Welcome to the BDSM Library.
  • Login:
beymenslotgir.com kalebet34.net escort bodrum bodrum escort
Results 1 to 28 of 28

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    194
    Post Thanks / Like
    ThisYouWillDo and mkemse listen up! Did you ever hear of the silent majority? You don't hear from them much but when election time comes, they knock your sox's off, like in 2000 and 2004. They are the ones who put Bush in office. They are listening to every thing you quote out of context. They are insulted by your disrespect and bad manners towards the President. They will send you back to Twilight Land. There is a disagreement as who is in Twilight Land Mr. TJ.

    If you interpret the 2006 election to a rejection of Bush's war, you read the results through dancing glasses, like dancing in the streets which Thorne and I have invented. You say: WHEN CLINTON LIED NOBODY DIED like its funny. It's not. You insult those who voted for Bush time and again. Is that what you mean to do. If that is your motive that's not very smart success or gentleman behavior. Parents of our solders who died in Iraq are hurt when you say this. Only you and your kind think its funny.

    Are you here to debate or insult your Brothers and Sisters? You and few others here sound like a broken record against Bush. Your state very few facts and know very little about reality of war.

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,311
    Post Thanks / Like

    ok

    Quote Originally Posted by wmrs2 View Post
    ThisYouWillDo and mkemse listen up! Did you ever hear of the silent majority? You don't hear from them much but when election time comes, they knock your sox's off, like in 2000 and 2004. They are the ones who put Bush in office. They are listening to every thing you quote out of context. They are insulted by your disrespect and bad manners towards the President. They will send you back to Twilight Land. There is a disagreement as who is in Twilight Land Mr. TJ.

    IN 2004 THE UNITED STATES SUPRME COURT PUT GEORGE BUSH IN OFFICE NOT THE AMERICAN ELECTORATE READ YOUR HISTORY, THIS IS FACT

    If you interpret the 2006 election to a rejection of Bush's war, you read the results through dancing glasses, like dancing in the streets which Thorne and I have invented. You say: WHEN CLINTON LIED NOBODY DIED like its funny. It's not. You insult those who voted for Bush time and again. Is that what you mean to do. If that is your motive that's not very smart success or gentleman behavior. Parents of our solders who died in Iraq are hurt when you say this. Only you and your kind think its funny.

    Are you here to debate or insult your Brothers and Sisters? You and few others here sound like a broken record against Bush. Your state very few facts and know very little about reality of war.

    Bush has broken more laws and has commid more impeachavble offenses the Richard Nixon ever did, he makes Nixon look like a Saint

    As Far as The 2006 Elections, there where Repbilcans who supported Bush for years that were voted out of Officica is Clamering for a Change
    iF THIS not true how do you explain the control shift of power in November of 2006 from the Republican Controlled House and Senate to thast of The Democrats in chagres even if in the House they only have a Majority of 1 vote not enough to override vetoes
    How do you explain then that in 2000 when Bush rain against Gore , that due to the Hanfng chad issue in Florida, the Suprmem Court Of The United Stated GAVE THE OFFICE of the Presidency To George W. Bush, this is a matter of FActual Histiry, this is the onlly time that the Unisted Staes Suprmem Court toook the decision making of the aAmerican Voters out of our hands and basicly said "We are lacing Bush in the White House" Your Votes do not count"

    Really Democracy In Action, why should me vote NO count, why should the Suprmem Court make thisdecsion and not the Electorate of the Country, that is what a Democracy is all about

    As Far A Bush and Impeahcment goes:

    President Bush has admitted that he has authorized the use of surveillance upon American citizens and residents. He has argued that he has the authority to do so, that he has balanced the need to spy on us and our civil liberties. Unfortunately, his claims do not withstand scrutiny.

    Firstly, the spying upon Americans without probable cause, due process and a warrant supported by evidence and sworn before a competent magistrate violates the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution. It is essential to the argument to understand that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not create the rights of citizens, but places our government in the position of GUARANTEEING these inherent and INALIENABLE rights. Infringing upon these rights in any manner is unlawful, unconstitutional, immoral and evil.

    The 1st Amendment guarantees our right to associate and communicate unimpeded by state and federal government. Merely communicating overseas is not grounds for monitoring, marking, flagging or otherwise recording the communications of US citizens. Current law allows for the presentation of evidence of criminal or terrorist activities as probable cause to issue a wiretap order. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for this administration to circumvent the rights guaranteed by this amendment.

    The 4th Amendment guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. The US courts have held that a wiretap is an unreasonable search unless it is executed upon a valid warrant. The US congress has held such as being so unreasonable that it has passed the following laws that guarantee limits upon the execution of surveillance, investigation and record keeping by use of communication, telecommunication and records (including dossiers and case files):

    - The Telecommunications Privacy Act of 1984 (TPA)
    - The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
    (ECPA)
    - The Privacy Act of 1974
    - The Wire And Electronic Communications Interception
    And Interception Of Oral Communications
    - The Wireless Telecommunications Privacy Act of 2000
    - The Freedom of Information Act


    So, not only has Mr. Bush violated the Constitution, his oath or office, but also (at a minimum) six federal laws. In so doing, he has violated his duties and obligations as the chief executive officer of this great nation and should be impeached. However, like his father before him, George W. Bush has wrapped himself in a cloak of patriotism, protectionism and fascism in the name of national interests and security.

    He has lied, misled and/or relied upon inappropriate intelligence DATA to engage in an improper invasion of a sovereign nation, violated the UN Charter (which is part and parcel of our Constitution by law), has circumvented our fundamental rights, and portrays himself as our great protector. Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Khomeini, the Saudi Royal Family and the Taliban all made the same claims of protection, but even Mr. Bush has recognized their actions as contrary to fundamental liberties, democracy and basic human rights.

    The 5th Amendment guarantees the right of due process. The acts of spying on American citizens and residents without application, review, approval and issuance of a warrant is, without a doubt, a complete negation and circumvention of due process. There can be no excuse for such an end-run around due process. Such circumvention of due process is a breach of the highest magnitude of our fundamental liberties.

    The 9th Amendment limits all members of government, including the president, from exceeding the powers and authority provided by the Constitution. These limits include any and all efforts to usurp, circumvent and/or by-pass the rights of US citizens and residents. The 9th Amendment specifically reserves all rights not specifically assigned elsewhere to the state governments and the PEOPLE. Mr. Bush's claims that he has authority to spy upon US citizens and residents by virtue of an executive order betrays his "anything I want to do" agenda and his fascist demeanor.

    The 14th Amendment, in the first section, applies all federal protections and obligations under the Constitution to state governments (equal protection) and specifically reasserts the obligation of due process.

    It is unconscionable that anyone holding the highest political office of our nation would cast aside so many provisions of our Constitution, especially those that were specifically included by amending the original structure to prevent autocratic and/or authoritarian abuses.

    Violation of our Constitution is treason. It is so not only in principle, but also by the words of the oath taken by each officer of the government, military and high office. The oath of office includes specific regard for defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. Once again, George W. Bush has violated that oath, violated the Constitution, violated federal laws, and made himself an enemy of freedom and civil rights. Mr. Bush should resign in shame and disgrace. In the alternative, our House of Representatives should bring about an immediate impeachment proceeding, and the Senate should convict. Should Mr. Bush not resign, and should congress fail to impeach and convict, then we should rise up against such abuses even to the point of militant overthrow of the current administration.

    Mr. Bush has offered lame excuses, ridicule and denial as his only defense for his actions. He expects us to trust him. But his record of hypocrisy provides categorical evidence that he cannot be trusted. While he is advocating for liberty, freedom and democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, he is eroding and usurping civil liberties here in the US the supposed bedrock of freedom in our world. We cannot be advocating for freedom elsewhere while aborting freedom here. We cannot be advocating freedom and liberty in Iraq, under extreme lack of security, while we abandon liberties here in the name of security. But that is the hypocrisy that Mr. Bush is shoveling upon us.

    Mr. Bush has appealed for us to trust his judgment regarding the protection of our civil liberties. Our fundamental form of government does not call for such trust because our forefathers and framers knew that men, left unchecked and balanced, are subject to corruption of power. It is exactly because of the corrupting nature of power that our government was built upon a system of checks and balances, of guaranteed rights and liberties, and of due process.

    Mr. Bush's judgment has removed many of the checks and balances, deliberately set aside the guaranteed rights, and ignored due process. He has done so not only by spying upon us, but also by circumventing the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, denying prisoners access to fundamental legal representations, invading a country without legal right, using a process of "rendition" to circumvent rules against torture, advocating for torture as a tool of interrogation, and well, we can't really be sure of what else, can we?

    While Mr. Bush proclaims his religious fervor, his actions are anything but moral by any standard, not even the Christianity he professes. He proclaims that he understands his role, but does not act within the scope and limits of that role. He makes excuses and expects us to live with his breach of office, law and trust. We cannot trust Mr. Bush or anyone in his inner circle.

    Beyond the fact that we cannot trust Mr. Bush is his admission (finally) that he relied upon poor intelligence to bring us into the invasion of Iraq. It was his job to make sure that the intelligence he received was accurate to the highest degree. The facts are in we know that Mr. Bush pushed an agenda of invasion despite being advised that the intelligence he used was suspect and potentially useless.

    Several agencies and foreign sources provided this feedback to his administration. We are thusly faced with the reality that either Mr. Bush, and his entire administration, and the entire intelligence infrastructure, is completely incompetent, or that Mr. Bush and others conspired to push forward an agenda of war mongering to meet their own needs and desires.

    It is unfathomable that the entire intelligence infrastructure universally failed. It is unbelievable that there was no voice of reason among all the leaders advising Mr. Bush So we can only conclude that Mr. Bush is an outright liar and pushed his agenda regardless of the dangers for our nation, the dangers of war, and the tragedies of our losses.

    Bush lied and our troops have died.
    Bush lied and his administration spied.
    Bush lied and our liberties were denied.
    Bush lied and freedoms were circumscribed.
    Bush lied and our laws he did not abide.
    Face it Bush does nothing without having first lied.

    On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau: They reported that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans without warrants, ignoring the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

    It was a long story loaded with astonishing information of lawbreaking at the White House. It reported that sometime in 2002, Bush issued an executive order authorizing NSA to track and intercept international telephone and/or email exchanges coming into, or out of, the U.S. - when one party was believed to have direct or indirect ties with al Qaeda.



    Initially, Bush and the White House stonewalled, neither confirming nor denying the president had ignored the law. Bush refused to discuss it in his interview with Jim Lehrer.

    Then, on Saturday, December 17, in his radio broadcast, Bush admitted that the New York Times was correct - and thus conceded he had committed an impeachable offense.

    There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.

    These parallel violations underscore the continuing, disturbing parallels between this Administration and the Nixon Administration - parallels I also discussed in a prior column.

    Indeed, here, Bush may have outdone Nixon: Nixon's illegal surveillance was limited; Bush's, it is developing, may be extraordinarily broad in scope. First reports indicated that NSA was only monitoring foreign calls, originating either in the USA or abroad, and that no more than 500 calls were being covered at any given time. But later reports have suggested that NSA is "data mining" literally millions of calls - and has been given access by the telecommunications companies to "switching" stations through which foreign communications traffic flows.

    In sum, this is big-time, Big Brother electronic surveillance.

    Given the national security implications of the story, the Times said they had been sitting on it for a year. And now that it has broken, Bush has ordered a criminal investigation into the source of the leak. He suggests that those who might have felt confidence they would not be spied on, now can have no such confidence, so they may find other methods of communicating. Other than encryption and code, it is difficult to envision how

    Bush Misled America about the Threat from Iraq
    See also this analysis of the fraud by retired federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega.

    Why did we invade Iraq? Was it because, as the White House claimed, Saddam Hussein was an immediate and serious threat to America. Or did Bush mislead the public, the Congress and the UN by consistently overstating this threat.

    Bush claims he was forced to to invade Iraq as a last resort. But Bush wanted to invade Iraq from the very beginning of his presidency. Many of his team came from the PNAC, a thinktank which urged the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and pointed out the need for a "new Pearl Harbor". “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Ron Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

    This is not a situation where Bush said ten things and one of them was wrong. Basically everything Bush said about the threat from Iraq was false. He had no solid evidence of any threat but still led us into this deadly and costly war. Here are the main lies about the threat from Iraq given by Bush and Cheney:

    Lie #1 - Uranium from Niger - Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." in his State of the Union Address. The documents supporting that statement were forged.
    Lie #2 - Iraq and 9/11 - Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speeches. This was so effective that at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush has since admitted that this was not true.
    Lie #3 - Congress Knew - Bush has stated that Congress had access to all the same information that the White House had. Thus he should not be blamed for making the mistake of going to war. But Bush was briefed many times about the falsehood of various stories and this information never reached Congress. [ZNet]
    Lie #4 - Aluminum Tubes - Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell said that some aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to buy were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches. [NYTimes] [MotherJones] [CNN]
    Lie #5 - Iraq and Al Qaeda - Bush still insists that there was a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But the 9/11 Commission released a report saying, among other things, that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The nature of the relationship seems to be that Al Qaeda asked for help and Iraq refused. Al Qaeda was opposed to Saddam Hussein because Saddam led a secular government instead of an Islamic government. [ZNet] [CNN] On 9/8/06 a Senate panel reported there was no relationship. [ABC]
    Lie #6 - Weapons of Mass Destruction - Bush insisted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction but his "evidence" consisted mostly of forged documents, plagiarized student papers, and vague satellite photos. The United Nations was on the ground in Iraq and could find nothing. After extensive searches Bush was finally forced to admit that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
    Lie #7 - Mobile Weapons Labs - Bush and his team repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed mobile weapons labs capable of producing anthrax. Colin Powell showed diagrams of them at his speech before the UN to justify invading Iraq. These claims originated from Curveball, a discredited Iraqi informer who fed Bush many of the stories related to WMD. On May 29, 2003, two small trailers matching the description were found in Iraq. A team of bio-weapons experts examined the trailers and concluded they were simply designed to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. But, for over a year, Bush claimed these were part of Iraq's bio-weapons program. The expert's report was suppressed and only recently made public. [WashPost] [ABC]
    Bush wanted so much to convince people of the need to invade Iraq that the White House set up a secret team in the Pentagon to create evidence. The Office of Special Plans routinely rewrote the CIA's intelligence estimates on Iraq's weapons programs, removing caveats such as "likely," "probably" and "may" as a way of depicting the country as an imminent threat. They also used unreliable sources to create reports that ultimately proved to be false. [Mother Jones] [New Yorker] [Wikipedia]

    By lying to Congress, Bush violated US Laws related to Fraud and False Statements, Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001 and Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371.



    just a slight over view of Bush's Impeachable offenses, if you care for more feel free to ask

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Back to top