RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo

RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/27/2009 11:57:52 PM)
I have toi say Ken that looking at Firm's first post that it doesn't seem to contain a lie. He says that it doesn't actually cite it's sources it just says they are multiple but anonymous which apparently is correct? He also says that it could well have happened but that the article doesn't really prove it's veracity. Personally like Arpig I think it did happen and i've already gone to some lengths showing my view on the matter. I think both of you should just agree to disagree and lets get back to the debat, I think it's been an interesting one so far. Although having said that i'm off to work now so I will catch up with you later, have a good day.

DomKen -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/28/2009 12:17:21 AM)
So I'm continuing the hijack? Somebody needs to count the posts made on this topic. Just to be clear Firm 10 posts Me 5 posts plus these 3 in response to others. Now who hijacked what?

Brain -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/28/2009 1:40:11 AM)
Story To Prove Cheney Did Not Care About Constitution - Watch　　 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvI49OyHFnw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Forganizedexploitation%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F2009%2F07%2Fdeification%2Dof%2Dyouth%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded

Irishknight -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/28/2009 6:59:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight OMG!!!!!! Bush thought about doing something!!!!!! Crucify him!!!!!!! Dubya's gone. Get on with life people. And while we brush it off into the past as old news we then set ourselves up for the next Dubya who will understand that he is above the law and the cycle will continue. If you spend too much time looking into the past then you can't see where you're going. Attention needs to be paid first and foremost to those in office now. We should be worrying about what congress is doing more than what Bush thought about doing.

rulemylife -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/28/2009 10:59:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife And while we brush it off into the past as old news we then set ourselves up for the next Dubya who will understand that he is above the law and the cycle will continue. If you spend too much time looking into the past then you can't see where you're going. Attention needs to be paid first and foremost to those in office now. We should be worrying about what congress is doing more than what Bush thought about doing. What Bush thought about doing was just another example of what was put on the table. To absolve him because he did not do this when he did so much else in the same vein is to bury your head in the sand. The "past is the past" mentality is what allowed this administration to abuse the laws the way it has. I don't know what brings on this attitude. Is it that we are so used to channel and web surfing that we think we can just click a button and everything goes away and we can start anew?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/28/2009 11:43:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Soooo, did you notice that thing about a historic change in U.S. policy that allowed a preemptive war? Or that nagging matter of holding prisoners in a legal limbo where they were neither POW's nor criminals? How about when the law was twisted to the point that torture became "harsh interrogation"? All of these things came out of the types of discussions you are trying to defend. None of which are abusive under the law. In your eye maybe they are, to mine they arent. If there were not questions of legality we would not be having this conversation. Then why the claims that they are "clearly illegal" if there are questions about their legality?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/28/2009 11:47:21 AM)
"Which is part of the problem honestly. Firm got caught in a lie, whether it was intentional or not is immaterial it was untrue" And liberals still havent learned the defintion of "lie". Or more likely can't acknowledge it since they threw the word around about GWB so much without substantiation.

rulemylife -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/28/2009 12:50:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Then why the claims that they are "clearly illegal" if there are questions about their legality? Semantic games. I gave the benefit of doubt by calling them questions but I think they are clearly illegal.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/28/2009 12:54:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Then why the claims that they are "clearly illegal" if there are questions about their legality? Semantic games. I gave the benefit of doubt by calling them questions but I think they are clearly illegal. That's your opinion. So far, no competent legal authority agrees with you. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/28/2009 12:55:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy And liberals still haven't learned the definition of "lie". If you disagree with some people, you are - by definition - evil. And evil only tells lies. It's the true believers and ideologues on both sides who believe this. They are dangerous because they poison the debate, and argue to extremes, They are a cancer on civil society. Firm

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/28/2009 12:56:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy "Which is part of the problem honestly. Firm got caught in a lie, whether it was intentional or not is immaterial it was untrue" And liberals still havent learned the defintion of "lie". Well, I'll take a shot at it. How about posting something like "It doesnt cost any money to go to the ER. And an individual isnt required to pay for it by law." That would be an example of a lie, wouldn't it?

Vendaval -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/28/2009 12:58:03 PM)
This does not suprise me in the least. quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda It was Cheney. The whole thing was apparently his idea, and he brought in his trained monkey "lawyer" John Yoo (the same guy who advocates crushing the testicles of a suspected terrorist's child in order to persuade the suspect to confess) to write a memo saying it was legal. Which is no surprise; if Cheney decided he wanted to make cannibalism the national religion, it would take Yoo about 5 minutes to find some reason it's supported by the Constitution.

rulemylife -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/28/2009 1:28:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY That's your opinion. So far, no competent legal authority agrees with you. Firm You mean it's just me? I feel so lonely. RASUL et al. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., 542 Boumediene v. Bush, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument American Civil Liberties Union : Office of Legal Counsel Memos Should I keep going? Because there are plenty more.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/28/2009 1:32:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Then why the claims that they are "clearly illegal" if there are questions about their legality? Semantic games. I gave the benefit of doubt by calling them questions but I think they are clearly illegal. Not a semantic game, you made two conflicting statements. Thank you for clarifying and that YOU THINK they are clearly illegal. When you're on the SCOTUS what you think will mean something. Meanwhile I'll rely on what actions havent been taken by people who actually know what they are talking about. Occam's razor...if they arent on trial, there is no case, not some byzantine political maneuvering by people who would gladly hang the Bush administration if they had so much as dental floss to do it with.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/28/2009 1:33:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy "Which is part of the problem honestly. Firm got caught in a lie, whether it was intentional or not is immaterial it was untrue" And liberals still havent learned the defintion of "lie". Well, I'll take a shot at it. How about posting something like "It doesnt cost any money to go to the ER. And an individual isnt required to pay for it by law." That would be an example of a lie, wouldn't it? No, it woudlnt, since its completely factual.

rulemylife -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/28/2009 1:33:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy And liberals still haven't learned the definition of "lie". If you disagree with some people, you are - by definition - evil. And evil only tells lies. It's the true believers and ideologues on both sides who believe this. They are dangerous because they poison the debate, and argue to extremes, They are a cancer on civil society. Firm How hilarious that you don't include yourself in those categories.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/28/2009 1:37:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy "Which is part of the problem honestly. Firm got caught in a lie, whether it was intentional or not is immaterial it was untrue" And liberals still havent learned the defintion of "lie". Well, I'll take a shot at it. How about posting something like "It doesnt cost any money to go to the ER. And an individual isnt required to pay for it by law." That would be an example of a lie, wouldn't it? No, it woudlnt, since its completely factual. Yeah, you keep repeating that over and over again. But you keep forgetting to give us links to all these laws you say support that assertion.

rulemylife -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/28/2009 1:41:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Not a semantic game, you made two conflicting statements. Thank you for clarifying and that YOU THINK they are clearly illegal. When you're on the SCOTUS what you think will mean something. I think because that is another way of saying it is my opinion. The same thing you are expressing. And yes I would say the actions were clearly illegal. And, as I posted above, there were some folks on the Supreme Court who agreed with that.

Lorr47 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/28/2009 1:59:25 PM)
quote: I say I feel more disillusioned and discouraged every day. I actually spent 2 hours yesterday researching Canada's immigration laws. I can't think of much more to say on the subject beyond that at the moment. Yeh. The only hope is that Obama takes the bills out of congress, writes a bill the way originally proposed; and forces them through the best he can. As the experts suggested there is a victory even if he falls on his sword and it leaves others to explan the bill to the people. Too many compromises were made to the maddog democrats. Even one compronise to the republicans is too much.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/28/2009 2:42:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY That's your opinion. So far, no competent legal authority agrees with you. Firm You mean it's just me? I feel so lonely. RASUL et al. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., 542 Boumediene v. Bush, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument American Civil Liberties Union : Office of Legal Counsel Memos Should I keep going? Because there are plenty more. Should I keep going? Because there are plenty more. Sure. Except this time, could they relate to the specific questions and points you raised? I'll say that the first link is tangentially related, to your second point, although I suspect you do not understand how, and how not. Your second link leads nowhere currently (something wrong with the website, I suspect), and the third link is to a listing of the ACLU's "Bush Memo's", proving nothing. However, simply for the sake of furthering the discussion, I'll concede - for the moment - your point two. We can get back to it later. How about the other two points? 1. Soooo, did you notice that thing about a historic change in U.S. policy that allowed a preemptive war? 3. How about when the law was twisted to the point that torture became "harsh interrogation"? Which competent legal authority have found these "illegal"? Firm

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875