, the former attny general alberto gonzales for lying to congress and for political firing of us attnys, colin powell for lying to the UN, donald rumsfeld for being a prick. if they cant charged with anything i want them ruined in the eyes of the public and of history.

who would you like to see prosecuted?

i want them ruined in the eyes of the public and of history.

You mean they're not already?

the word is that after president bush commuted the sentences of the border patrol guys today that he is done with all commutations and pardons.

so since he has issued no blanket pardons for anyone in his administration who should be first against the wall?

id like to start with karl rove for the crime of using the justice department to frame the governor of alabama, Bradley Schlozman for political hiring in the justice department, and the staff of the interior department who traded influence for drugs and sex.

i want the president and vice president to be investigated for authorizing war crimes, the former attny general alberto gonzales for lying to congress and for political firing of us attnys, colin powell for lying to the UN, donald rumsfeld for being a prick. if they cant charged with anything i want them ruined in the eyes of the public and of history.

who would you like to see prosecuted?

Sarah Palin for misuse of her authority as governor of Alaska and, just possibly, for child abuse.

the word is that after president bush commuted the sentences of the border patrol guys today that he is done with all commutations and pardons.

so since he has issued no blanket pardons for anyone in his administration who should be first against the wall?

id like to start with karl rove for the crime of using the justice department to frame the governor of alabama, Bradley Schlozman for political hiring in the justice department, and the staff of the interior department who traded influence for drugs and sex.

i want the president and vice president to be investigated for authorizing war crimes, the former attny general alberto gonzales for lying to congress and for political firing of us attnys, colin powell for lying to the UN, donald rumsfeld for being a prick. if they cant charged with anything i want them ruined in the eyes of the public and of history.

who would you like to see prosecuted?
All of the above, though I'd like to see a more solid charge against Rumsfeld (pun intended). Rather than just his general prickishness -- which is indeed criminal, imo -- I'd like to see him go down for war crimes in the treatment of prisoners and allowing post-invasion chaos in Iraq.

You mean they're not already?
Not enough.

You mean they're not already?
not to my satisfaction.

Sarah Palin for misuse of her authority as governor of Alaska and, just possibly, for child abuse.
yeah. i dont have a vendetta against her but id like to see her have to face reality.

I want the American population charged with apathy. What congress is gonna do anything about the "Next Bush" if the Americans people can't get off their ass and do something about this shit. Their pushing the boundarys of what we let them get away with until they freaking own our very souls!

i want the american population charged with apathy. What congress is gonna do anything about the "next bush" if the americans people can't get off their ass and do something about this shit. Their pushing the boundarys of what we let them get away with until they freaking own our very souls!

^ ^ yes ^ ^

All of the above, though I'd like to see a more solid charge against Rumsfeld (pun intended). Rather than just his general prickishness -- which is indeed criminal, imo -- I'd like to see him go down for war crimes in the treatment of prisoners and allowing post-invasion chaos in Iraq.


Not enough.
im pretty sure that there are substantial war crimes to be laid at the feet of mr rumsfeld.

but if that cant be charged, i want it understood that the loss of a large number of american lives (not to mention iraqi lives) are on his tab. and probably the looting of the priceless antiquity treasures of iraq.

I want the American population charged with apathy. What congress is gonna do anything about the "Next Bush" if the Americans people can't get off their ass and do something about this shit. Their pushing the boundarys of what we let them get away with until they freaking own our very souls!
not that i dont agree with you but what should we have done and how?

Know what *will* happen? NOTHING. Because no ones going to make it happen, not you, not the democrats and not Obama.

Can Abraham Lincoln be tried posthumously for war crimes?

Can Abraham Lincoln be tried posthumously for war crimes?
no

...

all of them. any of them. we need to make some fucking examples.

Can Abraham Lincoln be tried posthumously for war crimes?

Snore.

If, and only if, Fitzgerald decides to take down some of the Bushies, I fully expect to get a "long national nightmare is finally over" speech from President Obama. Not that I want it, but I know that that's what we'll hear from him.

Hence: I'm not going to worry about it. If I feel that nothing is going to happen, then this would be like nothing more than, well, intellectual...well, it involves slap-boxing.

im pretty sure that there are substantial war crimes to be laid at the feet of mr rumsfeld.

but if that cant be charged, i want it understood that the loss of a large number of american lives (not to mention iraqi lives) are on his tab. and probably the looting of the priceless antiquity treasures of iraq.
Oh, I had forgotten about the looting of the antiquities. And of course, I've been saying for years that every US soldier killed or maimed in Iraq is Bush/Rumsfeld fault. I'm sure some people pooh-poohed me behind my back for that.

Also, who can we indict for all the contaminated water and stuff that our personnel were exposed to, the bad wiring that caused several service men and women to be electrocuted in showers, the billions of dollars for reconstruction that vanished without anything getting built for years? I would DEARLY LOVE to see profiteering charges against Halliburton, KBR, Bechtel, and all their little friends/divisions/subsidiaries.

Can Abraham Lincoln be tried posthumously for war crimes?
No.

Can Abraham Lincoln be tried posthumously for war crimes?
Well he certainly did worse than Bush has

Can Abraham Lincoln be tried posthumously for war crimes?

Beat me to it lulz.

For that matter can Alexander Hamilton be tried posthumously for crimes against humanity?

yeah. i dont have a vendetta against her but id like to see her have to face reality.

Probably not possible. I think many people's standards are so low that somebody like her is seen as a "breath of fresh air"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/19/cheney-pulls-muscle-moving-in-wheelchair/

While we're not looking at prison, how about seeing Mr. Cheney in a wheelchair? It's almost a metaphor...

Most of the Bush cabinet.

EDIT: And, of course, Bush and Cheney as well.

Well he certainly did worse than Bush has
But you know what he never did? He never dove into a thread only to hijack it.

Beat me to it lulz.

For that matter can Alexander Hamilton be tried posthumously for crimes against humanity?
No.

Oh, I had forgotten about the looting of the antiquities. And of course, I've been saying for years that every US soldier killed or maimed in Iraq is Bush/Rumsfeld fault. I'm sure some people pooh-poohed me behind my back for that.

Also, who can we indict for all the contaminated water and stuff that our personnel were exposed to, the bad wiring that caused several service men and women to be electrocuted in showers, the billions of dollars for reconstruction that vanished without anything getting built for years? I would DEARLY LOVE to see profiteering charges against Halliburton, KBR, Bechtel, and all their little friends/divisions/subsidiaries.


No.
grrrr you just reminded me that that fuck sent our soldiers to war with inadequate body armor and inadequately armored vehicles.

cant he be punished for that?

grrrr you just reminded me that that fuck sent our soldiers to war with inadequate body armor and inadequately armored vehicles.

cant he be punished for that?
There are a lot of people who definitely should be punished, and deserve to be punished, but whether they can be punished remains to be seen. I am determined to be patient.

But you know what he never did? He never dove into a thread only to hijack it.

No, he just deported a senator and made the constitution his bitch.

No, he just deported a senator and made the constitution his bitch.
But he stayed on topic.

But he stayed on topic.
He wouldn't have permitted you to debate whether his staff should be tried for war crimes in the burnings of Atlanta and Columbia.

not that i don't agree with you but what should we have done and how?

Damn I don't know. Launched massive protests, sits in like the hippies of the old did. Stand around with signs during the voting process(if not of voting age..),campaigned for those who will do something good in Congress, petition Obama to make sure he does what he said he will. Raise blogs about the Congress pork projects and give the flyer's about this to everyone.

Mainly raise awareness that politicians MUST be held accountable for their crimes. That we don't then every single other issue cannot be fixed and that the whole government is a sham.

Or we can always form a NSG "Greenbowler" if you like and rise to powerful positions around the world and then as one strike against those who would brainwash Americans. A.k.a become a company lawyer instead of a environmental one and learn thy enemy before launching massive suits against CEOs that look out for themselves.

Because SOMETHING must be done. We ARE in a war are we not? Mass media and big corporations every day influence the youth to be a certain way, and destroy the people intell and raid their knowledge base so they cannot think for themselves. That why education should be what every voter demands for at the ballot boxes. Not tax cuts or better roads. We need smart people who can think for themselves. Not fat men drinking beer watching footballs games all day long.

Also no more, screw it, no matter what I do politicians are politicians,that the way it is crap. That helps them, not us. We have to fight them every inch of the way and win our government backs.


If we just decide screw it the rest of the country will figure it out when they have no freedom. They either be powerless to stop it or to brainwashed to do anything about it.


I mean am I the only one who see whats a huge threat this is to us?

He wouldn't have permitted you to debate whether his staff should be tried for war crimes in the burnings of Atlanta and Columbia.
Off topic and wrong. You're thinking of Wilson, not Lincoln.

Interesting thought. What specific legal crimes could you charge Bush, Cheney et al with?

Midlauthia is on topic. He is using historical examples to say that no one named in the OP should go to jail.

Off topic and wrong. You're thinking of Wilson, not Lincoln.
I don't remember Wilson sending Pershing through Georgia and South Carolina nor do I remember Pershing giving Wilson the city of Savannah as a gift.

Interesting thought. What specific legal crimes could you charge Bush, Cheney et al with?
Being an idiot isn't a crime, otherwise 95% of NSG would be serving life sentences.

Being an idiot isn't a crime, otherwise 95% of NSG would be serving life sentences.

Har har :rolleyes:

Damn I don't know. Launched massive protests, sits in like the hippies of the old did. Stand around with signs during the voting process(if not of voting age..),campaigned for those who will do something good in Congress, petition Obama to make sure he does what he said he will. Raise blogs about the Congress pork projects and give the flyer's about this to everyone.

Mainly raise awareness that politicians MUST be held accountable for their crimes. That we don't then every single other issue cannot be fixed and that the whole government is a sham.

Or we can always form a NSG "Greenbowler" if you like and rise to powerful positions around the world and then as one strike against those who would brainwash Americans. A.k.a become a company lawyer instead of a environmental one and learn thy enemy before launching massive suits against CEOs that look out for themselves.

Because SOMETHING must be done. We ARE in a war are we not? Mass media and big corporations every day influence the youth to be a certain way, and destroy the people intell and raid their knowledge base so they cannot think for themselves. That why education should be what every voter demands for at the ballot boxes. Not tax cuts or better roads. We need smart people who can think for themselves. Not fat men drinking beer watching footballs games all day long.

Also no more, screw it, no matter what I do politicians are politicians,that the way it is crap. That helps them, not us. We have to fight them every inch of the way and win our government backs.


If we just decide screw it the rest of the country will figure it out when they have no freedom. They either be powerless to stop it or to brainwashed to do anything about it.


I mean am I the only one who see whats a huge threat this is to us?
just wondering...


we need at least to have a full accounting of the crimes of the bush administration. not just for my own need to see them suffer but because if they dont have to pay for them, then the next guy who does it doesnt have to pay for his crimes in office.

we are all stewing in the stink of our government's crimes. justice is a way of cleaning that up. we need justice.

and we need to demand that the new president does better. and to call him on it when he does not.

If we're going down this road, then I'd like to see JFK go on trial posthumously for crimes against humanity, for supporting terrorist groups in Angola that massacred civilians with his full knowledge.

I don't remember Wilson sending Pershing through Georgia and South Carolina nor do I remember Pershing giving Wilson the city of Savannah as a gift.
You apparently don't remember the Espionage Act of 1917, either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

Interesting thought. What specific legal crimes could you charge Bush, Cheney et al with?
authorizing torture for one

lying to the american people--that is actually a crime.

If we're going down this road, then I'd like to see JFK go on trial posthumously for crimes against humanity, for supporting terrorist groups in Angola that massacred civilians with his full knowledge.
sorry, no posthumous prosecutions allowed.

Midlauthia is on topic. He is using historical examples to say that no one named in the OP should go to jail.
That would be true, if he had actually made any effort whatsoever to address the OP, and if he knew anything about history.

just wondering...


we need at least to have a full accounting of the crimes of the bush administration. not just for my own need to see them suffer but because if they dont have to pay for them, then the next guy who does it doesnt have to pay for his crimes in office.

we are all stewing in the stink of our government's crimes. justice is a way of cleaning that up. we need justice.

and we need to demand that the new president does better. and to call him on it when he does not.
At the very least we have to establish the real history before the revisionists totally have their way with the records.

You apparently don't remember the Espionage Act of 1917, either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
The Espionage Act of 1917 pales in comparison to the Alien and Sedition Acts or Lincoln's deportation of Clement Vallandigham. The Patriot Act pales in comparison to the Espionage Act.

sorry, no posthumous prosecutions allowed.

How come others got away free and clear and Bush can't?

Also, don't realize he won't be tried for anything?

That would be true, if he had actually made any effort whatsoever to address the OP, and if he knew anything about history.
I still have no idea when Wilson burned Atlanta and Columbia.

While we're at it, I do believe the leaders of some "churches" (e.g. scientology) need to be tried for fraud and/or grand larceny.

How come others got away free and clear and Bush can't?

Also, don't realize he won't be tried for anything?
If Nixon and FDR weren't tried, no president will ever be.

How come others got away free and clear and Bush can't?

Also, don't realize he won't be tried for anything?
i doubt that he would ever be charged but a good strict investigation would bring out the truth of what happened in a way that can't be whitewashed by bush operatives.

and hey, it still pisses me off that reagan wasnt charged with treason but that is the past and no posthumous prosecutions are allowed.

authorizing torture for one

lying to the american people--that is actually a crime.

Yeah but what I mean is, can you cite any specific laws or precedents?

While we're at it, I do believe the leaders of some "churches" (e.g. scientology) need to be tried for fraud and/or grand larceny.

Haha, sounds good.

and hey, it still pisses me off that reagan wasnt charged with treason but that is the past and no posthumous prosecutions are allowed.
Treason for what?

Yeah but what I mean is, can you cite any specific laws or precedents?
no
im not a lawyer.

If Ford didn't pardon Nixon, he would have been tried.

Treason for what?
selling arms to iran when they were our worst enemy in the world.

remember? trading arms for hostages? iran-contra? any of this ringing a belll?

no
im not a lawyer.

How about not throwing charges around then

How about not throwing charges around then
oh i dont need to be a lawyer to recognize crime when i see it.

no
im not a lawyer.
http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=lying+to+american+people+is+a+crime+precedents

Neither am I.

I still have no idea when Wilson burned Atlanta and Columbia.
And I still have no idea why you are trying to turn a thread about the recent actions of the Bush admin into a vendetta against a man who has been dead for more than a century. Do you have any interest in the topic at all? If not, then I'll stop feeding you.

oh i dont need to be a lawyer to recognize crime when i see it.

Well apparently you can't recognize crime, or at least what you perceive as crime is definately a grey area, because you aren't citing any statutes that forbid what Bush has done.

selling arms to iran when they were our worst enemy in the world.

remember? trading arms for hostages? iran-contra? any of this ringing a belll?
Okay so you would rather Americans rot in Tehran than Iran posses a few missiles?

and y'all might remember that there were men convicted for the watergate break-in and cover-up. and that oliver north went to prison for iran contra (at least he was convicted, i dont know if he served time before reagan pardoned him).

it doesnt have to be the president himself who goes to jail. there is a heaping bucketful of names worthy of prosecution.

And I still have no idea why you are trying to turn a thread about the recent actions of the Bush admin into a vendetta against a man who has been dead for more than a century. Do you have any interest in the topic at all? If not, then I'll stop feeding you.
I'm trying to portray how pathetic trying Bush would be in light of past presidential crimes. So when did Pershing make Georgia howl?

Well apparently you can't recognize crime, or at least what you perceive as crime is definately a grey area, because you aren't citing any statutes that forbid what Bush has done.
and im not going to either.

I want the American population charged with apathy. What congress is gonna do anything about the "Next Bush" if the Americans people can't get off their ass and do something about this shit. Their pushing the boundarys of what we let them get away with until they freaking own our very souls!
Right. Because we just voted in McCain and Palin....

Oh wait....

Well apparently you can't recognize crime, or at least what you perceive as crime is definately a grey area, because you aren't citing any statutes that forbid what Bush has done.
Since posters like Ashmoria and I are only expressing opinions about actions that we personally would like to see people investigated for, we don't have to list specific statutes. It would be up to a prosecutor to investigate those actions and determine if any laws were actually broken and which ones.

We are just expressing opinions here, not bringing down indictments.

I would DEARLY LOVE to see profiteering charges against Halliburton, KBR, Bechtel, and all their little friends/divisions/subsidiaries.


As appealing as that sounds, you might as well wish for a few million dollars to drop your lap. It is certainly more likely.

Okay so you would rather Americans rot in Tehran than Iran posses a few missiles?
you need to read up on iran-contra so you can understand just how much wrong there is in that question.

Rumsfeld.

Everyone needs to go to jail.

As appealing as that sounds, you might as well wish for a few million dollars to drop your lap. It is certainly more likely.
no i think we can get charges laid on halliburton....depending on how well they spread around campaign contributions this last election....

Rumsfeld.

It'd be nice if you could elaborate as to why he should be charged with something?

and im not going to either.

Don't think I'm gonna waste my time with this conversation anymore ><

It'd be nice if you could elaborate as to why he should be charged with something?

The vast majority of the war crimes were his idea and done under his orders.

I'm trying to portray how pathetic trying Bush would be in light of past presidential crimes. So when did Pershing make Georgia howl?
It doesn't matter whether Bush is pathetic compared to past presidential crimes. If one man kills 20 people, he doesn't get a bye for that because another man killed 200 before him. A crime is judged by comparison to the law, not comparison to other crimes. For that reason, all talk of other president's crimes is irrelevant to a discussion of Bush's crimes.

you need to read up on iran-contra so you can understand just how much wrong there is in that question.
Admittedly I'm not well read on contra but I seriously doubt you are a case expert either. I seriously doubt contra adds up to treason though. Aaron Burr was treasonous. Reagan dealing arms to 3rd world countries in order to get American hostages back is shady at best but not treasonous.

All those Southern California opportunists who decided to build huge urban areas in a place with little to no water and then steal water from Northern California and the Colorado River (much to the detriment of those areas) to support that urban blight: all of them, past and present.

As appealing as that sounds, you might as well wish for a few million dollars to drop your lap. It is certainly more likely.
I'm aware of that.

Don't think I'm gonna waste my time with this conversation anymore ><
fine by me.

How come others got away free and clear and Bush can't?


even assuming an equivalence of acts, the fact that previous fuckers got away lightly is exactly why we need to make some serious fucking examples - so the political class learns the right lesson, rather than the one the young republican staffers learned from nixon.

Admittedly I'm not well read on contra but I seriously doubt you are a case expert either. I seriously doubt contra adds up to treason though. Aaron Burr was treasonous. Reagan dealing arms to 3rd world countries in order to get American hostages back is shady at best but not treasonous.
since its off topic i will just remind you that you need to read up before you are able to comment even with a non scholar like myself.

just wondering...


we need at least to have a full accounting of the crimes of the bush administration. not just for my own need to see them suffer but because if they dont have to pay for them, then the next guy who does it doesnt have to pay for his crimes in office.

we are all stewing in the stink of our government's crimes. justice is a way of cleaning that up. we need justice.

and we need to demand that the new president does better. and to call him on it when he does not.

Thats the short verison of it I guess and probably the most easiest one to do and the most important one

All this "OMG U EBIL LIBRUHLS R ALL PICKIN ON POOR BUSH LEAVE HIM ALONE LOLZ LOLZ LOLZ!!1!" is disgusting.

Who Needs To Go To Jail? Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Ashcroft, and everyone connected to Halliburton and Blackwater.

All this "OMG U EBIL LIBRUHLS R ALL PICKIN ON POOR BUSH LEAVE HIM ALONE LOLZ LOLZ LOLZ!!1!" is disgusting.

Who said anything 'bout anyone from any point on the political spectrum picking on anyone?

anyone who voted for obama

Who said anything 'bout anyone from any point on the political spectrum picking on anyone?

Thats what this "Other presidents were worse why must we try Bush?!?" essentially boils down to. Im not dense why pretend like I am?
anyone who voted for obama

lolz!!!


Get back under your bridge.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Ashcroft, and everyone connected to Halliburton and Blackwater.

Blackwater is a large organization. So is Halliburton. Do want every single employee jailed?

I've seen two negative, entirely contradictory viewpoints towards the Bush administration, even just within the confines of this thread:

1. That they are entirely incompetent and are completely incapable of running a country.
2. That they are absolutely evil and are responsible for planning and carrying out horrible crimes against humanity.

It would be nice, for a change, for people to state which one it is, consistently. It certainly can't be both.

Blackwater is a large organization. So is Halliburton. Do want every single employee jailed?

...well, it WOULD send a message...

Seriously, though, the leadership should be enough.

Right. Because we just voted in McCain and Palin....

Oh wait....

Half of the country didn't vote and yet the victory wasn't as wide as it should had been. The apathy from so many along with so many other being so brainwashed or unable to think for themselfs just scares me.

What if a government chokes off knowledge? Were winning the fight for now, but their thinking long term and without education being put to a high standard. Their going to be less free-thinkers out their. And without the people in office being try for their crimes, their going to be more and more people trying to get away with these things.

Not to forget the proganda that being pumped out everyday by big companys in effort to destroy morals, teenagers self-confience and teaching them what "right" and cool and whats not. Just to get them to buy a product.
Do you have any ideas how many of my classmates(females especially) believe abortion is murder? Just because if not they kill a baby?

Or having my friends say being different is wrong? That you should try to be like everyone else? And that the "norm" is what big companies push across to get us buying their products?

How many of us have siblings or friends who only care about the latest tv commerical and thats it? Or who parents buy into whatever bull shit somebody sells them?

Thats what this "Other presidents were worse why must we try Bush?!?" essentially boils down to. Im not dense why pretend like I am?


lolz!!!


Get back under your bridge.

Hahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

I have no mo' bridge! It was blownededed up high in the sky!

Can I haz nu bridge pweeze?


Moving right along now.

I think you are letting your intense dislike for non-liberals cloud your vision! You see things that are not there!

Your dislike is dis-orientating.

You are disorientated.

Hahaha, Bear Grylls says funny words!

I've seen two negative, entirely contradictory viewpoints towards the Bush administration, even just within the confines of this thread:

1. That they are entirely incompetent and are completely incapable of running a country.
2. That they are absolutely evil and are responsible for planning and carrying out horrible crimes against humanity.

It would be nice, for a change, for people to state which one it is, consistently. It certainly can't be both.

The inability for Busheviks to realize that you can be both evil and stupid is amusing.

Blackwater is a large organization. So is Halliburton. Do want every single employee jailed?

Blackwater, yes. A bunch of mercenaries and thugs. Halliburton, just the ones who actually made out like bandits with those contracts. The possibility of war profiteering needs to be investigated.

Blackwater is a large organization. So is Halliburton. Do want every single employee jailed?
no but now that the iraqi govt has sovereignty over their own country they may well decide to charge a few of the blackwater troops with murder.

I've seen two negative, entirely contradictory viewpoints towards the Bush administration, even just within the confines of this thread:

1. That they are entirely incompetent and are completely incapable of running a country.
2. That they are absolutely evil and are responsible for planning and carrying out horrible crimes against humanity.

It would be nice, for a change, for people to state which one it is, consistently. It certainly can't be both.
i beg to disagree. stupid people commit crimes all the time.

Blackwater, yes. A bunch of mercenaries and thugs. Halliburton, just the ones who actually made out like bandits with those contracts. The possibility of war profiteering needs to be investigated.

Hey, hey now!

Slow down there!

1. What is wrong with mercenaries?
2. Blackwater is technically I PMC.
3. PMC's are legal.

I've seen two negative, entirely contradictory viewpoints towards the Bush administration, even just within the confines of this thread:

1. That they are entirely incompetent and are completely incapable of running a country.
2. That they are absolutely evil and are responsible for planning and carrying out horrible crimes against humanity.

It would be nice, for a change, for people to state which one it is, consistently. It certainly can't be both.
Really? I would be interested if you would show us where you see those messages.

Blackwater, yes. A bunch of mercenaries and thugs. Halliburton, just the ones who actually made out like bandits with those contracts. The possibility of war profiteering needs to be investigated.

But can you really blame a mercenary for doing his job? The U.S government pay him to protect a convey of goods that American soldiers use and who to say if that the Iraqis they killed had a bomb on them or not? Their job is to deliver those goods and the whole point of being a mercenary is you don't follow the Genas Convention. Americans soldiers are bounded to different rules then they are. Its the American Government fault their there.

i beg to disagree. stupid people commit crimes all the time.
More often than not, in fact, criminals are a bit slow-witted (http://www.rantnroll.com/html/stickups.html) (if Muravyets will forgive me for stereotyping criminals).

I've seen two negative, entirely contradictory viewpoints towards the Bush administration, even just within the confines of this thread:

1. That they are entirely incompetent and are completely incapable of running a country.
2. That they are absolutely evil and are responsible for planning and carrying out horrible crimes against humanity.

It would be nice, for a change, for people to state which one it is, consistently. It certainly can't be both.

Entirely contradictory?

So, the skill sets and competencies for running a country are the same as for carrying out horrible crimes against humanity?

Being bad at the first means you couldn't be good at the second?

Hi, I'm pre-eminent Russian American philosopher Ayn Rand, and you are clearly familiar with my works.

The inability for Busheviks to realize that you can be both evil and stupid is amusing.

1. I do like how you automatically assume I support Bush 100%. It amuses me because I always hear people who support left-leaning politicians that claim everybody else is ignorant, and apparently, believe that the reverse is entirely impossible.

2. If the Bush administration were honestly so stupid they couldn't run a country, or possibly walk without choking on pretzels, how do you explain them managing to invade two countries in two years and then (supposedly) try to cover up some rather elaborate conspiracies?

1. I do like how you automatically assume I support Bush 100%. It amuses me because I always hear people who support left-leaning politicians that claim everybody else is ignorant, and apparently, believe that the reverse is entirely impossible.

2. If the Bush administration were honestly so stupid they couldn't run a country, or possibly walk without choking on pretzels, how do you explain them managing to invade two countries in two years and then (supposedly) try to cover up some rather elaborate conspiracies?

I think George Bush is an idiot with evil intent.


I think his advisors are smart enough to help execute that evil.


Feel better?

how do you explain them managing to invade two countries in two years and then (supposedly) try to cover up some rather elaborate conspiracies?
Are you claiming that they showed any particular competence at either invasion or coverup?

More often than not, in fact, criminals are a bit slow-witted (http://www.rantnroll.com/html/stickups.html) (if Muravyets will forgive me for stereotyping criminals).
and i certainly dont want to imply that stupid people are more likely to be criminals

1. I do like how you automatically assume I support Bush 100%. It amuses me because I always hear people who support left-leaning politicians that claim everybody else is ignorant, and apparently, believe that the reverse is entirely impossible.

2. If the Bush administration were honestly so stupid they couldn't run a country, or possibly walk without choking on pretzels, how do you explain them managing to invade two countries in two years and then (supposedly) try to cover up some rather elaborate conspiracies?
the one thing that george bush did brilliantly was to manipulate us into the iraq war.

idiot savant?

People who role 3 sixes in a row playing monopoly?

I think George Bush is an idiot with evil intent.

I think his advisors are smart enough to help execute that evil.

Feel better?

If that were actually the case then Bush would only be at fault for negligence.

Are you claiming that they showed any particular competence at either invasion or coverup?

Well I find it difficult to believe that moving a few hundred thousand troops, well-supplied, to the entire other side of the world and then toppling two well established governments in a matter of months each time can be accomplished by people who supposedly can't carry out simple tasks like adding.

If that were actually the case then Bush would only be at fault for negligence.


Not really, intent and all that.

If an idiot kills someone, its murder, not negligence.

2. If the Bush administration were honestly so stupid they couldn't run a country, or possibly walk without choking on pretzels, how do you explain them managing to invade two countries in two years and then (supposedly) try to cover up some rather elaborate conspiracies?

I'm told that a lot of war planning and management involve specially clothed people who are retained for that purpose.

Apparently a lot of those people mentioned the countries could be taken fairly simply but a better after-plan was needed.

And that was Bush's time to shine!

Well I find it difficult to believe that moving a few hundred thousand troops, well-supplied...
Uhhhh....

If that were actually the case then Bush would only be at fault for negligence.

KoL is not an Objectivist, so his opinion is intrinsically wrong, but I think he was suggesting that Bush told them what to do (the intent) and then they did it with their expertise (their expertise).

Thus, he wasn't merely negligent, but an actual initiator of the act.

Not really, intent and all that.

If an idiot kills someone, its murder, not negligence.

But if he's incapable of actually understanding what's happening, which is the argument I've seen, then he legitimately can't be responsible. In fact, if we want to use the extreme argument that Bush is in fact mentally disabled (I've heard this argument too), then he cannot legally be imprisoned for murder under the U.S. justice system.

But if he's incapable of actually understanding what's happening, which is the argument I've seen, then he legitimately can't be responsible.

Except Im not making that arguement. So, youre wasting your time bringing it up here.

Uhhhh....

Let me guess, you're one of those people who think HMMWVs are supposed to be armored personnel carriers?

Well I find it difficult to believe that moving a few hundred thousand troops, well-supplied, to the entire other side of the world and then toppling two well established governments in a matter of months each time can be accomplished by people who supposedly can't carry out simple tasks like adding.

A lot of the logistic side of it wasn't handled by Bush and his team personally, I've heard...other than "You go to war with army you have, not the army you'd like to have" or something along those lines.

And competently running the country occasionally involves more than arithmetic.

KoL is not an Objectivist, so his opinion is intrinsically wrong, but I think he was suggesting that Bush told them what to do (the intent) and then they did it with their expertise (their expertise).

Thus, he wasn't merely negligent, but an actual initiator of the act.

Indeed, in order to understand the workings of George Bush's administration, you need to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th Century Russian-American philosopher, Ayn Rand.

But if he's incapable of actually understanding what's happening, which is the argument I've seen, then he legitimately can't be responsible. In fact, if we want to use the extreme argument that Bush is in fact mentally disabled (I've heard this argument too), then he cannot legally be imprisoned for murder under the U.S. justice system.

So, if somebody says that "Guy A" doesn't have the expertise to bomb a school bus, so he get his crew, "Guys B" to do it, that somehow implies anybody is arguing that "Guy A" doesn't understand what's happening?

Let me guess, you're one of those people who think HMMWVs are supposed to be armored personnel carriers?

No, he's probably one of those guys that thinks there were massive mistakes in supplying available additional modular armor, that several private companies were able to get, but the military didn't get in the quantaties and places it needed.

You know, the mistakes that many military personnel admitted to, reported, and in some cases died due to.

But if he's incapable of actually understanding what's happening, which is the argument I've seen, then he legitimately can't be responsible. In fact, if we want to use the extreme argument that Bush is in fact mentally disabled (I've heard this argument too), then he cannot legally be imprisoned for murder under the U.S. justice system.

1. Lack of ability to run the United States =/= incompetence to stand trial.

2. Incompetence to stand trial = institutionalized in a mental hospital until competent. Are you suggesting Bush & Co. should all be put in mental wards?

EDIT: "arguments I've heard" =/= positions people are actually taking in this thread or on NSG

"arguments I've heard" = strawmen

KoL is not an Objectivist, so his opinion is intrinsically wrong, but I think he was suggesting that Bush told them what to do (the intent) and then they did it with their expertise (their expertise).

Thus, he wasn't merely negligent, but an actual initiator of the act.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with...

OH SHI-

But if he's incapable of actually understanding what's happening, which is the argument I've seen, then he legitimately can't be responsible. In fact, if we want to use the extreme argument that Bush is in fact mentally disabled (I've heard this argument too), then he cannot legally be imprisoned for murder under the U.S. justice system.
I'm still waiting for you to show us in this thread where you're seeing these arguments you say you see.

I've been reading the whole thread, and so far the only person I've seen mention anything about them being totally imcompetent, engaged in evil plottings, or that Bush is incapable of understanding what's happening, is you.

But if he's incapable of actually understanding what's happening, which is the argument I've seen, then he legitimately can't be responsible. In fact, if we want to use the extreme argument that Bush is in fact mentally disabled (I've heard this argument too), then he cannot legally be imprisoned for murder under the U.S. justice system.
GWB didn't think being mentally disabled was sufficient reasoning when, as Governor of Texas, he signed death warrants on all those mentally diabled. So why should it now be an effective argument against himself being brought to trial?

I'm still waiting for you to show us in this thread where you're seeing these arguments you say you see.

I've been reading the whole thread, and so far the only person I've seen mention anything about them being totally imcompetent, engaged in evil plottings, or that Bush is incapable of understanding what's happening, is you.

You would do well to...


You see where this is going, dont you darlin'?:p

I'm still waiting for you to show us in this thread where you're seeing these arguments you say you see.

And I'm still waiting to see when Pershing fired on the SC State House and destroyed George Washington's cane.

I accuse everyone in this whole effing thread of being a f-cktard and demand you're all shot in the back of the head even though i can't cite why aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh

And I'm still waiting to see when Pershing fired on the SC State House and destroyed George Washington's cane.
maybe if you go to bed now it will have been posted in the morning.

on a thread where it might be relevant.

I accuse everyone in this whole effing thread of being a f-cktard and demand you're all shot in the back of the head even though i can't cite why aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh

Bad troll is bad.

GWB didn't think being mentally disabled was sufficient reasoning when, as Governor of Texas, he signed death warrants on all those mentally diabled. So why should it now be an effective argument against himself being brought to trial?

It isn't, ffs. If you people had been paying attention you'd notice I was bringing up arguments I've heard elsewhere (god forbid there be a world outside of NSG) in addition to those I've seen here.

You would do well to...


You see where this is going, dont you darlin'?:p
Of course. I just like pointing out the obvious sometimes. Especially when there's nothing else in the argument to point out.

And I'm still waiting to see when Pershing fired on the SC State House and destroyed George Washington's cane.
See bolded phrase below:
maybe if you go to bed now it will have been posted in the morning.

on a thread where it might be relevant.

maybe if you go to bed now it will have been posted in the morning.

on a thread where it might be relevant.
I don't sleep, but I punctuate.

How is pointing out a precedent not relevant?

It isn't, ffs. If you people had been paying attention you'd notice I was bringing up arguments I've heard elsewhere (god forbid there be a world outside of NSG) in addition to those I've seen here.
You said in your first post that you had seen the two arguments you cited in this thread.

EDIT:
I've seen two negative, entirely contradictory viewpoints towards the Bush administration, even just within the confines of this thread: [ETC.]

I'm still waiting for you to show us in this thread where you're seeing these arguments you say you see.
Isn't it sufficient for him to telepathically conclude that this must be what other posters are meaning, even if (or especially if) they say that isn't what they mean?

Bad troll is bad.

I was actually trying to make a point. Try to deduce what it was about :D

I accuse *snip*

I accuse you of being a turnip. Case closed. :p

I don't sleep, but I punctuate.

How is pointing out a precedent not relevant?
Other people committing crimes in the past does not set a precedent for crimes committed in the present. I said to you earlier that if a man kills 20 people today, he doesn't beat that rap just because another man killed 200 before him. You ignored that point, not surprisingly.

Isn't it sufficient for him to telepathically conclude that this must be what other posters are meaning, even if (or especially if) they say that isn't what they mean?
I'm sure it's enough for some NSGers, but they're not here right now. ;)

It isn't, ffs. If you people had been paying attention you'd notice I was bringing up arguments I've heard elsewhere (god forbid there be a world outside of NSG) in addition to those I've seen here.
oh well then....

people with the opinion that george bush is a drooling moron are wrong.

feel better now?

I'm sure it's enough for some NSGers, but they're not here right now. ;)
One of them is :tongue:

I'll just add this:

Incompetent: Guilty
Negligent: Guilty
Ignorant: Guilty
Abusive of Resources: Guilty
Blatant Disregard for Human Life: Guilty
Lying to Congress and the People of the United States of America: Guilty
But you'd have to put the Senate up for trial before you put him up. It's Congress who decides if we go to war, as well as who gives the President the ability to declare war. All he did was follow through with his desires.

You said in your first post that you had seen the two arguments you cited in this thread.

EDIT:

Well the "evil genius" argument has been the one most consistently put forth in this thread. The "dim-witted" argument was brought up (although briefly) by Midlauthia in post #34. If you weren't able to see the other one then perhaps you need to get your eyes looked at, because they seem to be the problem here.

Well the "evil genius" argument has been the one most consistently put forth in this thread. The "dim-witted" argument was brought up (although briefly) by Midlauthia in post #34. If you weren't able to see the other one then perhaps you need to get your eyes looked at, because they seem to be the problem here.
Midlauthia was trolling.

Apparently so are you, resorting after such a short time to personal insults and jibes intead of a post-quote of the place where you see the other argument you claim to see. Guess you can't find it, either. See you at the optimetrist then?

Well the "evil genius" argument has been the one most consistently put forth in this thread. The "dim-witted" argument was brought up (although briefly) by Midlauthia in post #34. If you weren't able to see the other one then perhaps you need to get your eyes looked at, because they seem to be the problem here.
I'd think Cheney would be more likely as Evil Genius than Bush...

I'd think Cheney would be more likely as Evil Genius than Bush...
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/i/k/cheney_drevil.jpg

I'd think Cheney would be more likely as Evil Genius than Bush...
oh i hardly think so.

the man who headed bush's vp search committee then recommended himself? whats the chances that he would be an evil genius?

Other people committing crimes in the past does not set a precedent for crimes committed in the present. I said to you earlier that if a man kills 20 people today, he doesn't beat that rap just because another man killed 200 before him. You ignored that point, not surprisingly.
Except for we aren't talking about first degree murder, we are talking about presidential war crimes. I was making the point of you expect or hope Bush will be tried for war crimes you are an idiot because his actions are little compared to past presidents. Again I'm saying this establishing a precedent and going from there.

Midlauthia was trolling.

Apparently so are you, resorting after such a short time to personal insults and jibes intead of a post-quote of the place where you see the other argument you claim to see. Guess you can't find it, either. See you at the optimetrist then?

Well I'll be damned, apparently I have a new post-quote of the argument, right after yours:

I'd think Cheney would be more likely as Evil Genius than Bush...

Midlauthia was trolling.

Apparently so are you, resorting after such a short time to personal insults and jibes intead of a post-quote of the place where you see the other argument you claim to see. Guess you can't find it, either. See you at the optimetrist then?
And you resort to calling people trolls when you try to call them out on a historical fact and miserably fail.

Well I'll be damned, apparently I have a new post-quote of the argument, right after yours:
and what point of yours do you think that supports?

oh i hardly think so.

the man who headed bush's vp search committee then recommended himself? whats the chances that he would be an evil genius?
That's just selfish not stupid.

and what point of yours do you think that supports?
The point that Bush isn't the evil mastermind of devastation and torture NSG claims him to be.

http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0208/GodBlessDickCheney.jpg

I Just Had to...

Except for we aren't talking about first degree murder, we are talking about presidential war crimes. I was making the point of you expect or hope Bush will be tried for war crimes you are an idiot because his actions are little compared to past presidents. Again I'm saying this establishing a precedent and going from there.
Yeah, but you're wrong.

The point that Bush isn't the evil mastermind of devastation and torture NSG claims him to be.
it seems obvious to me that mr bush did not think up every criminal act that happened on his watch. but he agreed to many of them even if he didnt think them up.

and that makes him culpable.

and what point of yours do you think that supports?

Well it's quite simple, really. His belief that Bush is less capable of being an evil genius than Bush, as well as his previous statement that Bush desires evil, leads me to believe that the real part he's "less capable" at is the genius bit, which leads to the argument that Bush isn't terribly intelligent.

However, since I've already been accused of trolling and feel that moderator action may soon follow, I believe I shall conclude right there.

That's just selfish not stupid.
who said anyone was stupid?

Well I'll be damned, apparently I have a new post-quote of the argument, right after yours:
You're not fooling anyone, but you get points for laughing at yourself.

Well it's quite simple, really. His belief that Bush is less capable of being an evil genius than Bush, as well as his previous statement that Bush desires evil, leads me to believe that the real part he's "less capable" at is the genius bit, which leads to the argument that Bush isn't terribly intelligent.

However, since I've already accused of being trolling and feel that moderator action may soon follow, I believe I shall conclude right there.
i think you have overthought the meaning of the post.

**edit**

and i dont see anything modworthy in any of your posts.

other may disagree with me i suppose.

Yeah, but you're wrong.
I may be but you've only brought up one far flung analogy to support your point. However Pershing never burned Columbia :(

And you resort to calling people trolls when you try to call them out on a historical fact and miserably fail.
Seriously, back under your bridge. You are wrong in your argument, and you very clearly never meant it as anything more than a threadjack.

it seems obvious to me that mr bush did not think up every criminal act that happened on his watch. but he agreed to many of them even if he didnt think them up.

and that makes him culpable.

I'll break what I said, I hate the man and his policies, but just about everything he does has to get congressional approval. We'd lose half the government trying to take him down, including a few rare cases of politicians who are actually trying to do what's best for the country.

Now I'm going to catch a breath, having trouble through the laughing after that last part.

Well it's quite simple, really. His belief that Bush is less capable of being an evil genius than Bush, as well as his previous statement that Bush desires evil, leads me to believe that the real part he's "less capable" at is the genius bit, which leads to the argument that Bush isn't terribly intelligent.

However, since I've already been accused of trolling and feel that moderator action may soon follow, I believe I shall conclude right there.
Who called you a troll? Who said anything about mods?

The vast majority of the war crimes were his idea and done under his orders.
Do you know what war crimes are?

I may be but you've only brought up one far flung analogy to support your point. However Pershing never burned Columbia :(

*sigh*

First, you continue to ignore that someone getting away with a crime in the past does not mean people should get away with that or any other crime thereafter.

Second, even if the American Civil War could be compared to the "War on Terror" (which is a mighty big fucking "if"), what international or national laws did Lincoln violate and how did he violate them? And what would be the point of posthumous trial on such charges?

EDIT: Let me be clear. I don't think it likely Bush & Co. will be called to answer for their actions, but that doesn't mean they didn't commit crimes and outrages.

I may be but you've only brought up one far flung analogy to support your point. However Pershing never burned Columbia :(
If you reread the thread, you will see that the only person who mentioned any 19th century generals whose names start with the letter P is you. You seem to be the only person who is interested in that general, and who thinks he has any relevance to the present discussion. I know I have no such interest and no such odd notion, so I don't know why you keep mentioning him to me.

who said anyone was stupid?
I don't know...
I think George Bush is an idiot

If you reread the thread, you will see that the only person who mentioned any 19th century generals whose names start with the letter P is you. You seem to be the only person who is interested in that general, and who thinks he has any relevance to the present discussion. I know I have no such interest and no such odd notion, so I don't know why you keep mentioning him to me.
Pershing was a 20th century general. I said something about Lincoln burning through the south and you tried to be a smart ass and tell me Wilson burned the south. I keep mentioning it because it was a ridiculous statement.

Who called you a troll? Who said anything about mods?

Wow, when I originally said you should get your eyes checked I wasn't entirely serious. Perhaps I should have been:

Midlauthia was trolling.

Apparently so are you, resorting after such a short time to personal insults and jibes intead of a post-quote of the place where you see the other argument you claim to see. Guess you can't find it, either. See you at the optimetrist then?

I'd assume comments like I made above are the sort of thing that would warrant mod attention. From what I've seen they're not exactly sympathetic to it.

I don't know...
*gives mid the look*

in the post you quoted.

Pershing was a 20th century general. I said something about Lincoln burning through the south and you tried to be a smart ass and tell me Wilson burned the south. I keep mentioning it because it was a ridiculous statement.
Who gives a crap when he was alive? He is irrelevant, just like everything else you've said. You've had enough troll-chow for one night.

Second, even if the American Civil War could be compared to the "War on Terror" (which is a mighty big fucking "if"), what international or national laws did Lincoln violate and how did he violate them? And what would be the point of posthumous trial on such charges?

Breach of powers. Had Clement Vallandigham (copperhead senator from Ohio) arrested and deported to Canada for anti war speeches in the House. Issuing an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Taney after Taney declared only Congress can suspend habeus corpus. Then on that, for suspending habeus corpus without Congress' approval.

Who gives a crap when he was alive? He is irrelevant, just like everything else you've said. You've had enough troll-chow for one night.
I'm only irrelevant because I'm right.

Wow, when I originally said you should get your eyes checked I wasn't entirely serious. Perhaps I should have been:



I'd assume comments like I made above are the sort of thing that would warrant mod attention. From what I've seen they're not exactly sympathetic to it.
I see, I apologize for not realizing I was talking to someone who is so literal-minded that he would not recognize a minor rhetorical flourish. In my defense I can only say that your main argument is that of a fabulist who just imagines arguments that were never made. That is, perhaps, why it never occurred to me that you would take a few off-hand words so literally.

I cannot speak for the mods. I have no idea what they consider action-worthy or not. I only know that when you insult your opponent rather than address the arguments, it doesn't help your position.

*gives mid the look*

in the post you quoted.
I was referring to the entire thread in my post.

I'm only irrelevant because I'm right.
Hahahahahaha! :D :D

I was referring to the entire thread in my post.
ahhhh my mistake

Hahahahahaha! :D :D
"War is hell" - Gen. John Pershing

"War is hell" - Gen. John Pershing
Sherman said that, too...

"War is hell" - Gen. John Pershing
"War is hell." -- William Tecumseh Sherman. Try again.

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/war_is_hell/206888.html
“It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”
William Tecumseh Sherman quotes (American Civil War General and a major architect of modern warfare. 1820-1891)

"War is hell." -- William Tecumseh Sherman. Try again.

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/war_is_hell/206888.html
“It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”
William Tecumseh Sherman quotes (American Civil War General and a major architect of modern warfare. 1820-1891)

Of course he also killed more American civilians than any other General in history...

Of course he also killed more American civilians than any other General in history...
That's how he knew how bad it was.

"War is hell." -- William Tecumseh Sherman. Try again.

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/war_is_hell/206888.html
“It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”
William Tecumseh Sherman quotes (American Civil War General and a major architect of modern warfare. 1820-1891)
Yeah I know that..I'm satirizing this post you made earlier:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14417487&postcount=30
No way you forgot it, I've been ripping you about it half the thread.

It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it.

robert e lee

are we doing war quotes now?

It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it.

robert e lee

are we doing war quotes now?
Only if you feel like feeding Midlauthia.

It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it.

robert e lee

are we doing war quotes now?
Omg hijack.
Best war quote ever:

Mon centre ce' de, ma droite recule, situation excellente, j'attaque.

"War is too important to be left to the politicians" General Jack D. Ripper

Yeah I know that..I'm satirizing this post you made earlier:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14417487&postcount=30
No way you forgot it, I've been ripping you about it half the thread.
I'm doing my best to forget everything having to do with you. Now I have to try to forget the fact that you don't know what "satire" is.

"War is too important to be left to the politicians" General Jack D. Ripper
With this^^ I declare threadjack win, and urge that the threadjack be awarded to DU and ended.

I'm doing my best to forget everything having to do with you. Now I have to try to forget the fact that you don't know what "satire" is.
Wait wait...I don't know what satire is? Let me pause for a second...okay I'm done laughing now.

Wait wait...I don't know what satire is? Let me pause for a second...okay I'm done laughing now.
Let's review: You came in attempting to derail the topic. You made poor arguments. And you've tried the "I made that mistake on purpose" trick when your attempt to sound superior to someone else flopped. I think that's enough play for you tonight (read: ever). 'Bye. I'll be concentrating on the thread from now on.

Let's review: You came in attempting to derail the topic. You made poor arguments. And you've tried the "I made that mistake on purpose" trick when your attempt to sound superior to someone else flopped. I think that's enough play for you tonight (read: ever). 'Bye. I'll be concentrating on the thread from now on.
Lets review. I compared Lincoln's war crimes to Bush's. You made some dumbass comment about Wilson burning the south. I satirized you about it the whole thread, including attributing a Sherman quote to Pershing (who you know nothing about). You try to turn the tables by saying "URRONG SHERMAN SAID IT" and when I said I was satirizing that quote you said you were satirizing me by satirizing my satire.

i vote someone issue mid and mur cream pies, standard gentlemans dueling arraingements.

(i HAD a serious post on the topic all edited up, but ain't no way until after their pie throwing dual)