a piece of paper

Kotario said:
Is there any proof?

Depends on how reliable you think Doug Thompson is. His reputation IS less than sterling.

But, considering the other reports leaking out of the White House about "W", and even his own actions, I think it creditable.
 
And the shit is really starting to become guillotine bait right about now...

"A goddamned piece of paper?" Then enjoy the distinction of being "a goddamned waste of a leader" that obviously didn't learn one of the finer points of the French Revolution - the leadership can and will change, and even the king can lose his head. The oligarchy can be collected and chopped together.

The funny thing is, Bush isn't even a king, despite wanting to be one. So now that he has violated his oath of office, I personally will shrug if someone does decide to impeach him, via senate or 7.62 round, because I frankly think he's more than earned it with his abuse of office at the expense of US lives. ALL US soldiers swear to uphold and protect the Constitution, from enemies foreign and domestic, often multiple times over.

Does "enemies" include our own president, who sends troops to their deaths over fraudulent reasons while undermining the Constitution? Literally, it does, in this situation. The same president who similarly had to swear to uphold the Constitution, yet has done everything but that using excuses that involve US citizen lives.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

So now with quite a few of our patriots dead, can we get a few of our elected tyrants to bleed for our behalf, now, or are we supposed to be continually and massively economically bled out for their continued profit?

"Our liberty depends upon the freedom of the press."

Speaking of which...
We see where many of those "great stories" in Iraq come from, cordially bought and paid for by the US military. So much for instilling "democracy" in Iraq when it only means the right to vote. Voting just possibly changes the current jackass in office, it doesn't provide for freedoms at all. As the Bush and Saddam "elections" in 2001 and 2002 have proven, except that Saddam beat out Bush with "100% of votes" in his country. ;)
 
Heh. How is a country supposed to bring "democracy" to the world if it can't even uphold its own one?

I don't know if anybody in the US discusses it, but as SOME people might know there are some "allegations" about the CIA having several "secret" prison camps in "New Europe" and abducting European citizens (in addition to Americans, etc) to torture and interrogate them there.

The funniest part about these "allegations" is that the US administration has evaded actually neglecting them and the only thing Condo "Pitbull" Rice has said about it is that she won't publically talk about CIA operations and that "if errors have been made" the US will try to fix them (which has been interpreted by the German chanceloress as an excuse until the US officials hastily pointed out that it isn't -- I guess the US just doesn't make mistakes).

CIA operations. She didn't even call them allegations. She was asked about possible violations of international agreements and the UN human rights that have been implemented throughout the EU. If not being able to talk about CIA operations is the only reason she can't talk about the allegations, she's basically confirming them.

The whole mess is being investigated now.

I'd hope that if such allegations were made about MY country's intelligence agency and the government would refuse to say or do anything about it, let alone support investigations, the people would be on the streets.
This is not about arresting wanted criminals and imprisoning them, this is about abducting citizens out of sheer suspicion in disregard of local, national and international laws, putting them in prison camps ala Guantanamo for an extended period of time and torturing them in order to get information of questionable quality (tortures were banned throughout the past century not only because they violate human rights, but also because it is proven that people will eventually say ANYTHING if you torture them long enough) from them.

True or not, these allegations are outrageous. It should be the foremost priority to disprove them if they aren't true -- and the US administration doesn't seem to give a fuck.
Way to go.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

This guy is his own parody. Amazing.
 
Ashmo said:
I'd hope that if such allegations were made about MY country's intelligence agency and the government would refuse to say or do anything about it, let alone support investigations, the people would be on the streets.

The problem with the US is the oversaturation of media. Unless something has a personal interest to someone, and unless they are educated about the subject, then the event is just one of many in a weekly deluge of human stupidity. The news is less news lately and more about human tragedy and stupidity, so therefore many people also ignore many news reports as well unless it conforms to a pre-packaged view with brand-name supporters. Moral and political standpoints are pretty much treated like "Coke vs. Pepsi" here in the US, and that there only can be two political parties.
 
I'd just like to say that Rosh's first post was a damn fine little rant.


Wouldn't it be great to see the guillotine make a comeback? It made such a GREAT sound.
 
'eh, I don't trust George W. Bush, but neither do I trust Doug Thompson. Anyone can start a rumor, after all (or a full-fledged campaign to discredit someone, a sin we know the Republicans are guilty of).

I'd rather complain about something which I'm at least mostly positive actually happened, rather than something which I have significant doubts about. It's hardly as if there is a shortage of material.
 
Well I kind of like his attitude. I mean really.

If you are a true leader (he?s not a good one...) you do what is best and not what the papers tell you. In this situation he?s wrong , but if it could be something else/someone else.

He truly tries to lead his country (he?s doing a fine mess of it and stupid, but he still leads) and he doesn?t give a fuck about some papers or regulations (still papers, they might be laws or diabolical regulations of car tuning).

He?s got balls. Shame he doesn?t have a brain.

- "he" started a war (THAT IS A MAJOR WOAH! On a political level)
- ?It?s just a goddamned piece of paper!? Also a major WOAH on a political level
________
Teen Vid
 
You just said that someone without brains or morals or ethics can be a good leader by using his balls to muscle people into doing the things he wants.


No fucking way.
 
frissy said:
Well I kind of like his attitude. I mean really.

If you are a true leader (he´s not a good one...) you do what is best and not what the papers tell you. In this situation he´s wrong , but if it could be something else/someone else.

He truly tries to lead his country (he´s doing a fine mess of it and stupid, but he still leads) and he doesn´t give a fuck about some papers or regulations (still papers, they might be laws or diabolical regulations of car tuning).

He´s got balls. Shame he doesn´t have a brain.

- "he" started a war (THAT IS A MAJOR WOAH! On a political level)
- “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” Also a major WOAH on a political level

Ummm... you do realize the piece of paper in question is only the basis for all law in the US?
 
If you are a true leader (he´s not a good one...) you do what is best and not what the papers tell you.

Who the hell is he to decide what's better than everything that's been set in place by the constitution? If he truly said that, he is undermining a 200 plus year legacy of what has made this country. People must understand that the largest reason the U.S. has been able to maintain such a level of liberty and individual freedom is due to our respectful adherence (at least in principle) to the constitution. Bush is not above the constitution, and even if his statement wasn't regarding something as obviously wrong as the Patriot Act, he'd still not be doing "what is best".

If Bush really believes the constitution is just a "goddammed piece of paper," he is capable of any attack against it. If this is confirmed, I would think it's grounds for impeachment.
 
frissy said:
If you are a true leader (he´s not a good one...) you do what is best and not what the papers tell you. In this situation he´s wrong , but if it could be something else/someone else.
A prudent attitude. I'm sure Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Kruschev, Brezhnyev, Pol Pot, Mao and a whole slew of tyrants would agree with you 100%.
 
Frissy said:
If you are a true leader (he´s not a good one...) you do what is best and not what the papers tell you. In this situation he´s wrong , but if it could be something else/someone else.

What the fuck is a "true leader"? Someone intended to drive masses of individuals to some goal, potentially against their own will, because of an artificial higher status?

Blaegh.

If you want to be driven like a sheep, expect to be sheared regularly. And eventually slaughtered, for the benefit of the Fuhrer.
 
People need leaders, especially of the most powerful country in the history of the world. There's a reason the Executive has grown in power so much over the last 230 years, Wooz.

I'm no fan of Bush, but suggesting that an assassination would make the situation better is utter idiocy. Revolutions very, very, very rarley do anything other then create reactionaries and radicals.
 
John Uskglass said:
I'm no fan of Bush, but suggesting that an assassination would make the situation better is utter idiocy.

You are right, Cheney would have to be similarly impeached for any real benefit to occur, as he's a good portion of the problem.

If not the USA, then what?

The British Empire, for controlling a substantial portion of more continents than you have ever been on. :D Comparatively, China has been a substantial power long before the US existed, and at a time when the British Empire was still pretty much an island and Brittany. So which quantification do you want for "most powerful", the one that owned more continents, or the one that has had regional influence with a state alone much larger than the entirety of old Europe and for more centuries than either the British Empire or the US put together?
 
John Uskglass said:
There's a reason the Executive has grown in power so much over the last 230 years, Wooz.

Oh yes, because that logic really worked well for the Nazis.

It always comes down to the Nazis.

Seriously, John, your above statement is a slap in the face of everything the US represents and fought to preserve. You should feel ashamed of yourself as a citizen of a (once-)proud nation.
 
Back
Top