RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Alumbrado -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (7/3/2007 5:31:26 PM)

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"



heartofakajira -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (7/3/2007 5:43:18 PM)

Dragone and Wolf....good grief!!  Both of you are grown men...stop acting like children trying to exert your dominance over each other in the social "hierarchy" of the playground.  Everyone is entitled to their opinions...let it go and move on.

Just my two cents...

Be well..

Master's patience



Alumbrado -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (7/3/2007 5:48:34 PM)

Yeah, let's not subject any claims to skeptical analysis, or insist on evidence to support them...we wouldn't want to upset anyone with that nasty old rationality, when ignorance and superstition are sooooo attractive...[8|]



heartofakajira -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (7/3/2007 5:51:31 PM)

Alumbrado--

Questioning things is human nature...i never implied i was against it...

Nothing is cut and dry anymore...so what's your beef with me?  I wasn't even speaking to you..i was speaking about the childishness between Dragone and Wolf, not about the subject being spoken about. 



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (7/3/2007 7:30:04 PM)

The riot statement was about the way that you post, it actually made me laugh but not in a belittling way. Combine your pic/avatar with the way you post and I get this Marshall Dillon imitation in my head. You seem to read into alot of what is not said, and base it upon your exposure to others. I looked back and did not see where I rejected your ideas, i asked questions about them so I could better understand them. You are the one that used the ego and nobody comments. No worries though, this is just a message board, and in the grand scheme of things means very little to me. Don't mistake a provocative comment with a derogatory one. Don't make assumptions about what I think. Do not create answers to things I have not answered. At least with farglebargle, he posted alot for me to research, and for that I thank him.

Orion


quote:

ORIGINAL: dragone

Not to belabor this bit of nonsense...just exactly what did you mean by your 'Riot' statement. It was not a mockery to me then?

Like I said, I am not obligated to do your research for you. If you want to know, then look it up. Gestapo, SS, Patriot act, Homeland security, The Enabling Act, The Emergency Decree, The Reichstag. 9-11.

Why are you so arguementive? I made certain statements which you flately rejected, and with no evidence of your own to disprove nor argue my point. You instead challenged me to provide you with proof positive, as if you being some authoritative enity I must scape to;  yet, nothing from yourself. I suggested you to look up the specifics on the internet, and compare, that's it.

You subsequently give me your child history in Europe. Now you accuse me again of not fostering a discussion.

No Mas, No Mas. I retire the field.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (7/3/2007 7:34:01 PM)

Question about the OP and the info farglebargle posted, it seems the exact legal status as to which branch of the government the VP belongs to may be a sticking point with that indictment. I only know a little about the law but wouldn't it be better to have a seperate indictment for him?

Also, plausable deniability and passing the buck is an art to politicians, could that not be used to dodge some of the overt actions?

While I may agree that the research I have found so far supports that Bush and Co. likely did know the intelligence was faulty, is it enough to get a jury or the Senate to convict/impeach?

Orion



Sinergy -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (7/3/2007 7:38:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Also, plausable deniability and passing the buck is an art to politicians, could that not be used to dodge some of the overt actions?



Truman had a little sign on his desk in the Oval Office that read "The Buck Stops Here."

The problem this administration has is that Bush can pardon everybody except himself.

Nixon got out of it by getting Ford (Who had no knowledge or involvement in Watergate) to pardon him.

The same thing cannot be said about Cheney.  Bush resigns and gets pardoned, Cheney does jail time.

Bush is not in a position to pass the buck, now that he lost control of Congress.  I suspect Pelosi would refuse to pardon him.

Sucks to be him.  (Did I sound sincere?)

Sinergy

edited for spelling



dragone -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (7/5/2007 12:01:24 AM)

Hey Wolfie; You still go on, instead of taking one little positve step forward, and click clack the reasearch for yourself, you want someone else to do your work for you, and as you say, this is a discussion board and in the grand scheme of things means very little to you.....sort of shoots your fostering better understanding crap to hell. Why are you posting then, just to waste everyone's time, even wasting Fargles time for his massive info post. All this was a waste of time, like shootin' a dry load.

Hey, nuff said, I'm moving on, Kitty has set up a poker game, with Doc, Fetus, and a couple of tenderfoots, or is that tenderfeet, drinks are on the table.

I retire the field, again, for sure.



farglebargle -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (7/5/2007 4:33:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Question about the OP and the info farglebargle posted, it seems the exact legal status as to which branch of the government the VP belongs to may be a sticking point with that indictment. I only know a little about the law but wouldn't it be better to have a seperate indictment for him?

Also, plausable deniability and passing the buck is an art to politicians, could that not be used to dodge some of the overt actions?

While I may agree that the research I have found so far supports that Bush and Co. likely did know the intelligence was faulty, is it enough to get a jury or the Senate to convict/impeach?

Orion



Here is 18 USC 371 ( parsed by me, for clarity ) :

The presentation of information to Congress and the general public through

deceit,

craft,

trickery,

dishonest means,

and fraudulent representations, including lies, half-truths, material omissions, and statements made with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity,

while knowing and intending that such fraudulent representations would influence Congress' decisions regarding authorization to use military force and funding for military action,

constitutes interfering with,

obstructing,

impairing,

and defeating a lawful government function of a department of the United States

within the meaning of Section 371.




dragone -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (7/5/2007 8:12:53 AM)

Hi Fargle; If you remember, with Bush, Rice et al; the Iraq fiasco, WMDs they all admitted, "er, it looks like we were mistaken." Thus blaming everything on supplied faulty intel. Reported thoughout the major news print media, over the internet ect.......but no one is held accountable for this...error of judgement.

I really appreciate your info posts, and to me, in the great scheme of things, this being just a discussion board, unlike what others say, it means a lot to me. I am learning every day, and research even more.



Alumbrado -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (7/5/2007 8:55:06 AM)

quote:

You still go on, instead of taking one little positve step forward, and click clack the reasearch for yourself, you want someone else to do your work for you


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.



Sinergy -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (7/5/2007 8:57:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

You still go on, instead of taking one little positve step forward, and click clack the reasearch for yourself, you want someone else to do your work for you


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.


Extraordinary proof requires an 8th grade reading and comprehension level and an understanding of how hypertext links function.

Sinergy



mnottertail -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (7/5/2007 9:00:53 AM)

Hey, what the fuck is up with all the kid gloves out here? 

Curiously,
Ron



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (7/5/2007 9:29:42 AM)

Thanks fargle. Will look into it further.

Dragone, take a slow deep breath, then let it out very slowly. With fargle we seem to be having a discussion, and he is assisting in my research with starting points and clarification. With you it seems to be a pissing match, and frankly I care not to foster any understanding with you. There is a block feature on these boards for such as you and I, but maybe somewhere down the road common ground may be attained and understanding may yet be a bridge crossed ahead.


Orion



dragone -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (7/6/2007 1:17:51 PM)

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about an 8th grade ed. and hyper links. If you are referring me to not providing the links...tell me why I should do the other guy's research for him. As I said before, this is a typical repulican ploy. misdirection,, to put me on the defensive while the other guy takes a nap. If he truly was interested in learning something, then he has the means to search for himself, without any influence from me to obstruct or limit his investigation. He provides with the proof against my 'extrodinary claim', then I will provide him with mine. Now, considering he has stated, any discussion on this board is of little interest to him, why pursue the issue at all, since he has little or no interest in the material on the board, and evidently just entertaining himself.

Does that logic escape you?, or What? The other repulican ploy is to hurl insults in lieu of proof or substantial exhibit. If you have nothing other than insults, please, just go a-pumpin' in the bathroom.

But, if I am misreading your 'input' here, then, never mind, my mistake, I apologize.



Sinergy -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (7/6/2007 4:51:40 PM)

 
My point, dragone, is that one can lead some people (in this case, Right Wingers) to knowledge but one cannot make them think.

I apologize if my post made it sound like I was asking for you to do anything, it was a general comment.

Cheers!

Sinergy



dragone -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (7/8/2007 12:11:20 AM)

Hi Sinergy, Thanks for your clarifications; your comment did take me back abit, wasn't quite sure of what you meant. Most of these attacks against my views, are insults, coupled with demands which the other party has no interest in gaining any knowledge of; just arguement for agurement's sake, an entertainment for them. The links always lead to other links, and I myself have spent hours where I only intended to just look up something.

There is a saying, I forget the actual language; but it goes something like this; To be iggnorant of a thing, there is no fault, to be shown to correct one's iggnorance and refuse, is stupidy, and that person who refuses is stupid, should be shunned. Or something to that effect.

If I'm given something, and I want to know more, I go look, I don't depend on the 'other guy' to supply me with what I should see. He may only supply me with that material which fits his agenda, only supply me with information that proves only the point he wants to prevail. Independant research gives me the freedom to explore.

I invited this 'other' to do his own independant searches, without any infulence on my part. Research and compare, then draw his conclusions, and then strike back at me. Let us then have a discussion and debate the subject. What did I get in return? Nothing but insults and accusitory dialogue; and then the statement suggesting he could not care less, and whatever is on this discussion board he has little interest in.

Fargle, supplied this 'other' with enough info to choke a horse, This 'other' has yet to counter with like info.; instead continues an empty arguement banter. In view of his statement of having 'little interest', why Fargle pursues the matter, must be out of the kindness and long suffering patience of Fargle, to his credit. I have no such patience, and take the position, people such as 'this other' who offer nothing but insluts, are to be shunned.

Little Alumie, with her."extrodinary Claims require extrodinary proof' is something she must have gotten out of some fantasy fairey tale. Extrodinary claims require extrodinary, investigation. In another thread, I asked her if she had the links and source material to support her claims; she counterd with pointing out my type-o of her name, followed by insult. Not even living to her own demands of me.

So, can these people be taken seriously, can you believe they are sincere, I think not.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125