It's time.

REAVERMAN

Saturday, March 25, 2006 7:41 AM

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you think the Constitutional Convention created the foundation of our nation by hurling insults and mocking each other? OF COURSE NOT!!!

---

LMAO, Actually it was very much like that, and there was a whole lot of that goin on, I believe a healthy debate on any topic should involve a bit of snarkery and humor, cause otherwise it gets too serious and leads to folks shootin at each other.

---

WHOME

Quote:

---

Yes they did! Some were gentlemen, but others were serious rabble-rousers. There was name calling, threats were made, fists were pounded against table-tops, inflammatory speeches were made, and on several occasions delegates threatened to walk out.

Political gatherings were WAY more intense in the days before t.v. brought them into everyone's home.

---

Yep, on that one I can agree, and in all honesty I think it worked out better that way, you can solve a lot more problems if you worry more about the issues than decorum, and brawls on the floor of the house and senate have NOT been unknown in our history, oh not at all.

---

If you would look at my later post, I cleared up what I meant. Here's a refresher: I didn't say that the Continental Congress never bickered or hurled insults back and forth, because as you both stated, they did. What I said was they didn't write the constitution this way. Ya know how they did get it written? C'mon, you can guess it, I've said it before... COMPROMISE! When tensions flared and folks did stuff, like threaten to leave, for example, they sat down, figured out what pissed off both sides, and wrote something up that worked for all parties involved. See? Compromise in action.

Quote:

---

REAVERMAN

Quote:

---

you have no proof at all that George Bush broke any law.

---

Fact - the constitution is, by our law and government system, the highest law of the land.

Fact - the rights within are explicitly laid out, and to change, deny, or modify any of them requires an amendment, with the ratification process requiring three quarters of the states to agree upon it.

These facts are in no more dispute than the sun rising in the east.

Fact - certain members of our government, including, but not limited to the oval office, have signed and passed legislation that effectively denies some of those rights.

This did indeed "break the law", knowingly and with malice aforethought, especially when they chose to renew those acts in spite of them failing the test of constitutional trump.

(One might also mention that it's gross negligence on behalf of any congresscritter to sign a bill they have not read.)

Someone else mentioned "Yeah, that's how it's supposed to be, but that's not how it is", to paraphrase, and sure, reality has taken a different turn than intended, however....

Just because the government chooses to ignore the basis and foundation for it's very existance, does not make it right, or legal, not even one iota - it just makes it the situation of the time, backed up by military and police force, whether it's legal or not.

And don't give me any lines about might makes right either, that philosophy didn't help the roman empire very much, and is unlikely to help ours either.

Learn from history or repeat it's mistakes, and for the last time, explore some of this stuff rather than assuming - there's no excuse at all to not do so as it's easy enough to find, and interesting, entertaining, and informative reading besides.

Y'all should be attackin issues, not each other, that goes for all of ya.

-Frem

---

Okay, first of all, you took that last quote out of context. What I said was:"In fact, aside from the wiretapping (completely beyond presidential authority), you have no proof at all that George Bush broke any law".
That said, I should apologize for not making myself more clear. What I meant when I said that was there was no proof that he has committed the crimes of prisoner torture and lying about the WMD's. At the time, I didnt take the whole picture into account. Once a

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

What you really mean to ask is why did I choose the name?

Perhaps it was a tribute to the legendary 'Hero of Canton'. Perhaps it was because I won a Bronze Star in the First Gulf War. Perhaps because I once pulled a child from in front of a speeding car (drunk driver). Perhaps because I adopted a rescued puppy. Perhaps a love a good sandwhich. Perhaps, perhaps perhaps, and perhaps you and others have a few perhaps of your own. The reason is personal and will remain so.

---

My questions are, did Zero ever watch Firefly and Serenity? If so, what did he appreciate about it?

Or, is Zero merely stalking this board for Dept of Homeland Security, paid bogus TIPS for every name he can report, as a confidential informant?

Depending upon how long Zero has been a persecutor for the Inquisition, there must be hundreds or thousands of decent people who HATE Zero FOREVER. For every evil person he locks up in Criminal University, how many innocent victims does he torture in a dungeon? 99% of all prosecutions by Gangsta Govt are bogus, ie, traffic citations. Zero is employed by Communist/Fascist organized crime rackets, judging by the current Police State of USSA. While prosecutors are certainly an important job, in a properly functioning society, USSA is no longer functioning AT ALL. The Inquistions, the French Revolution, the Roman Empire, Nazi Germany - Zero would LOVE to play in those courtrooms. Zero confessed that he LOVES TO MURDER INNOCENT PEOPLE IN IRAQ, while refusing to prosecute 30-million illegal alien terrorists for criminal trespass, which makes Zero guilty of TREASON. That makes him a Hero in his own mind, as his nation joins the 3rd World.

I only let the people I own use my title.
-Magistrate Higgins, Jaynestown

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO (VERSION 2)
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

No proof Bush lied ??? What a crock:

Quote:

---

In the first of the reports, Waas says, Bush was informed in early October 2002 that the *** Energy Department AND the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research *** believed that aluminum tubes Saddam had procured were "intended for conventional weapons." That report contradicted the "aluminum tubes as nuclear threats" story line the administration began using in September 2002, when somebody leaked it to the New York Times' Michael Gordon and Judy Miller. "U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts," the Times said then, and administration officials took to the airwaves to chime in. Donald Rumsfeld warned of a nuclear 9/11. Condoleezza Rice said that the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs," and she brushed away any sense of uncertainty by insisting that we wouldn't want the "smoking gun" to come in the form of a "mushroom cloud." Shortly thereafter, Bush himself told the General Assembly of the United Nations that Iraq had "made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon." And in his 2003 State of the Union speech, right after uttering the much more famous 16 words about Niger, Bush said: "Our intelligence sources tell us that [Saddam] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

It's hard to know how many Americans were swayed by the faulty aluminum tubes story, but it was all part of the larger argument: Saddam Hussein had to be removed, the president would say, because he's a "gathering threat," a man who could "decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." "If I thought we were safe from attack, I would be thinking differently," Bush said in March 2003..\ "But I see a gathering threat. I mean, this is a true, real threat to America."

Bush may well have thought that, but it wasn't because he wasn't getting contrary views. In January 2003, Waas says, the president was handed a summary of a National Intelligence Estimate. "The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies *** unanimously *** agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States -- except if 'ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime' or if he intended to 'extract revenge' for such an assault, according to records and sources." There was one exception, Waas says: The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research said Saddam was "unlikely to conduct clandestine attacks against the U.S. homeland" even if a U.S. invasion threatened his regime.

---

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Reaverman:
P.S. As for the torture thing, as far as I know, the constitution doesn't cover foreign citizens, so , if Bush is having prisoners tortured, it is not unconstitutional, and as the prisoners in Gtmo are not soldiers from one nation or another at war with us, they are not covered by the Geneva Convention.

---

Point one some of those being tortured are American nationals.
Point two the decision that the ‘combatants’ are not covered by the Geneva Convention is tenuous at best. Many of the reasons as too why these people are not covered can actually be extended to US-UK Special Forces regiments. Are the Seals, Delta Force, SBS and SAS (to name a few) unlawful combatants? In such a case we can say it’s okay to cut their heads off, since their illegal combatants an’ all.

Quote:

---

[[]Upon being asked if America is breaking the Geneva Convention[]] In this respect, I would say so, yes. Certainly not observing the terms of internment, for imperative reasons of security. That's quite clear. And I do recall that our office at the appropriate time had shared this view with our colleagues of the U.S. Mission in Baghdad. It is a matter of concern because of the large numbers involved and the duration of the detention. You know, the vast majority [[]he goes on too say 80-90%[]] of these people are innocent and when they are rounded up, by the time that they leave, quite a number of them are no longer as innocent as they were when they entered. Because obviously they are exposed to hardcore people who have a certain degree of violent instinct in them.
John Pace, Head of Human Rights for UNAMI (United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq)

---

Or maybe the situations not all that clear cut?

Quote:

---

Bush has broken no law whether he tortured prisoners or not.

---

For a start there's more to it than America's laws, like international ones that America is a party too.
FYI if you do something illegal, you’re breaking the law.

Quote:

---

On 19 March 2003 President Bush Jr. commenced his criminal war against Iraq by ordering a so-called decapitation strike against the President of Iraq in violation of a 48-hour ultimatum he had given publicly to the Iraqi President and his sons to leave the country. This duplicitous behavior violated the customary international laws of war set forth in the 1907 Hague Convention on the Opening of Hostilities to which the United States is still a contracting party, as evidenced by paragraphs 20, 21, 22, and 23 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956).

---

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2005/1222b
elligerent.htm

Quote:

---

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

Elizabeth Wilmshurst, former Deputy Legal Advisor to the UK Foreign Office, resigned in March 2003 over the Iraq War, calling the US-UK invasion of Iraq “unlawful” and “a crime of aggression”.

Is that enough, or would you like me to continue?

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Ah, but what you don't realize is that when your boys at army threat assessment sent you on this dangerous mission, they began monitoring you. How many times has he watched each episode? Did the fact that he watch the train job or ariel multiple times indicate that he's gone over to the other side?

---

Truth be told, I don’t trust them any further then I can throw them, but I trust them a lot more then I do anyone else.


But if I may opine briefly and in general, since I really don't have the time to respond to everyone:

Personally, I’m more afraid of the media then I am the government or the corporations. I think of what happened to Dr. David Kelly and it occurs to me that this could so easily have happened to me, if I had been higher up on the chain then I am. It’s the mob that rules, and the media, more then the politicians or the corporations control the mob.

As for Bush, he didn’t lie about WMDs in Iraq. That’s a figment of imagination.

It is not a fact that Saddam had no WMDs. It is a fact that Saddam had WMD’s prior to the invasion (he used them against his own people and the Iranians). It’s also a fact that we can’t seem to find them today. However, neither of these statements means that they weren’t there at the time of the invasion or not there now, just that we can’t find them. Even as late as 2003, Hans Blix (no friend of the US or the war) listed before the UN Security Council tons of Biological and Chemical weapons and precursors that UN weapon’s inspectors could not account for as late as 1999, when Saddam refused further inspections.

It’s not a fact that Saddam was not an imminent threat to the US at the time of the invasion. It is a fact that Saddam may have likely conspired in a failed attempt to assassinate a former US president, and if Saddam had the aforementioned WMDs, a proposition that cannot be dismissed, then he could have pass these on to terrorist agents that may have then used them against the US. So the imminence of Saddam’s threat to the US was an unknown quantity. Whether or not Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US really comes down to how much trust you want to put in Hussein.

As for the legality of the invasion, what does that even mean? I don’t think that the Coalition invasion was illegal. Saddam posed a possible threat to US national security. Saddam violated the 1991 Gulf War cease fire agreement. Saddam refused to comply with UN Chapter 7 Resolutions. All of which, as far as I’m concerned, are legal justifications for the war. But in the end, if you think that the US violated the law when it invaded Iraq in 2003, then take us to court, prove it and throw us in jail. Ah, but you can’t do that, can you? Because international law doesn’t work that way, as Saddam Hussein demonstrated for 10 solid years when the UN balked Chapter 7 Resolution after Chapter 7 Resolution, while Hussein laughed in their faces and killed 1.5 million innocent Iraqi in order to insulate himself from these pointless resolution.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Good to see we've got some truth at last.

We don't break the law, we are the law!

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Finn,

Quote:

---

Truth be told, I don’t trust them any further then I can throw them, but I trust them a lot more then I do anyone else.

---

Probably sound.

Quote:

---

But if I may opine briefly and in general, since I really don't have the time to respond to everyone:

Personally, I’m more afraid of the media then I am the government or the corporations. I think of what happened to Dr. David Kelly and it occurs to me that this could so easily have happened to me, if I had been higher up on the chain then I am. It’s the mob that rules, and the media, more then the politicians or the corporations control the mob.

---

What happened to David Kelly?

Quote:

---

As for Bush, he didn’t lie about WMDs in Iraq. That’s a figment of imagination.

---

This is actually spin. People should try not to use spin. We're all friends here, we respect one another, can we be a little more frank?
What does it matter whether "Bush" lied about "WMDs" ? I agree that I don't think the administration intentionally misled the American public on the WMDs in Iraq.
But that said, "Bush" not "Lying" is a technicality. The administration has on several occassions delibately attempted to mislead the American people, for instance Cheney used a lot of awkward verbal positioning to lead the dumber among us to think that there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He may not have actually lied, but he intentionally wanted stupid people to draw that conclusion. This is deceptive.
So, sure, Bush didn't lie about WMD. But so what?
Next. Pre-emptive war is not only against international law, it's also, all godwin's law aside, something very fascist. It's exactly what the Nazi's did with their argument about the supposed "threat of Poland."
In fact, this is just one of a dozen times that the Bush Admin has litterally and deliberately pulled something from the Nazi book.
Objectively, if you laid out all of the facts of the actions side by side, with all of the names and historical events made generic so no bias could ensue, anyone, any sane intelligent person, would have to pick the Nazis as the most similar govt to the Bush Admin.
Whether or not you agree with this, I feel quite objectively that it's the case, all facts considered, and that there is some truth in such a statement to any degree is a matter of tremendous concern.

Quote:

---

It is not a fact that Saddam had no WMDs. It is a fact that Saddam had WMD’s prior to the invasion (he used them against his own people and the Iranians). It’s also a fact that we can’t seem to find them today. However, neither of these statements means that they weren’t there at the time of the invasion or not there now, just that we can’t find them. Even as late as 2003, Hans Blix (no friend of the US or the war) listed before the UN Security Council tons of Biological and Chemical weapons and precursors that UN weapon’s inspectors could not account for as late as 1999, when Saddam refused further inspections.

---

Sure, but all of this still misses the point.
Here's another interesting detail. The real reason we know that he had those WMDs, which he did use, on his own people, and on the people of Iran, is that he was sold those weapons, or the information on how to make them, by Donald Rumseld, which I am pretty sure is a well documented fact, and not a conspiracy theory.

Quote:

---

It’s not a fact that Saddam was not an imminent threat to the US at the time of the invasion. It is a fact that Saddam may have likely conspired in a failed attempt to assassinate a former US president, and if Saddam had the aforementioned WMDs, a proposition that cannot be dismissed, then he could have pass these on to terrorist agents that may have then used them against the US. So the imminence of Saddam’s threat to the US was an unknown quantity. Whether or not Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US really comes down to how much trust you want to put in Hussein.

---

The bad guy is real real bad.

That's just a terrible argument. Kim Jong Il has actually threatened to nuke the United States.
So wh

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
What happened to David Kelly?

---

I'm surprised to hear you don't know:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3076869.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2003/david_kelly_inquiry/
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/0,,1002607,00.html
And the obligitory conspiracy theory:
http://www.rense.com/general43/kelly.htm

Sadaam wasn't a Fascist.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME