Bush on the lack of WMDs- "what's the difference?" NSR

[Dexter Rutecki]

Blurred: Still a dumbfuck, still proud.
The article points out that NO Scuds were fired, something which everyone eventually admitted, but only after they had gotten idiots like you to believe otherwise.
Now do you understand?
Maybe now that you're done with me, you can do everyone else the same favor.

[dipstik]

like this here plane, this thread is going nowhere, fast.

http://www.hypocrites.com/pictures/misc/airplane.jpg

[Blurred Elevens]

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
Blurred: Still a dumbfuck, still proud.
The article points out that NO Scuds were fired, something which everyone eventually admitted, but only after they had gotten idiots like you to believe otherwise.
Now do you understand?
Maybe now that you're done with me, you can do everyone else the same favor.

My point was discrediting your extreme left-wing slanted article, pointing out that Powell obviously did'nt know what the fuck he was talking about when he said that Iraq possessed no conventional weapons. Your article used his quotes for a foundation.

Your latest source pointed out that it was confirmed that Saddam not only possessed, but fired CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS, that he was supposedly not possessing, which were banned in the 1991 disarmament agreement. Get off the whole Scud thing, your article doesn't prove it any way. The point I've made and stood by is still there.

You might be the dumbest fucking idiot I've ever debated with. I think I've met 2 year olds that can keep up better than you. No need to respond, you're now on ignore for being a complete fucktard, that can't even follow an argument, let alone understand one. Do society a favor, and don't reproduce, there's enough ignorance and imbreds in the world. Good luck at the special olympics, and tell your sister(your girlfriend) that I said hello. *ignore*

[splat]

Originally posted by two_planks
People vote for politicians not corporations, unless something has changed since I moved to Canada. Corporations may help fund the campaign of politicians but when it comes down to it the people vote for them and the people have the choice to vote a person back in to office or not.

[/hijack]I'm done talking about this shit, I thought this was a skiing board. If I wanted politics I would go some where else. Besides I'm just a redneck landscaper and I wouldn't know any thing about politics and such.

So who got some today. I wish i did, but Friday I'm gonna get me some[/hijack]

I'm not trying to argue with you, two_planks, but feel compelled to debate this issue, as it's a hot button with me. I went to college to be a political investigative journalist and ended up hating the political system (mostly the people involved) so much after three years, I bailed. My point, however, is that with all the money donated by special interests, people who vote are often swayed with misinformation, deceit, glossy paid advertisements, and corporate-funded subliminal PR that is scientifically formulated to leave the wrong impressions about the wrong politicians. That is how elections are bought. Never underestimate the power of PR. And now I, too, am done.

[two_planks]

Originally posted by splat
I'm not trying to argue with you, two_planks, but feel compelled to debate this issue, as it's a hot button with me. I went to college to be a political investigative journalist and ended up hating the political system (mostly the people involved) so much after three years, I bailed. My point, however, is that with all the money donated by special interests, people who vote are often swayed with misinformation, deceit, glossy paid advertisements, and corporate-funded subliminal PR that is scientifically formulated to leave the wrong impressions about the wrong politicians. That is how elections are bought. Never underestimate the power of PR. And now I, too, am done.

point taken

[laseranimal]

before this thread goes completely to shit i'd like to put in my two cents to refute tippster's bush vs clinton's lies

If clinton simply had gotten a blow job from monica it would have been one thing. But here is the issue for me. When Clinton was being investigated by a grand jury he testified UNDER OATH that he had not had sexual relations with Monica. That was a lie, but heres the problem, when you lie under oath it becomes perjury, which is a VERY serious crime, and of ALL people, being a former law school grad CLINTON should know that. As the president is the head of the Executive branch of the government he is responsible for upholding and exicuting the laws of America. If the president perjures himself he has now moved himself outside and above the laws that he is sworn by his oath of office to uphold and protect. Clinton knew if he admitted he lied under oath that he could be disbarred and subject to criminal charges so he stonewalled. I know I'm in the minority of republicans here but I would have been satisfied with a simple "i did it, i screwed up, i'm sorry, i wanna go back to work now" thats all I needed. I don't need to crucify someone for a stupid mistake

Lets take our good friend W now, if we follow Clintons example of using the "executive privledge" out to the enth degree of radicalism a case which probably would never happen but hey why not for shits and giggles............

Lets say W wanted to get rid of the third amendment(one of my favorites and a OHHH so hot button political issue ) He COULD simply declare that executive privledge allows him to waive the third amendment during the already existing war on terror because in case of a terrorist act we want to have soldiers who are ready and deployable anywhere in the country in a short time and BLAMMO we all have soldiers living in our houses again

or should Mr Dean roll into office and declare that well I'm just going to forget about enforcing the provisions of the
17th amendment, vermont, colorado, washington, oregon and Utah can have 5 senators, everybody else only gets one except for alaska because I'm apointing Owens Never Sleeps to be head dictator in charge and no one will need representation there because he does such a fantastic job! Sure the supreme court can declare what I'm doing to be unconstitutional but HEY I get to enforce the LAWS and therefore I get to pick which ones get enforced because thats MY executive privilage!! Congress can try to impeach me but they can't remove me because I've got control of the millitary and the police! hahhahahahhaa

True these are examples from someone who smoked crack and then posted but the scary thing is it could happen with the right people in the right places. I mean who's to stop Bush from simply running for a third fourth or fifth term?? He's got the court and the legislature in his back pocket and the millitary seems to like him. Wouldn't it be funny if Clintons blowjob lead to Emperor Bush?

[Schmear]

Hey! Just got back online and thoroughly enjoyed this entire thread, even the name calling. You just don't hear the word "fucktard" enough. To those who bemoan political discussions on a skiing web site, I say lighten up. We may ski to escape our problems, but skiing still takes place in the real world with its real fractures, not in some fantasy land. I'd rather read a heated debate among skiers than among any other demographic.


Also,

Originally posted by slim
/hijack

I love how the backing out of the Kyoto treaty is widely regarded as a conservative effort. The U.S. Senate voted against it 99-0-1. It doesn't get more unanimous than that. Furthermore, to discount the validity of scientific data and the effect that it would have on the U.S. simply to make nice with other countries is absurd.
/hijack off

Hey slim, I wasn't saying it was right or wrong to back out of the treaty, only that the way in which the U.S. did it was bound to piss everyone off. It's more of a PR issue--how our government relates to the rest of the world. Whether Kyoto is a legitimate treaty or not, I truly do not know. But our disassociation from it could have been handled much better, much like our dealings with the UN leading up to this war.

[Buster Highmen]

Originally posted by Blurred Elevens
If innocent before guilty is a cornerstone, than that corner fell off a LONG time ago. Alledged(sp?) is the most used word in the courts today. You go to jail for when not proven guilty, and if your found guilty, you just stay there. If found innocent, you are released, but were jailed for no reason in the first place. It's a crock.

One can go to jail to await a trial, but one is not guilty until so judged. Until guilty, one can post bail, unless one is in Guantanamo Bay under Patriot Act provisions.
That cornerstone hasn't fallen off until people believe it is not important. It's an important distinction of process.
The analogy is evidently lost.
It's an issue that I would hope cross all political lines and all real Americans will stand up against.

[Blurred Elevens]

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
One can go to jail to await a trial, but one is not guilty until so judged. Until guilty, one can post bail, unless one is in Guantanamo Bay under Patriot Act provisions.
That cornerstone hasn't fallen off until people believe it is not important. It's an important distinction of process.
The analogy is evidently lost.
It's an issue that I would hope cross all political lines and all real Americans will stand up against.

Your point is clear, but I still think it's crap that you would sit in jail to "await trial". Especially when credit is given for time served....that's quite the contradiction.

Also, if you can't afford the million dollars bail, and someone else can, does that mean this innocent until proven guilty only applies to a select few?

[Schmear]

I always wondered how bail amounts were determined.


http://www.bailbonding.info/faq.htm#...t%20determined

How is bail set? / How is a bail amount determined?

A judge or magistrate, generally during the defendant's initial appearance (which, depending on the jurisdiction, may occur as the arraignment, initial appearance, preliminary initial appearance, or probable cause hearing), sets the bail amount. Sometimes bail is set in accordance with a specific bail schedule that is determined by a board of judges, but the judicial officer setting bail has some discretion to consider case details. Generally, when a bail achedule is used, a defendant is able to arrange bail much more quickly and avoid waiting in jail for his or her first appearance.

When judicial discretion is used in setting the bail amount, the judge or magistrate may consider the circumstances of the offense, the defendant's ability to make bail, the defendant's prior criminal history (including any previous failures to appear), the defendant's residence and employment stabillity, and/or the recommendation of the prosecutor or a pretrial services agency. As might be expected, bail in felony cases is usually higher than bail in misdemeanor cases.

Because bail setting decisions generally must balance assurance that the defendant will appear in court with concerns for public safety, case specifics may lead a judicial officer may set a high bail or even deny bail.

[Tippster]

Originally posted by laseranimal
... When Clinton was being investigated by a grand jury he testified UNDER OATH that he had not had sexual relations with Monica. That was a lie, but heres the problem, when you lie under oath it becomes perjury, which is a VERY serious crime, and of ALL people, being a former law school grad CLINTON should know that...Blahblahblah

Mon Frere... please remember your recent history.

"I did NOT have sexual Relations with that woman." (Clinton Finger-pointing & biting lip, etc.)

This was not uttered in a court of law, nor under any oath other than "...to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution..."

It was said on Live TV. The Peoples court. And he was found guilty as sin.

Folks keep bringing up the fact that adultery is a crime in certain Jurisdictions (not in DC, BTW.)

So is gambling and prostitution. No, they ain't god-fearin', but you don't go to the pokey for playing the cards or dice in Vegas, either.

The underlying... nay, crucial point is they BOTH lied. My problem is this lie of W's is killing Americans on a daily basis. For NO GOOD REASON. Are all a$$hole dictators on the planet next? Look out, Sudan... we're comin' at ya!

[Jumper Bones]

Originally posted by Chronic
I hesitate to add to one of these right v. left political threads but...

I initially thought Saddam had WMDs - not because Dubya said so, but because of Saddam's actions. Like Blurred, I thought that he must have them if he's kicking inspectors out of the country, placing all these restrictions on them, etc. Then, several months ago, I heard a pretty convincing argument that Saddam didn't have WMD's at the time we invaded. It was important for Saddam to maintain his prestige as a tough guy in the Arab world, and intimidate his neighbors and possessing WMDs was a great way to do this. But he also had to deal with the UN resolutions and U.S. scrutiny to eliminate all WMDs. So, he walked a fine line, bluffing and dodging to make it appear that he might have WMDs, when in fact all of them had been destroyed. He never thought the U.S. would invade - and that miscalculation cost him everything. And I believe that our intelligence agencies knew this.

I think that if Iraq in fact had WMDs, we would have found something by now.

Leaving aside the debate on whether this Iraq adventure is ultimately good or bad for the U.S., I believe the U.S. government knowingly misled the American people when they claimed Iraq had WMDs.

that's a very good viewpoint, chronic...you really do have to look at the cultural differences to understand the total situation. This was really well written, and is an example of how others should contribute to this collective. Zealotist flame wars are NOT healthy.

at least this guy was rational, instead of blinded by hate like some of you here are.

and to the haters...you fucking whine about the deaths more than anyone I've heard, and it's not YOUR asses on the line over there. My friends, when they find out that Iraq's where they're going, whine less about it than you do. Even the pros I work with (aircrew) who consistently go in and out of that area, getting shot at every time. We even had a plane hit last week, almost knocked out of the sky - had the RPG hit 10 feet closer it, there would have been a lot of dead instead of two engines destroyed. Mellow out, and quit using our sacrifices as a chance to further your political agenda. Approach these things logically, dammit.

[Ireallyliketoski2]

Originally posted by Jetter
that's a very good viewpoint, chronic...you really do have to look at the cultural differences to understand the total situation. This was really well written, and is an example of how others should contribute to this collective. Zealotist flame wars are NOT healthy.

at least this guy was rational, instead of blinded by hate like some of you here are.

and to the haters...you fucking whine about the deaths more than anyone I've heard, and it's not YOUR asses on the line over there. My friends, when they find out that Iraq's where they're going, whine less about it than you do. Even the pros I work with (aircrew) who consistently go in and out of that area, getting shot at every time. We even had a plane hit last week, almost knocked out of the sky - had the RPG hit 10 feet closer it, there would have been a lot of dead instead of two engines destroyed. Mellow out, and quit using our sacrifices as a chance to further your political agenda. Approach these things logically, dammit.

That's a great point, the cultural differences are huge. There was a program on pbs the other day paralleling the rebuilding of Germany after WW2 with the rebuilding of Iraq, and how it was 10 years after the end of WW2 when West Germany had it's first publicly elected prime minister but they failed to touch on the fact that Germany is a Judeo-Christian Westernized culture where as Iraq is an Islamic-Muslim culture. This could be perhaps the biggest hurdle to face, do the Iraqi's want to be modeled after a western style democracy?

[Dexter Rutecki]

OK, I admit it, those of you who suggested this to me three pages ago were right.

Blurred Elevens
12-18-2003 06:03 AM This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]

[Blurred Elevens]

I have referenced alot of folks to this thread lately, if anything so I don't have to keep repeating myself.
This was a better discussion than that other political thread anyhow.

[Blurred Elevens]

bump for the dump