This should disturb everyone [Archive] - The Gemstone IV Players' Corner

PDA

View Full Version : This should disturb everyone

Seizer

12-01-2008, 10:37 PM

Drunken Durfin

12-01-2008, 11:08 PM

It pains me that so many do not read history books.

Moist Happenings

12-01-2008, 11:09 PM

Can't say by the people for the people anymore.

You get called a socialist...by the people, surprisingly enough.

radamanthys

12-01-2008, 11:22 PM

Not anywhere as near scary as the Blackrock mercenaries seen working with ATF in California, busting up (state-wise) legal medical marijuana dispensaries.

The sooner I can get out of here, the better, I think.

Tisket

12-02-2008, 12:33 AM

The National Expositor? Good god, we are citing a conspiracy theory site as news now? I wouldn't wipe my ass with their "news".

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Jesus.

Proxy

12-02-2008, 12:35 AM

Its not a matter of being paranoid, its a matter of being paranoid enough.

Stanley Burrell

12-02-2008, 12:36 AM

We can't do shit.

Gan

12-02-2008, 07:06 AM

Resistance is futile.

Parkbandit

12-02-2008, 07:45 AM

Seizer

12-02-2008, 08:21 AM

The National Expositor? Good god, we are citing a conspiracy theory site as news now? I wouldn't wipe my ass with their "news".

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Jesus.

Well if you read the story it was from the Washington Post.

The Washington Post today reports on plans to station 20,000 more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of “domestic security” from September 2011, an expansion of Northcom’s militarization of the country in preparation for potential civil unrest following a total economic collapse or a mass terror attack.

I was unable to follow the link from Michael Savage's site to the Washington Post because it seemed it no longer existed.

I did manage to find this perhaps it will help you.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002217_pf.html

BUSH R TRYING 2 BE KING!

Your an R3tard.

I am ashamed that I had the wool pulled over my eyes by Bush pretending to be a conservative, and I voted for him twice. Not everything Bush did was bad, but by no means would I call him a conservative.

I don't think he is trying to be king. If you read the article you will see that Bush tried bypassing already written laws.

Under the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, the law was changed to state, “The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines hinders the execution of laws or deprives people of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”

However, these changes were repealed in their entirety by HR 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, reverting back to the original state of the Insurrection Act of 1807. Despite this repeal, President Bush attached a signing statement saying that he did not feel bound by the repeal. It remains to be seen whether President elect Obama will reverse Bush’s signing statement.

If you all feel the need to wax your egos and cut up on me at least read the article first.

ClydeR

12-02-2008, 10:30 AM

Desperate times call for desparate measures. We can't allow Civil War era laws to tie our hands in a dangerous world.

Sean of the Thread

12-02-2008, 10:33 AM

I'm joining the side that pays me more.

Parkbandit

12-02-2008, 10:43 AM

I'm joining the side that pays me more.

Send me your paypal address, I'll pay you $.05

Sean of the Thread

12-02-2008, 10:45 AM

Damn they offered me $.03.

Looks like I'm an employee of AT SYS now.

Speaking of .. ever thought of expanding to Pinellas?

ClydeR

12-02-2008, 11:37 AM

I think President Bush is removing the post-Civil War restrictions on use of the military as domestic police because of what Keller posted last week (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=846557&postcount=1). You have to tie all these things together, not just look at them in a vacuum.

Parkbandit

12-02-2008, 11:52 AM

Damn they offered me $.03.

Looks like I'm an employee of AT SYS now.

Speaking of .. ever thought of expanding to Pinellas?

No, they have two contractors for their program already.

Tisket

12-02-2008, 12:17 PM

If you all feel the need to wax your egos and cut up on me at least read the article first.

I read every link you posted and every link in each article as well as some that I googled myself. My opinion is unchanged. The National Expositor is to news what the National Enquirer is to science. Two-headed baby, yo.

Maybe you wouldn't be such a fearful person if you'd stop reading fear-mongering shit.

Seizer

12-02-2008, 01:36 PM

Maybe you wouldn't be such a fearful person if you'd stop reading fear-mongering shit.

Not fearful concerned. Concerned for America, concerned for our freedoms in a society that is lackadaisical, apathetic and probably in denial to the real problems facing us as Americans.

Drunken Durfin

12-02-2008, 01:49 PM

The masses of America generally do not give two shits that their civil liberties and the Constitution are being destroyed daily as long as they are entertained. Executive orders that bypass the checks and balances system, no problem. Interrupted cable service, riots in the streets.

Danical

12-02-2008, 03:41 PM

Drunken Durfin

12-02-2008, 05:22 PM

Vulvamancer reads history books apparently.

Hulkein

12-02-2008, 05:43 PM

Not fearful concerned. Concerned for America, concerned for our freedoms in a society that is lackadaisical, apathetic and probably in denial to the real problems facing us as Americans.

The troops aren't going to be going around busting up libraries or newspaper stands that bash the government.

Drunken Durfin

12-02-2008, 09:57 PM

The troops aren't going to be going around busting up libraries or newspaper stands that bash the government.

Even the Nazis started small.

"Destroy the seed of evil, or it will grow up to your ruin."
Aesop

Daniel

12-02-2008, 10:39 PM

Hey guys. Quick question. Where do we usually station military troops when they aren't at war?

Parkbandit

12-02-2008, 10:49 PM

Sean of the Thread

12-02-2008, 11:40 PM

Hey guys. Quick question. Where do we usually station military troops when they aren't at war?

Your sister's bed.

Drunken Durfin

12-03-2008, 11:37 AM

Detail out how your civil liberties have been destroyed.

Why, so you can claim that if it did not happen to me, personally, then it has not happened to anyone?

Vyst

12-03-2008, 07:48 PM

Hulkein

12-03-2008, 09:33 PM

Even the Nazis started small.

"Destroy the seed of evil, or it will grow up to your ruin."
Aesop

Come on.

Proxy

12-03-2008, 10:35 PM

http://www.nationalexpositor.com/index.php?news=1514

When do we realize as Americans that government does not solve our problems?

Have you ever felt so powerless in a republic that is supposed to be by the people for the people?

Thank you yet again President Bush. :(

Strangely I find this turn of events to be some how both amusing and appropriate. Why stop w/ just 20k troops, I say up it to 50k. G-d knows this country could use it.

oh, and as messed up as you may think the above is, when the future event that has spawned this move by the gov comes about, and your collective bubbles burst. I'm likely to die laughing as the true face of you people emerges and you start eating each other like in the dome in New Orleans, during Katrina. Think I need to start stocking up on popcorn. Its going to be one hell of a spectacle. :)

crb

12-04-2008, 09:10 AM

This makes me chuckle.

After Katrina people lamblasted Bush for not getting the National Guard there quick enough....

....know why they're retarded yet? Hmmm? Because State Governors are the ones who control the national guard.

So then like a year later there was a law in congress trying to give the president the authority to call out the national guard, and the same people who complained that Bush didn't do what he couldn't do were now complaining about giving Bush the power to do what he couldn't do before when they attacked him for not doing it.

Yup. Brilliant people them.

Do you want to hold the federal government responsible for disasters like Katrina? OR do you not want to hold them responsible? Because you can't hold them responsible and then not give them the power to provide a response.

So now Bush, who is leaving office in 6 weeks, is trying to militarize the country in 2011? I don't know if I have enough tinfoil to make the hat needed to believe this.

And yes, as Daniel said, where do we normally station troops when not in wartime?

This isn't Rome, we cross the Rubicon all the time.

Parkbandit

12-04-2008, 10:05 AM

Why, so you can claim that if it did not happen to me, personally, then it has not happened to anyone?

Just answer the question... you are the one that is claiming your civil liberties are being destroyed.. give me just one example of how Bush has taken anything away from you.

Just one is all I'm asking.

Parkbandit

12-04-2008, 10:37 AM

It's the erosion of protections based on bullshit pretenses. The ever-expanding tree of things justified under "national defense," the use of closed, secret trials, secret prisons, the fabrication of the term "enemy combatant" as opposed to "prisoner of war" specifically to circumvent the treaties the U.S. signed in good faith, the massive expansion of National Security Letters (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-03/2007-03-21-voa54.cfm?CFID=74109875&CFTOKEN=99064500), the idea that somehow not everyone--citizen or not--deserves the right to habeus corpus and not to be detained indefinitely without even review or simply access to the evidence or charges against them, the warrantless wiretapping and database mining of evidence, the idea that torture produces quick and reliable information (also an idea decried by the right and the rightist deity, Ronald Reagan (http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1988/052088f.htm)).

There's a mountain of information about how the Bush administration has taken numerous steps to erode civil liberties, from all sides of the aisle--libertarians, the far left, the far right. You say he might be naive, and I say you're willfully and partisanly blind.

Again... show me one example where YOUR civil liberties have been destroyed. If you can do that, then you will actually have two examples.. because I'm sure you will speak for Kierphe as well.

Twitch

12-04-2008, 10:43 AM

All I have to say is it is 100% pointless to express your frustrations about this here. Follow this link, all of you http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm and WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN, I did after reading this and expressed my concerns. Took me 5 minutes to paste the link and express my thoughts that Bush is a warmonger, should have been impeached, and the power of Bush to do this should be removed from his office.

Im a veteran, and if it came down to this, I still would not be able to bring myself to shoot an American soldier, even if it was him or me. If we allow ourselves to do such things, then what have we become? Thats not to say lay down and take it in the ass, but there are better ways than to kill ourselves. Organize, not terrorize.

Everyones knows that lobbyists or small groups tend to make things happen not necessarily for the greater good of all, what they dont know is it starts with simply writing your congressman. Do it, you'll be glad you did, for there may come a time when you cannot.

Twitch

12-04-2008, 10:47 AM

<<Again... show me one example where YOUR civil liberties have been destroyed. If you can do that, then you will actually have two examples.. because I'm sure you will speak for Kierphe as well.>>

Man, just because it doesnt directly affect someone individually does NOT mean that they are not affected. You need to rethink your position, Bush is a fuckin asshole, I met him.

CrystalTears

12-04-2008, 10:49 AM

Look into the previously mentioned National Security Letters. Look into how innocent people have been put on the so-called "terrorism watchlist" simply for speaking out against the administration or Iraq war.Or those innocents who are on the list for unknown reasons, can't get themselves off even though they follow protocol, and have to find loopholes in order to travel.

CrystalTears

12-04-2008, 10:51 AM

You need to rethink your position, Bush is a fuckin asshole, I met him.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v412/Jemah/funnies/1166293700503.jpg

ClydeR

12-04-2008, 10:58 AM

...I met him.

There's somebody in this forum who actually met George W. Bush?!! Please tell us about it. Was it before he became President or after? Did you also meet Laura Bush?

Parkbandit

12-04-2008, 11:14 AM

/pif, no point in debating this with him around.

So you can't simply give me one example of how Bush has taken away your civil liberty? ONE example?

Maybe the reason you can't debate this with me is because you aren't on solid footing? Perhaps if you make up a new login ID, you can have someone else support your argument.

Parkbandit

12-04-2008, 11:15 AM

Twitch

12-04-2008, 11:18 AM

See now I don't think everything Bush did was bad, I don't think he is a warmonger and don't think he has earned impeachment.

I dont think everything he did was bad either, heck his officials saw to that, I mean if everything was bad he would have been impeached, and maybe he didnt deserve to be, but he has done very little to help this country IMO.

When you read disturbing things such as that article about him changing a law that allows him to use Active Military Force against our own people, he's totally crossed the line. That in itself is warmongering (look up the term), and to me total grounds for impeachment. Its a VIOLATION of or rights, how could anyone agree or accept such a proposal?

I did it for you - A warmonger is a pejorative term that is used to describe someone who is anxious to encourage a people or nation to go to war. You really think our intelligence was that bad about IRAQ? I can say this for certain because I fought in the first Gulf War and I can tell you we knew then what he was capable of. We didnt just go after his army, we did a hell of alot more than that. Do you not think we considered his WMD possibility before that campaign? Of course we did, and we all were told and KNEW there was no threat of WMD. In the few years in between there was no way in hell a country could go from zero to defintely has WMD. So his only deal was to feed the American people a lie and ecourage us to invade, hence WARMONGERING.

At any rate, Im very glad to hear you have written your congressman, at least you did and although it may seem like blah blah to you, its still important, its still your right, and its still your voice.

Parkbandit

12-04-2008, 11:18 AM

See now I don't think everything Bush did was bad, I don't think he is a warmonger and don't think he has earned impeachment.

I've written to my Congressmen till blue in the face. Every time I get the typical cookie cutter letter. "I appreciate you contacting me....blah blah blah, but truthfully I don't give two squirts of piss what your concerns are I am going to still sign the Law of Sea Treaty, etc..., even though you are my constituent I am a Congressman and know what's better for you."

Thanks PB for the Rep!

I'm against the Law of the Sea treaty as well.. but I'm not crazy enough to believe that somehow life in the US is about to come to an end and that I better start squirring food away or the US Army will take over.

And that rep was well deserved.. so you are most welcome.

Parkbandit

12-04-2008, 11:21 AM

I dont think everything he did was bad either, heck his officials saw to that, I mean if everything was bad he would have been impeached, and maybe he didnt deserve to be, but he has done very little to help this country IMO.

When you read disturbing things such as that article about him changing a law that allows him to use Active Military Force against our own people, he's totally crossed the line. That in itself is warmongering (look up the term), and to me total grounds for impeachment. Its a VIOLATION of or rights, how could anyone agree or accept such a proposal?

I did it for you - A warmonger is a pejorative term that is used to describe someone who is anxious to encourage a people or nation to go to war. You really think our intelligence was that bad about IRAQ? I can say this for certain because I fought in the first Gulf War and I can tell you we knew then what he was capable of. We didnt just go after his army, we did a hell of alot more than that. Do you not think we considered his WMD possibility before that campaign? Of course we did, and we all were told and KNEW there was no threat of WMD. In the few years in between there was no way in hell a country could go from zero to defintely has WMD. So his only deal was to feed the American people a lie and ecourage us to invade, hence WARMONGERING.

At any rate, Im very glad to hear you have written your congressman, at least you did and although it may seem like blah blah to you, its still important, its still your right, and its still your voice.

Ah.. so Bush created the theory that Iraq had WMD.

Weird.

Wait.. I think there's a couple people here who would like to call you a fuckin' retard:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Twitch

12-04-2008, 11:26 AM

On second thought, please dont write your congressman....

ClydeR

12-04-2008, 11:26 AM

So you can't simply give me one example of how Bush has taken away your civil liberty? ONE example?

I'll help Twitch out with an example. You can't carry box cutters onto planes anymore. Before Bush, you could do your box cutting while you were flying. Now you have to do it either before takeoff or after landing, which is a less efficient use of time.

That's a restriction of liberty, but not a bad restriction in my opinion.

CrystalTears

12-04-2008, 11:27 AM

You can't carry box cutters onto planes anymore. Before Bush, you could do your box cutting while you were flying. Now you have to do it either before takeoff or after landing, which is a less efficient use of time.I lol'ed.

Drunken Durfin

12-04-2008, 11:43 AM

Just answer the question... you are the one that is claiming your civil liberties are being destroyed.. give me just one example of how Bush has taken anything away from you.

Just one is all I'm asking.

I am an American citizen. Any act by the government that violates the civil liberties of any American citizen affects us all as a whole. Anyone who makes the argument that because “it did not happen to me, it did not happen” is a coward who is content to sit back and watch their fellow Americans abused by a government that has lost sight of the original design for this country.

You want a list, this is a good reference:

http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=lossofcivilliberties

You want a list of items that happened to me, personally, then PM me your address and I will send you a certified letter with a confidentiality agreement. You sign that, have it notarized, then return it to me and I will give you a list of the ones I have experienced up close and with great detail.

Keller

12-04-2008, 12:17 PM

I am an American citizen. Any act by the government that violates the civil liberties of any American citizen affects us all as a whole. Anyone who makes the argument that because “it did not happen to me, it did not happen” is a coward who is content to sit back and watch their fellow Americans abused by a government that has lost sight of the original design for this country.

You want a list, this is a good reference:

http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=lossofcivilliberties

You want a list of items that happened to me, personally, then PM me your address and I will send you a certified letter with a confidentiality agreement. You sign that, have it notarized, then return it to me and I will give you a list of the ones I have experienced up close and with great detail.

You should make him pee in a cup, too.

crb

12-04-2008, 12:51 PM

When you read disturbing things such as that article about him changing a law that allows him to use Active Military Force against our own people, he's totally crossed the line. That in itself is warmongering (look up the term), and to me total grounds for impeachment. Its a VIOLATION of or rights, how could anyone agree or accept such a proposal?

Were you one of those attacking him for his Katrina response Twitch? If so Sproink should hit you with a hypocrite stamp.

If you're talking about the bill I think you're talking about that grew directly from Katrina.

Liberals politicized Katrina and tried to put the blame for it on Bush (and global warming of course, ps, last year the head guy who had pegged on it global warming said he was wrong).

Despite the fact that the federal government has never been in the role of first responder to a natural disaster. First responders are your local people (Ray Nagin, I'm looking at you). Second responders are your state level, that includes the National Guard, (loser governor lady whom I cannot remember your name, tag your it). The federal government is the third level of response. They don't call up the national guard, they don't order evacuations (typically).

So, in the face of this political onslaught what does the Bush administration do? Draft laws that would allow them to deploy the army domestically to respond.

Then they get attacked by the same liberals who apparently cannot make up their minds.

The fact is our founding fathers left many powers to the states, including the national guard, because they didn't fully trust the federal government. As a proponent of states rights, I like this system, I'd rather have governors keep control of the national guard for this reason, and I don't see a need to give the federal government the power. But I never blamed Bush for Katrina.

But I know I'm in the minority, and I certainly don't fault the federal government for trying to gain the power to deploy the military domestically when most of the country says they want it (only to say they don't want it 1 year later).

Please, make up your minds people. Should the Feds have the power to deploy the armed forces domestically in response to a catastrophe? Or should that power remain with the States? Pick one, but in the future, remember which one you picked if a disaster happens and you do not like the response.

ClydeR

12-04-2008, 01:12 PM

If you're talking about the bill I think you're talking about that grew directly from Katrina.

It was because of the bird flu (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002540337_bushflu05.html). If an outbreak of bird flu in humans is detected in the United States, the President's plan is to use the military to forcibly quarantine the town where it originated. After several months, everyone in that area who is infected will either recover or die. That will prevent the spread to other areas.

If something like that happens, we might have to delay the inauguration of the new president, which would itself necessitate the domestic use of the military. Thus the reason for a current increase in the number of active troops inside the country.

Twitch

12-04-2008, 01:47 PM

Were you one of those attacking him for his Katrina response Twitch?
If you're talking about the bill I think you're talking about that grew directly from Katrina.

The fact is our founding fathers left many powers to the states, including the national guard, because they didn't fully trust the federal government.

But I know I'm in the minority, and I certainly don't fault the federal government for trying to gain the power to deploy the military domestically when most of the country says they want it (only to say they don't want it 1 year later).

Please, make up your minds people. Should the Feds have the power to deploy the armed forces domestically in response to a catastrophe? Or should that power remain with the States?

Section 1385 of the Posse Comitatus Act states, “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

Under the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, the law was changed to state, “The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines hinders the execution of laws or deprives people of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”

However, these changes were repealed in their entirety by HR 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, reverting back to the original state of the Insurrection Act of 1807. Despite this repeal, President Bush attached a signing statement saying that he did not feel bound by the repeal.

SIGNED A STATEMENT "..."
as if that doesnt say it all

Naturally, the claim that such troop deployments are merely to aid in disaster relief efforts is a thin veil aimed at distracting from the real goal. Should a real tragedy occur, volunteers and already existing civil aid organizations are fully capable of dealing with such events, as we witnessed on 9/11.

I think that says it all...

Can you say warmongering? Just another example for Parkbench :medieval:

Seizer

12-04-2008, 02:05 PM

The fact is our founding fathers left many powers to the states, including the national guard, because they didn't fully trust the federal government. As a proponent of states rights, I like this system, I'd rather have governors keep control of the national guard for this reason, and I don't see a need to give the federal government the power. But I never blamed Bush for Katrina.

w00t!

Parkbandit

12-04-2008, 02:13 PM

Drunken Durfin

12-04-2008, 02:16 PM

PM has been sent.

With no address.

Parkbandit

12-04-2008, 02:17 PM

Of course we did, and we all were told and KNEW there was no threat of WMD. In the few years in between there was no way in hell a country could go from zero to defintely has WMD. So his only deal was to feed the American people a lie and ecourage us to invade, hence WARMONGERING.

I keep laughing at this part and how the Wall of Text provided evidence to the contrary.

Parkbandit

12-04-2008, 02:18 PM

With no address.

Fixed.

I'm certain you will now proceed with your end of your bargain?

Drunken Durfin

12-04-2008, 02:38 PM

Yup, right after I hook you up with some gay porn subscriptions.

Warriorbird

12-04-2008, 02:42 PM

Liberals politicized Katrina and tried to put the blame for it on Bush

Everybody politicized Katrina. Bobby Jindal's career got a huge boost from it.

Methais

12-04-2008, 04:06 PM

(loser governor lady whom I cannot remember your name, tag your it)

Kathleen Blanco.
http://www.voanews.com/albanian/images/kathleen-blanco.jpg

ClydeR

12-04-2008, 05:21 PM

Yup, right after I hook you up with some gay porn subscriptions.

Why gay porn instead of straight porn?

crb

12-04-2008, 06:00 PM

Everybody politicized Katrina. Bobby Jindal's career got a huge boost from it.
Fair enough.

crb

12-04-2008, 06:05 PM

Stanley Burrell

12-04-2008, 06:31 PM

Naturally, the claim that such troop deployments are merely to aid in disaster relief efforts is a thin veil aimed at distracting from the real goal. Should a real tragedy occur, volunteers and already existing civil aid organizations are fully capable of dealing with such events, as we witnessed on 9/11.

I honestly believe that had Katrina been the first 1000+ death count on American soil in the new millenium, there would've been more pandering. ...Some of it might've translated into more aid?

I don't necessarily think that just home-stationed U.S. troops would have to be the only acting force in providing aid to a disaster area.

I guess you could say that had this administration; instead of investing their efforts into overseas operations, hypothetically invested everything that has been our war budget into Katrina, then one might postulate that there would have been a better rebuilding effort in New Orleans. We could probably've rebuilt the Twin Towers a hundred times over with the latest in anti-aircraft technology if the money funnel was redirected.

Does it change anything? No. I think a draft would've been sufficient in getting enough people off their asses to protest with Vietnam strength. I suppose the 60's treehuggers were less burdened by economic woes, so speaking out against injustices had lucrative fallback opportunities, versus the hardships we must endure now. Sarcasm font.

Technically, I think the best thing this president has done has been to diminish funding and create an economic crisis to harvest a scenario where the voice of dissent is quieted by the need to line one's pockets. Obviously, this isn't what has come out of this president's mouth during Operation: Spend Like a Drunken Sailor. I doubt he realizes the sublime effectiveness of this 'technique' as any of his underlings have. Because he's a fucking idiot who thinks cloning cow milk could be realized and spoken out against by whoever wrote the Bible.

Anyway, Katrina wasn't Al-Qaeda funded, but I'm pretty sure it was a tragedy, as you already know and mispoke. Like I said though, we can't do shit. Especially now. I am being a realist, not a defeatist.

LMingrone

12-04-2008, 09:02 PM

Goddamn Stanley, that actually sounded kind of sane.

Twitch

12-04-2008, 09:16 PM

Were you in a cave for the end of summer 2005?

Hrmm... you remind of of Drew Barrymore's character from 50 First Dates.

Here are some of the things you missed:

http://911review.org/Hurricane_Katrina/pictures.html

No but your apparently in a cave about this issue so until you read the article and COMPREHEND it, you have nothing to say, especially since that paragraph you quoted from me came directly from it, moron.

Tisket

12-04-2008, 11:44 PM

Why gay porn instead of straight porn?

Because DD thinks gay porn will be more embarrassing to PB? He's a stupid shit so that's probably it.

Tisket

12-04-2008, 11:45 PM

Also, Twitch = Ashliana's newest alt handle?

diethx

12-05-2008, 01:02 AM

You are that lame though.

Tisket

12-05-2008, 01:09 AM

Yeah, we totally need a gang sign.

diethx

12-05-2008, 01:30 AM

Word.

Tisket

12-05-2008, 01:45 AM

Don't talk wanksta, dawg. It's WERD.

Tisket

12-05-2008, 01:51 AM

This reminds me, has anyone ever seen anything stupider-looking than white girls making gang signs? It is funny to watch.

diethx

12-05-2008, 02:43 AM

Yeah, white guys making gang signs.

Proxy

12-05-2008, 03:11 AM

guy/girl, white/purple??? Doesn't matter, flashing gang signs makes you look like a re-re. D'd'd'd'd'd'd'own'n'n'n like a c'c'c'c'clown ch'ch'ch'charlie brown'n'n'n'n.....

Parkbandit

12-05-2008, 08:21 AM

Also, Twitch = Ashliana's newest alt handle?

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/Assliana.jpg

Keller

12-05-2008, 09:50 AM

Hm.. Now, how to best make a picture showcasing a 40+ year old's attempts to make use of a /b/ tard theme..

The picture would look something like: Old man with headset on sitting at computer playing games. Likely been about 3 months since last haircut. Wife is laying on the couch watching re-runs of Leave it to Beaver, touching herself at the thought of a functional family. Likely been about 3 years since her last non-masterbatory orgasm. Two daughters conspicuously missing. No one seems to notice.

Parkbandit

12-05-2008, 10:47 AM

:rofl: Poor Wrinkles, the one-trick pony. Eventually he had to be put down. Hm.. Now, how to best make a picture showcasing a 40+ year old's attempts to make use of a /b/ tard theme.. or being goaded into super-defensive mode in response to someone a third of his age or less.

Aw, Twinkles.. I have far more than just one trick. But seriously, I can't let one of the most pathetic things ever to grace this boards simply die away in obscurity without refreshing everyone's memory of it on a constant basis. To make another login ID for the reasons you did reminds people how empty your life is and how you simply long to be accepted.. even if it's just pretend (something you also seem to do often)

Mighty Nikkisaurus

12-05-2008, 11:02 AM

Did someone say /b/???

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/2334/oldmaninbralh1.jpg

CrystalTears

12-05-2008, 11:07 AM

FFS, STFU. You're no better.

Daniel

12-05-2008, 11:07 AM

Aw, Twinkles.. I have far more than just one trick. But seriously, I can't let one of the most pathetic things ever to grace this boards simply die away in obscurity without refreshing everyone's memory of it on a constant basis. To make another login ID for the reasons you did reminds people how empty your life is and how you simply long to be accepted.. even if it's just pretend (something you also seem to do often)

Wow that was eerily similar to the mental image I had as wel.

Parkbandit

12-05-2008, 11:46 AM

And you're showcasing how pathetic your life in that you've lived for more than four decades, have replaced your blood with partisan Kool-Aid, and rely on jpegs rather than substance in your posts. I made the other account for lols and vote-skewing, messed around with it and got bored of it quickly. You, however, are a broken record as all your political battles have been lost for the moment and you've got nothing else to say..

Seeing how you respond to some of the new trolls here--the fact that you're as old as you are, and being so easily baited by obvious trolls on this forum shows how insecure you are.. you feel the need to defend yourself from an obvious twelve year old? It's just sad. It's like seeing a man being yelled at by a kid, stopping and yelling at the kid, chasing the kid down and trying to argue with them. You should be beyond that point at this stage in your life.

Wait.. what was partisan about what I posted about you? You think I find you pathetic BECAUSE you are a retarded liberal? Politics aside, I still find you pathetic and borderline psychotic with a deep desire to pretend to be something you are not.

Not that I don't blame you for wanting to be something you are not..

Parkbandit

12-05-2008, 11:47 AM

Wow that was eerily similar to the mental image I had as wel.

I know. "IT" makes you look less stupid every day... which is quite a feat.

Daniel

12-05-2008, 01:21 PM

I know. "IT" makes you look less stupid every day... which is quite a feat.

The image was of you.

Keller

12-05-2008, 02:07 PM

The image was of you.

Are you saying that a 40 year old mid-level manager in a hotel chain joined internet community of 16-22 year olds and has for the last half-decade belittled them in an attempt to feel better about his shitty life?

Jorddyn

12-05-2008, 02:11 PM

Parkbandit

12-05-2008, 02:44 PM

Are you saying that a 40 year old mid-level manager in a hotel chain joined internet community of 16-22 year olds and has for the last half-decade belittled them in an attempt to feel better about his shitty life?

That must be it. Wow Dustin, you really, really got me there.

Maybe you should concentrate on your pathetic life and just know that mine is next to perfect. I can only hope your wife wakes up and realizes what everyone else around you does eventually.. that you are a piece of shit and should be flushed down the toilet.

Keller

12-05-2008, 02:55 PM

That must be it. Wow Dustin, you really, really got me there.

Maybe you should concentrate on your pathetic life and just know that mine is next to perfect. I can only hope your wife wakes up and realizes what everyone else around you does eventually.. that you are a piece of shit and should be flushed down the toilet.

Awwwww Mikey, you're so cute when you get angry!

Drunken Durfin

12-05-2008, 04:06 PM

You think he is mad now, wait until I get bored and post his address and telephone number.

The Digital One

12-05-2008, 04:25 PM

Stanley Burrell

12-05-2008, 04:28 PM

Did someone say /b/???

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/2334/oldmaninbralh1.jpg

You can tell he's cheating because the cups don't match.

Is that how that went?

Mighty Nikkisaurus

12-05-2008, 04:32 PM

You can tell he's cheating because the cups don't match.

Is that how that went?

I have no idea. I am a btard who spends too many hours rotting her brain by sifting through pages of horrible images, saving those that I can only hope some day I have a reason to post elsewhere.

diethx

12-05-2008, 04:32 PM

Iron stomach, you have.

SHAFT

12-05-2008, 05:07 PM

Did someone say /b/???

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/2334/oldmaninbralh1.jpg

That is hot. so hot......

Keller

12-05-2008, 05:10 PM

The worst part about that picture is that that thing looks like Backlash in the face.

Parkbandit

12-05-2008, 05:44 PM

LOL PB... Your life is next to perfect? HAHAHAHAHAHA. You're a mid-level manager of a hotel. Please kill yourself. You're 40, over the hill, and moreover you have idiotic right-wing views that Stephen Colbert couldn't even make up. Your job is shit, your fat, you probably make half of what I make in a year at 24. I bet the last time you fucked a hot chick (if ever) was fucking 20 yrs ago. If I was you, I'd shoot myself in the face.

I was a mid-level manager back in 1989-1994. Grats on keeping up dumbfuck. Maybe you just didn't have time to catch up.. with your budding movie career, pro-football career and your e-gang get togethers. You don't know what my job is obviously, you don't know what I look like and you have no idea how much money I make.

Boo hoo :(

Tisket

12-06-2008, 12:23 AM

edit: because the posts that I was referring to have been removed my post makes no sense.

Proxy

12-06-2008, 02:08 AM

creepy no, lame yes.

Drunken Durfin

12-06-2008, 12:24 PM

Looks like some posts from yesterday got pulled. I guess we do have moderators after all.

Proxy

12-06-2008, 01:31 PM

lies!

Seizer

12-09-2008, 09:39 AM

LOL PB... Your life is next to perfect? HAHAHAHAHAHA. You're a mid-level manager of a hotel. Please kill yourself. You're 40, over the hill, and moreover you have idiotic right-wing views that Stephen Colbert couldn't even make up. Your job is shit, your fat, you probably make half of what I make in a year at 24. I bet the last time you fucked a hot chick (if ever) was fucking 20 yrs ago. If I was you, I'd shoot myself in the face.

There is absolutely no need for this we were arguing about freedoms being taken away not who makes more or has a bigger inflatable ego.

Besides life isn't about just money, if you enjoy what you do for your living more power to you, your working hard living your dream.

You also sound like you just came out of middle school with your lame attack, are you going to suggest next that your dad can beat up his dad?