Impeach Bush?

[Commissar]

i'm not forfeiting any rights.  i'm not calling any terrorists, either.  should it turn out they are listening to conversations without cause, and without known ties, they should be prosecuted.

We have no idea what they're listening to, because there's absolutely no oversight. Not even from the secret intelligence courts which, what, have turned down maybe four out of over three thousand requests for warrants and authorizations?

 

again, where did i say anything about innocent people?

 

you do know what probable cause is, right?  you also know that probable cause is reason for even regular beat cops to search your home without a warrant, right?  if i'm not calling terrorists, i'm not being listened to.

 

again #2, prove they're listening in on inside the border calls, then you have a case.  guilty until proven innocent seems like the argument YOU just made.  for shame.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do know what probable cause is. Probable cause is one of the things that's necessary for a warrant. Since a warrant isn't needed for the eavesdropping Bush has approved, probable cause isn't needed, either. They're listening to international calls, and that's all they've revealed. There are calls from my household to Russia on a weekly basis. There are e-mails on a daily basis. How the hell do I know they're not listening in?

 

Guilty until proven innocent is how our government deals with other parts of our government. That's precisely why we have the need for warrants, writs of habeas corpus, oversight committees, and so on. You're telling me to trust the government. Our entire Constitution is founded on the idea that the people should not, in fact, trust their government.

[taks]

There are calls from my household to Russia on a weekly basis.  There are e-mails on a daily basis.  How the hell do I know they're not listening in?

you don't, and i never said you could absolutely know. however, if you aren't talking to terrorists, you don't need to worry. such taps can't be used against a US citizen for anything unless he is indeed talking to terrorists.

 

i realize you have a person concern here, but this is one grey area i cannot take caution with. the constitution gives the president full authority to collect foreign intelligence where it concerns the safety of the US.

 

remember the big stink during the clinton administration over the public keys on data going out of the country? even if it was legit, the government asserted its right to examine any data transfers, and therefore required that all encryption methods be easily broken by US cryptography tools. same deal, gubmint wants to listen it can, and will.

 

Guilty until proven innocent is how our government deals with other parts of our government.

uh, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

That's precisely why we have the need for warrants, writs of habeas corpus, oversight committees, and so on.  You're telling me to trust the government.  Our entire Constitution is founded on the idea that the people should not, in fact, trust their government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i do not trust the government one bit. never have. hate it. it is a monster that has outgrown its mandate. unfortunately, every time i mention MY version of how things should be run, people keep pointing me back to this unweildy monster. it is the very thing hard left politics favor that has created such a beast. and the right happened to stumble into all this power with a ribbon on top. to assume they would not use every bit of the power we gave them is naive at best.

 

however, i again note that i know i am not doing anything wrong, and have nothing to worry about. if i find out they're tapping my phones for no reason (the likelihood of that is astronomically low), i have cause for concern and lawsuit...

 

btw, everyone in here knows they can and do implement pattern recognition schemes that can pick out calls from anyone, right? echelon, i believe, is the conspiratorial name. been around a loooooong time. not just bush doing the eavesdropping.

 

 

taks

[Commissar]

There are calls from my household to Russia on a weekly basis.  There are e-mails on a daily basis.  How the hell do I know they're not listening in?

you don't, and i never said you could absolutely know. however, if you aren't talking to terrorists, you don't need to worry. such taps can't be used against a US citizen for anything unless he is indeed talking to terrorists.

By that logic, you should have no concern with the police stopping you for a random search on your way home from work, or even strolling in the front door whenever they like to. If you aren't doing anything wrong, why should you care if the government's monitoring your life?

 

i realize you have a person concern here, but this is one grey area i cannot take caution with.  the constitution gives the president full authority to collect foreign intelligence where it concerns the safety of the US.

Foreign intelligence, but not off of US citizens. Not without due process.

 

i do not trust the government one bit.  never have.  hate it.  it is a monster that has outgrown its mandate.  unfortunately, every time i mention MY version of how things should be run, people keep pointing me back to this unweildy monster.  it is the very thing hard left politics favor that has created such a beast.  and the right happened to stumble into all this power with a ribbon on top.  to assume they would not use every bit of the power we gave them is naive at best.

 

however, i again note that i know i am not doing anything wrong, and have nothing to worry about.  if i find out they're tapping my phones for no reason (the likelihood of that is astronomically low), i have cause for concern and lawsuit...

 

btw, everyone in here knows they can and do implement pattern recognition schemes that can pick out calls from anyone, right?  echelon, i believe, is the conspiratorial name.  been around a loooooong time.  not just bush doing the eavesdropping.

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Once again, if you're not doing anything wrong, I see no reason why you should object to anything such as RFID chips, or random searches, or a closed-circuit camera in your bedroom. The right to privacy, according to the Supreme Court, exists in the Constitution. It can only be violated under certain conditions; the President deciding that he wants to do it isn't one of them. It's illegal.

[Cantousent]

I'm afraid I agree with Commissar on this issue. I'm pretty damned leery of granting greater lattitude to federal law enforcement. We're proud of being free and we desire to remain free and safe from foreign invaders. Let's just make sure we don't put ourselves under the heal of a domestic strongman in order to protect our rights against outside influence.

 

I don't think the measures themselves deserve the panic they've engendered in some folks, but I'm not happy to have the federal government spy on US citizens within the United States.

[Commissar]

I don't think the measures themselves deserve the panic they've engendered in some folks, but I'm not happy to have the federal government spy on US citizens within the United States.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The government is perfectly fine in doing so - provided they go through the correct steps to do it. There is some method of oversight at every single level of the American justice system, and this particular program has none whatsoever. It requires you to believe exactly what the Bush administration is telling you.

 

Now, the Patriot Act, designed to enhance our ability to fight terrorism, has been used to put away strip club owners with no ties to terrorists; why in the name of all that's holy would you believe they wouldn't also be listening in on any international calls they suspect could possibly be involving any form of crime, anywhere? Here's where Taks' brilliant, "If you ain't done nothin' wrong, you ought to let the FBI live in your attic," argument, but the fact of the matter is, if you deprive an American citizen of his or her right to due process under the law, you're violating the Constitution of the United States of America. End of story.

[Synaesthesia]

....oooohhhh pooor camel jockies......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

....

[BattleCookiee]

A government spying on terrorists, or possible terrorist is fine. Afterall that is for national security.

 

But spying on every single inhabitant of your country with all means and without need for it (suspicion) isn't exactly a nice thought.

And what if you have a few calles just having fun and that intelligence agent really thinks that you are planning on an attack.

 

Remember recently ago there was a guy killed in a plane because he screamed he has a bomb; which wasn't true. There was national panick here because a 16-year old muslim told his girl-friend not to go to a city on a specific day. Cops emergency number got called over 100 times just for that.

Was it intentional, no... Did it cause mass-panick? Yes. Then what do you think about if every phone call and e-mail is intercepted and wrongly interpretated. There won't be a single day without a major "Terrorist Threat"...

 

And MacLeodCorp, you can stop trying. Also tried myself to talk against the American Propaganda (see Military thread), but you a few misinterpretated posts later everybody flames you for being "naieve, and influenced (like them, but the on the wrong side)"...

Yeah, I really think that militaries can stop existing on this moment. Yes, I think there is a easy way for world peace. No, not at all did I reply to Commisar's question of how there can be world peace, explaining the only reason how it can be, without knowing that it was an impossible task that would never happen

Another tip would be to keep it to America, if you start talking about current of historical politics of other continents they cannot follow you anymore...

 

PS. The Italics is sarcasm... (just mentioning it, before people start twisting my posts again)...

Edited December 21, 2005 by Battlewookiee

[Judge Hades]

Some people just don't get sarcasm at this board, Battlewookie.

[Guest MacLeodCorp]

A government spying on terrorists, or possible terrorist is fine. Afterall that is for national security.

 

But spying on every single inhabitant of your country with all means and without need for it (suspicion) isn't exactly a nice thought.

And what if you have a few calles just having fun and that intelligence agent really thinks that you are planning on an attack.

 

Remember recently ago there was a guy killed in a plane because he screamed he has a bomb; which wasn't true. There was national panick here because a 16-year old muslim told his girl-friend not to go to a city on a specific day. Cops emergency number got called over 100 times just for that.

Was it intentional, no... Did it cause mass-panick? Yes. Then what do you think about if every phone call and e-mail is intercepted and wrongly interpretated. There won't be a single day without a major "Terrorist Threat"...

 

And MacLeodCorp, you can stop trying. Also tried myself to talk against the American Propaganda (see Military thread), but you a few misinterpretated posts later everybody flames you for being "naieve, and influenced (like them, but the on the wrong side)"...

Yeah, I really think that militaries can stop existing on this moment. Yes, I think there is a easy way for world peace. No, not at all did I reply to Commisar's question of how there can be world peace, explaining the only reason how it can be, without knowing that it was an impossible task that would never happen

Another tip would be to keep it to America, if you start talking about current of historical politics of other continents they cannot follow you anymore...

 

PS. The Italics is sarcasm... (just mentioning it, before people start twisting my posts again)...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I hear you! When I look back at the events that happened in our government, I wish I made a list of references, so people can see this stuff first hand. I am not trying to change anyone's mind about their political beliefs, but they should be aware that the world is not as black and white as it appears. Democrats and Republicans are both to blame for our current state. People need to be aware that the President is where the buck stops... If he can't keep it together, he should be held accountable for his actions and inactions...

Edited December 21, 2005 by MacLeodCorp

[taks]

By that logic, you should have no concern with the police stopping you for a random search on your way home from work, or even strolling in the front door whenever they like to.  If you aren't doing anything wrong, why should you care if the government's monitoring your life?

false analogy. my statements were clearly a) a result of probable cause and b) foreign intelligence. you're talking about something that occurs a) without reason and b) completely within our borders.

 

Foreign intelligence, but not off of US citizens.  Not without due process.

case law supports both sides, actually, so it's not a win-win for either position. either way, if you're on the phone with a known terrorist from a foreign land it certainly qualifies as foreign intelligence.

 

Once again, if you're not doing anything wrong, I see no reason why you should object to anything such as RFID chips, or random searches, or a closed-circuit camera in your bedroom.  The right to privacy, according to the Supreme Court, exists in the Constitution.  It can only be violated under certain conditions; the President deciding that he wants to do it isn't one of them.  It's illegal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

another false analogy. i'm talking about outside our borders, you're referring to inside, without probable cause. apples and oranges, commissar.

 

taks

[taks]

why in the name of all that's holy would you believe they wouldn't also be listening in on any international calls they suspect could possibly be involving any form of crime, anywhere?

first of all, they've always had the ability to listen in to all calls. here's where your argument fails, however, is that doing it and USING it are two different things. the government has a lot of power that we are unable to control, and complaining that they can listen to normal citizens going about their normal lives is ridiculous. when they use that information we have a case.

 

Here's where Taks' brilliant, "If you ain't done nothin' wrong, you ought to let the FBI live in your attic," argument, but the fact of the matter is, if you deprive an American citizen of his or her right to due process under the law, you're violating the Constitution of the United States of America.  End of story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

as soon as you connect your phone line to a foriegn entity with known ties to terrorists you void your rights for due process. my "brilliant" argument is just as brilliant as yours in terms of case law, commissar.

 

taks

[Commissar]

as soon as you connect your phone line to a foriegn entity with known ties to terrorists you void your rights for due process.  my "brilliant" argument is just as brilliant as yours in terms of case law, commissar.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that your argument relies wholly on blind trust in the extremely small section of the government involved to do the right thing?

How do you know they're just listening to the calls to terrorists? Because they told you so?

Edited December 21, 2005 by Commissar

[Guest MacLeodCorp]

Actually, NSA has been listening in on everyone's phone calls for years. The only difference now is that they made it public, and they want to skip going to a judge. Giving a government the power to ease drop, and then skip court procedures would be a mistake. if there was a guarantee that U.S. citizens are protected, then I see no problem with the Patriot Act. However, like some have said, "It would be foolish to have blind faith in the government." After all, there are several members from Yale's Skull and Bones in office...

Edited December 21, 2005 by MacLeodCorp

[Judge Hades]

It would be foolish to have blind faith in anything, may it be an individual or organization.

[~Di]

I agree with Commissar as well. Nobody has to prove that Bush approved breaking the law, because Bush himself has confirmed it. He has given the NSA directions to use wiretaps and other spying devices without judicial approval or legally-issued warrants... in secret, mind you... and he is proud of it. He says national security rules, and civil liberties be damned.

 

Sorry, but if Clinton can be impeached for lying about a blow job, then Bush should surely be impeached for all the danged lies he has perpetrated on this country, and on the world.

 

Then again, I'm biased. Y'all know I'm certainly no Bush fan. But Crikey, gang, he ignored the laws of our land and the constitution he swore to uphold because he damned well wanted to. Surely that must send a cold chill down a few spines.

[Cantousent]

Hating Bush is fine. It's a free country. ...But I don't think impeachment will get Bush out of office any sooner. Nor will it help the liberal cause. Impeachment without conviction is going to hurt the Presidency more than the President.

 

Yes, I'm with you on the nature of the NSA question. I'm not with you on impeachment. Furthermore, the "Bush is a liar" charge has gone on for so long, in waters so muddied, that it has less and less traction every day. He's got a little more than two years in office at most. Go on to other issues.

 

I guess what I'm trying to get across is the idea that attacking his policies is going to be far more effective than attacking his person. This particularly true when the attacks consist of "he's a liar" and "he's worse that Hitler." Now, do me a favor and don't fall over yourselves telling me you've only said one or you've said neither. If you have made these statements, my point is directed at you. If you have not, clearly, my comments cannot be directed at you.

 

So, spying on citizens within the United States is bad. That's an issue upon which you can draw a broader consensus than saying that the President should be impeached. Moreover, raling on about impeachment might alienate folks who would otherwise join you.

 

If you really want to be involved, get out and do some volunteer work. It's easier than you think. How many of you have actually called or written to your congressmen? How many of you have actually worked as a volunteer for a political campaign or on a political issue?

[~Di]

*shrug* Those "impeachment hurts the presidency more than the president" arguments sure didn't hold water when the GOP tried to knock Clinton out when he only had a couple of years left in his turn, now did they? I personally believe that Bush truly is a liar, because anyone who listened closely to his 2000 campaign speeches new then and there that if he was elected he'd try to take Saddam out one way or the other. Then 9/11 happened, and he happily found himself with a country full of scared, angry people will to let him pre-emptively invade a country for the first time in our history. WMD's made him do it? C'mon. You may not want to hear it, but Bush IS a liar. Most people are liars, of course, but when Bush lies it has rather far-reaching consequence, don't you think? He's already confessed to having lied when he told folks in 2003 (I think that's the year) that no wiretaps or spying was being done without proper, legal judicial approval. He'd already signed the NSA secret spying orders.

 

I'm not "raling on" about impeachment. I'm simply saying that the comparison is rather interesting in that many who staunchly fought to see Clinton thrown out for the audacity of lying about a sexual liasion are now sweeping Bush's lies under the rug with shrugs and excuses. It is a given fact that tens of thousands have been killed and maimed as a direct result of Bush's actions, so forgive me if I think veracity in that case is a bit more serious than trying to keep your sexual escapades out of public view. Besides, take a look at the topic of this thread... Bush and Impeachment. So stop telling me not to discuss the topic.

 

Also, no lectures about how I'm not entitled to an opinion unless I go out and do volunteer work, m'kay? That caveat isn't noted on our constitution as an exception to the free speech clause. LOL!

 

BTW, the "Hitler" comment was a cheap shot, since you were responding to my comments primarily and you know perfectly well that I have never said such a silly thing. Not that I'm particularly upset with it, but it really wasn't worthy of you, sweetie.

[Plano Skywalker]

Actually, those people are held in Guantanamo specifically because doing it there isn't technically a crime. Or have I been misinformed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

as I understand it, they are designated as "unlawful combatants" and, hence, not afforded the protections of the U.S. constitution nor even of the Geneva Convention.

 

make no mistake, the guys at Gitmo are a rogue's gallery of terrorists or wannabe terrorists, "true believers" in Islamo-nihilism (which is NOT the same as Islam, BTW).

 

the real dilemma with these folks is how would you even release them? Does Jordan want its nationals back who are like this? Does the Sudan? Saudi Arabia? Despite what they may say in public, nobody wants these people back.

 

It is a real dilemma.

[Gromnir]

"Sorry, but if Clinton can be impeached for lying about a blow job, then Bush should surely be impeached for all the danged lies he has perpetrated on this country, and on the world."

 

clinton perjured himself. is a big difference than failing to follow through with campaign promises. don't let your dislike o' bush cloud your better judgment. vote out Presidents you dislike. impeach Presidents that involve self in criminal activity

[~Di]

Point taken, Grommy. However, to be perfectly accurate, Clinton did not officially perjure himself since he was not convicted of having done so. He was accused of perjury, and alledged to have committed perjury. Unless and until he was convicted of that crime in a court of law, he is merely an alleged perjurer. The only thing really proven is that he has no sexual impulse control, and the morals of an ally cat. :D

 

My take on Bush is that he deliberately lied about his motives in order to engage this country in what I believe to have been an illegal and immoral war. (I'm hardly a liberal, BTW. Registered republican for more years than most reading this have been alive, but am now a disgruntled independent.) If my suspicion is true, then impeachment is the least Bush deserves. Since my suspicion will probably not be proven in a court of law either, perhaps I should refer to Bush as the "alleged liar." LOL!

[BattleCookiee]

thanks to clinton, we got an entire generation of kids who thinks that bj not count as being a sexual act, and 50% of the population believing that perjury is no biggie no more.

 

Yeah, I agree. Far worse than a generation of kids who think that war is a good method of politics, killing is a justified meaning for improvement, thinks the army rocks bigtime and lying will be allowed and can help you forward... "

[Gromnir]

don't be such a fool. why not check and see how often clinton used military power overseas before you make such ridiculous comments. yeah, we has seen some o' your more delusional posts in the military thread... if America throws away it guns then the world will suddenley be paradise, right? HA!

 

blame the terrorists maybe? they is the folks who whipped up a majority of Americans into a frenzy.

 

maybe blame some of the euros? they tollerated and even supported terorist regimes.

 

maybe blame hollywood? heck they makes movies that romanticize war.

 

blame obsidian? they makes games that encourages combat.

 

"Far worse than a generation of kids who think that war is a good method of politics, killing is a justified meaning for improvement, thinks the army rocks bigtime"

 

so, how is this generation different from any other?

 

"and lying will be allowed and can help you forward... "

 

they didn't pick that up from the clintons?

 

bah.

 

bush is an arse, but some o' you clowns is exactly why bush gets so much support. Gromnir ain't a bush supporter, but even we find ourself defending him from your kinda nonsense.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Cantousent]

Di, I really like you, but you make me angrier than any other person on this board. Honestly, I was responding to more than just your comments. That's why I was so careful about the Hitler thing. I know you haven't called him Hitler, but it's all part of the same thing, and I have written the same comments elsewhere. Believe it or not, the Hitler comment wasn't aimed at you. It wasn't a cheap shot, there are people in this thread who have compared Bush to Hitler. Some of them in recent threads.

 

I've erased my previous response and I'll wait to respond to your last post, but, Good Lord, could you stop putting words in my mouth? If I wanted to make a comment about you personally, Di, which I don't, I would have done so already.

[Cantousent]

I'm going to respond to your post in full, Di. Note: I am specifically addressing your post, and it is clear that I do so because I quote your points and then answer them. There is no need for assumptions on your part. You know I'm speaking directly to you. You have a habit of putting words in my mouth for the purposes of furthering your argument, and so it's clear that your assume the same sort of tactics on the part of other people. I don't mind the fact that you assume some of my comments regard your posts. Clearly, some of them did. I take issue with the fact that you assume every comment regards you, even when I make it clear that I am addressing a larger crowd. Even worse, you mischaracterize my comments and present them as personal attacks. Di, if my intent were to attack you personally, I would do so. Let me get to the specific comments.

 

*shrug*  Those "impeachment hurts the presidency more than the president" arguments sure didn't hold water when the GOP tried to knock Clinton out when he only had a couple of years left in his turn, now did they?

 

If you had read my stance previously in the thread, you might have understood that proposing impeachment for the presidient strikes me as desperate and ineffective. Here's what I wrote:

 

"Trying to impeach Bush will be a huge mistake on the part of the Democrats. It's a losing proposition. If you're a Democrat, you should be glad that the President is falling on tough times. I presonally believe the President will actually come out better in the long run if the Democrats try to impeach him. No matter what folks think of the fickle nature of the American public, people are not in favor of impeaching Bush right now."

 

Since no thread on this board exists in isolation, I will also quote another of my posts in a different thread:

 

"For US citizens, really... really, the more you liken Bush to Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the more his stock will rise. There are a bunch of factors working against President Bush right now. He has problems at home and abroad. Even the Republican party isn't very popular at the moment, its base notwithstanding. While all the missteps aren't the President's fault, or even Republicans as a party, he's made enough mistakes that he deserves having his feet held to the fire.

 

Still, there's nothing like having folks literally claim that he is the second coming of Hitler or that he just as bad or worse than Saddam Hussein to engender some sympathy. I'm not going to argue policy in this thread, but I will argue that, if you want to do real damage to President Bush, you'd be better off making arguments that aren't simply ridiculous on their face.

 

The President can't run for another term. Nothing will better confirm the solid foundation of our democracy better than the elections themselves, when one administration will step down and be replaced by another.

 

In the meantime, the Republicans never learned their lesson when they used the same tactics against President Clinton. You can demonize the President. Hell, that's the political process. Just don't make yourself look stupid in the process. It doesn't hurt the president, but it can hurt the cause with which you've associated yourself. "

 

That, most certainly, did not have anything to do with you, since it predates your post by quite a bit. So, your comment:

 

BTW, the "Hitler" comment was a cheap shot, since you were responding to my comments primarily and you know perfectly well that I have never said such a silly thing.  Not that I'm particularly upset with it, but it really wasn't worthy of you, sweetie.

 

appears much cheaper of a shot than mine, especially in light of what I actually wrote in the post to which you responded:

 

"I guess what I'm trying to get across is the idea that attacking his policies is going to be far more effective than attacking his person. This particularly true when the attacks consist of "he's a liar" and "he's worse that Hitler." Now, do me a favor and don't fall over yourselves telling me you've only said one or you've said neither. If you have made these statements, my point is directed at you. If you have not, clearly, my comments cannot be directed at you.[emphasis added]"

 

You have called him a liar, but I can think of no instance where you have compared him to Hitler. Since that the case, why was it a cheap shot. Since my stance is largely unchanged, I would think that perhaps, Di, perhaps everything I write is not pointed in your direction.

 

I'm not "raling on" about impeachment.  I'm simply saying that the comparison is rather interesting in that many who staunchly fought to see Clinton thrown out for the audacity of lying about a sexual liasion are now sweeping Bush's lies under the rug with shrugs and excuses.  It is a given fact that tens of thousands have been killed and maimed as a direct result of Bush's actions, so forgive me if I think veracity in that case is a bit more serious than trying to keep your sexual escapades out of public view.  Besides, take a look at the topic of this thread... Bush and Impeachment.  So stop telling me not to discuss the topic.

 

This is another case where you put words in someone else's mouth for no other reason than to provide an argument against which you have a better response. I didn't tell you not to discuss the topid. What I said was: "So, spying on citizens within the United States is bad. That's an issue upon which you can draw a broader consensus than saying that the President should be impeached. Moreover, raling on about impeachment might alienate folks who would otherwise join you."

 

Where does that include an imperative not to discuss anything. Mostly, I gave you my opinion about the effectiveness of your rant. I think you were ranting. I believe the nature of your rant makes it ineffective. I do not, however, deny your right to rant. Hell, every now and then, I rant. The post to which you responded was more or less amicable. This post is a rant. See the difference?

 

Also, no lectures about how I'm not entitled to an opinion unless I go out and do volunteer work, m'kay?  That caveat isn't noted on our constitution as an exception to the free speech clause.  LOL!

 

Here we go again. I said: "If you really want to be involved, get out and do some volunteer work. It's easier than you think. How many of you have actually called or written to your congressmen? How many of you have actually worked as a volunteer for a political campaign or on a political issue?"

 

Where in that statement do you find the words "you are not entitled to an opinion?" I don't even think it's implied. I merely pointed out a more effective way to make your opinion heard. It is absolutely ridiculous for you to put words in my mouth. It would be irritating if you managed to convey my meaning in different words, but you didn't even do that. You manufactured a statement and then attributed it to me.

[BattleCookiee]

don't be such a fool.  why not check and see how often clinton used military power overseas before you make such ridiculous comments.  yeah, we has seen some o' your more delusional posts in the military thread... if America throws away it guns then the world will suddenley be paradise, right?  HA!

 

To the first; most of these were legal peace-keeping occassions, not blatent conquering of another country. And Clinton never made the army look as important for a country as Bush does now.

To the second; never said that...

 

blame the terrorists maybe?  they is the folks who whipped up a majority of Americans into a frenzy.

 

No, the government causes more panick than the terrorist itself with all the Terror Alarms and Terror Laws

 

maybe blame some of the euros?  they tollerated and even supported terorist regimes.

 

Did we... Since when is Afghanistan an European country... And once again, remind yourself what country brought the Taliban into power there...

 

maybe blame hollywood?  heck they makes movies that romanticize war.

 

No problem with this statement.

 

blame obsidian?  they makes games that encourages combat.

 

Jack Thompson thoughts? A game like Battlefield 2 gives the US-Army alot more prestige than a Kotor2...

 

so, how is this generation different from any other?

 

And your generation is a large difference, eh? Well, this generation joins the army and goes get himself killed in orders that should never be given in the first place, and uses violence as a method to end conflicts...

 

"and lying will be allowed and can help you forward... "

they didn't pick that up from the clintons?

 

Lying about sex is something different than lying about everything, including spying, torture and killing

 

bush is an arse, but some o' you clowns is exactly why bush gets so much support.  Gromnir ain't a bush supporter, but even we find ourself defending him from your kinda nonsense.

 

You don't need to if you don't take posts out of context...

 

@ Eldar: The "Hitler" comment is probably aimed at me. But fact is that I already complain about policies, and not person, but you guys turn it in "BW is comparing Hitler and Bush"

 

First time around I was comparing the willingness of the Nazi's army with the willingness of the US-Army to follow "wrong orders". As a matter of fact, the US-army even follows better than the Nazi one, as also implied with the "military attempts to kill Hitler", quite a scary thought.

The second time around I commented that America was starting to take a more facist policy of "worshipping" the army and violence, and reducing the people's own opinion by influencing them and force them their way of thinking... as seen by the spying on citizens, propaganda, and quotes like: "You either support us or you are a terrorist"

 

Does anybody actually read what I write?

Edited December 22, 2005 by Battlewookiee