1
   

* Bush Admin seeks to detain suspects forever without trial

 
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2005 11:59 am
Ok, ladies. Enough is enough. Take a deep breath and let's move on.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2005 12:05 pm
Joe Republican wrote:
[Also, tell the soldiers that Iraq is not a threat to Americans security. Oh and by the way, when was Iraq EVER a threat to American security??? When they were going to give all of their non-existant WMD's to terrotists??? Would that be AFTER they somehow decided to revamp the entire infastructure needed to construct WMDs without the US's or UN's notice?


No WMD??? They found several pairs of Saddam's boxer shorts in that hut when he was captured.


(Courtesy Dave Letterman)
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2005 12:22 pm
Bwah ha ha.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2005 02:44 pm
Quote:
So we ought to get over it, and we ought to have a very careful, constitutional look at this."
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2005 03:14 pm
Bad idea? I guess I could go along with that.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2005 05:07 pm
McGentrix wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Is Jose the exception or the rule?

Doesn't matter.

You seem content that the current administration has the power to imprison someone indefinitely.

I'll pose you the same question I posed to JustWonders:

Would you feel the same way about an administration headed by Hillary Clinton?

Personally, I don't want anyone to have that power.


Doesn't matter? Sure it matters.

Jose Padilla is held up as an example of a corrupt government that infringes on people's rights. He is used to support the bankrupt notion that habeus corpus no longer matters and the "Bush regime" wants only to curtail rights in America through such actions as the Patriot act and the detention of terrorists.

It matters because Padilla has become the rallying cry of the left as though he matters.

I ask again, is Padilla the exception, or the rule?


I'll say again: doesn't matter.

If you were to rob one bank in your lifetime, I guess it would be OK? It would be the exception rather than the rule, yes?
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2005 05:29 pm
McG - habeus corpus no longer matters in the US jurisdiction. That isn't a bankrupt concept. That is a fact - the writ could not be actioned because the subject was not in the jurisdiction of the State involved, he was in a Navy brig. In your La-La-Land it's OK, because 'it only happens to bad people'. Reality check - anyone can be held as a 'bad guy' for any undisclosed reason and the usual protections no longer exist.

Justice works on the idea that the accused is produced and tried. If the state you were in starting issuing warrants and writs for unsubstantiated 'crimes' that you had 'commited' and then stopped you from contesting them AND then handed down a 'verdict' based on those 'facts' I'd be hearing your screams of protest here in Australia. But no, the powers-that-be have assured you that these things can only happen to 'bad people'.
0 Replies
 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2005 06:20 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Quote:
So we ought to get over it, and we ought to have a very careful, constitutional look at this."


Yea, I guess Luger would be right, if only the Bushivecks saw it this way Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2005 06:26 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Joe Republican wrote:
You post reeks a one-sided, acute, brainwashed viewpoint the RNC loves. I hope you're a proud American.
So kind of you to provide DNC equivalent to off set it... save a little overcompensating with the idiotic Hitler comparison. Pots, Kettles, Helicopters... where will it all end?


Well Bill, I didn't see you try to refute any of the comparissons to the current neo-conservative administration and fascism, so an I to assume you agree with the premise???

And as to the DNC part, I never liked democrats. I bought into the RNCs platform until Bush took power. He has perversed and sodimized any semblance of a conservative agenda with his reckless spending, overzealous pre-emptions, and fascist policies. I once gave money and campaigned for John McCain, that was until he showed his true colors and sold out as well. There are so few moderate conservatives in the House right now, I might as well be a democrat, I get accused of it all the time anyways, just because I don't buy the bull shite all the neo-conservitives spew forth from their propaganda machines.
0 Replies
 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2005 06:27 pm
JustWonders wrote:
Joe Republican wrote:
[Also, tell the soldiers that Iraq is not a threat to Americans security. Oh and by the way, when was Iraq EVER a threat to American security??? When they were going to give all of their non-existant WMD's to terrotists??? Would that be AFTER they somehow decided to revamp the entire infastructure needed to construct WMDs without the US's or UN's notice?


No WMD??? They found several pairs of Saddam's boxer shorts in that hut when he was captured.


(Courtesy Dave Letterman)


Laughing Nice 1
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2005 07:27 pm
Joe Republican wrote:
Well Bill, I didn't see you try to refute any of the comparissons to the current neo-conservative administration and fascism, so an I to assume you agree with the premise???
Some are accurate. Some are not so accurate. Your idiotic comparisons to the worst fiends in history, and willingness to believe those are accurate, tells me it's beyond pointless to bother going point by point with you.

Joe Republican wrote:
And as to the DNC part, I never liked democrats. I bought into the RNCs platform until Bush took power. He has perversed and sodimized any semblance of a conservative agenda with his reckless spending, overzealous pre-emptions, and fascist policies. I once gave money and campaigned for John McCain, that was until he showed his true colors and sold out as well. There are so few moderate conservatives in the House right now, I might as well be a democrat, I get accused of it all the time anyways, just because I don't buy the bull shite all the neo-conservitives spew forth from their propaganda machines.
Dude, political parties, just like people are constantly evolving. It's time you face the fact that the parties you remember are gone and that you, my friend, are a Democrat. Not just an ordinary run of the mill Democrat either. You fall into the hyper-partisan category, which is evidenced in the majority of your posts. Don't worry; some of the finest people on earth are Democrats, so it's nothing to get to worked up in denial over.

If you're curious, I did everything in my power to get Ross Perot elected, and haven't been excited about a candidate since. I've usually voted Independent just because the Democratic and Republican candidates completely suck. This time was almost no different, but I believe we need someone stubborn enough to finish what we've started in Iraq, keep hard-lining NK and feared Kerry would pull out early, which would be IMHO, a horrible mistake with tragic consequences.

You keep blowing your hyper-partisan anti-Bush horn... and around here you'll always have plenty of company.
0 Replies
 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2005 07:51 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Joe Republican wrote:
Well Bill, I didn't see you try to refute any of the comparissons to the current neo-conservative administration and fascism, so an I to assume you agree with the premise???
Some are accurate. Some are not so accurate. Your idiotic comparisons to the worst fiends in history, and willingness to believe those are accurate, tells me it's beyond pointless to bother going point by point with you.

Posted another thread on the topic where we can discuss it further.

As for comparing us to one of the most vile fiends in history, I am comparring the economic and political aspects of fascism, not the humanitary aspect. It's convienient to ignore all the facts and focus on one single aspect when it suits your purposes huh.

Quote:

Joe Republican wrote:
And as to the DNC part, I never liked democrats. I bought into the RNCs platform until Bush took power. He has perversed and sodimized any semblance of a conservative agenda with his reckless spending, overzealous pre-emptions, and fascist policies. I once gave money and campaigned for John McCain, that was until he showed his true colors and sold out as well. There are so few moderate conservatives in the House right now, I might as well be a democrat, I get accused of it all the time anyways, just because I don't buy the bull shite all the neo-conservitives spew forth from their propaganda machines.


Dude, political parties, just like people are constantly evolving. It's time you face the fact that the parties you remember are gone and that you, my friend, are a Democrat. Not just an ordinary run of the mill Democrat either. You fall into the hyper-partisan category, which is evidenced in the majority of your posts. Don't worry; some of the finest people on earth are Democrats, so it's nothing to get to worked up in denial over.


Exactly my point, and I don't fall into the hyper-partisian democratic catagory, it's my fervent opinion on the direction this country is heading which makes me sound democratic. You see, it's people who used to believe in the old conservative ideals that are the most pronounced against Bush.

But since you are correct about parties, I guess I'm just an anti-union, gun loving, free trade, pro death penalty, pro military, fiscally frugal democrat. I guess you're telling me these are the ideals of the democrat party huh.

Quote:

If you're curious, I did everything in my power to get Ross Perot elected, and haven't been excited about a candidate since. I've usually voted Independent just because the Democratic and Republican candidates completely suck. This time was almost no different, but I believe we need someone stubborn enough to finish what we've started in Iraq, keep hard-lining NK and feared Kerry would pull out early, which would be IMHO, a horrible mistake with tragic consequences.

You keep blowing your hyper-partisan anti-Bush horn... and around here you'll always have plenty of company.


I used to feel the only way to win the war was to finish the course, unfortunately this administration has shown me nothing but failure. Failure in every aspect concerning Iraq and the so called "war on terror". They have made every single wrong turn, from Abu Ghriab, to the Apachies leading the charge in, to a very underestimated troop level needed, to the failure to convince the rest of the world of the threat Saddam posed, to the truce and subsequent pulling out of forces with Sadr, failures everywhere.

As for pulling out early, we should pull out after elections. With Bush in power we have lost almost all credibility in Iraq and because of his arrogance, we don't have a chance in hell of the UN or the rest of the world helping. If we pull out, the UN will pull in and start the rebuilding project, yet another $200 billion down the drain.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2005 08:32 pm
I don't know dude. You're still clinging to a lot of that Republican stuff, so I'm guessing you can probably return to that party at some point in the future. In the mean time, you clearly fit the Dictionary definition of Democrat. (2nd one)

Code:[B]2005 Dictionary[/B]

Main Entry: dem·o·crat
Pronunciation: 'de-m&-"krat
Function: noun
1 a : an adherent of democracy b : one who practices social equality
2 capitalized : a member of the United States Anybody-But-Bush Party.
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 02:36 am
Here's a theoretical for you, transfer Bush to be the leader of a militant, interventionist 3rd world country, say Bushstrokes. What would the rest of the world and America think of his antics? Would he and his administration be labelled merely a troublesome child or a real threat to world paece and security? Would he and his armed forces be curbed by the UN for being another crazy with big dreams?

Is it only the size of the US - not moral superiority regardless of the frame of reference of the observer - that let's him get away with this for a time?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 08:44 am
g__day wrote:
Here's a theoretical for you, transfer Bush to be the leader of a militant, interventionist 3rd world country, say Bushstrokes. What would the rest of the world and America think of his antics? Would he and his administration be labelled merely a troublesome child or a real threat to world paece and security? Would he and his armed forces be curbed by the UN for being another crazy with big dreams?

Is it only the size of the US - not moral superiority regardless of the frame of reference of the observer - that let's him get away with this for a time?
Yes. If he were the leader of an interventionist 3rd world country, his actions would be viewed as jockeying towards the Alpha position in terms of Military Prowess. A dangerous motivation, that. In the real world, this is a position that couldn't conceivably be taken away from the real Bush. Your example is nearly spot on, because Saddam very much resembled your fictional Bush, only was much worse. Problem is, the UN did little to curb Saddam's murderous actions. Saddam starved over a Million people to death while lining his pockets with Billions in grocery money (some of which he used to pay for acts of terrorism), according to the UN, that is. Idea
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 08:55 am
The UN would write many, many, many nasty letters to Mr. Bushstrokes. That's about it.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 09:00 am
Smile JustWonders
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 12:31 pm
DrewDad wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Is Jose the exception or the rule?

Doesn't matter.

You seem content that the current administration has the power to imprison someone indefinitely.

I'll pose you the same question I posed to JustWonders:

Would you feel the same way about an administration headed by Hillary Clinton?

Personally, I don't want anyone to have that power.


Doesn't matter? Sure it matters.

Jose Padilla is held up as an example of a corrupt government that infringes on people's rights. He is used to support the bankrupt notion that habeus corpus no longer matters and the "Bush regime" wants only to curtail rights in America through such actions as the Patriot act and the detention of terrorists.

It matters because Padilla has become the rallying cry of the left as though he matters.

I ask again, is Padilla the exception, or the rule?


I'll say again: doesn't matter.

If you were to rob one bank in your lifetime, I guess it would be OK? It would be the exception rather than the rule, yes?


I didn't answer this question because I thought it to be retarded. I guess I should have pointed that out earlier. My bad.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 12:58 pm
Ah, personal insults. The last resort of the bankrupt argument.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 01:03 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Ah, personal insults. The last resort of the bankrupt argument.


Hold on, let me record this elsewhere...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.91 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 02:43:01