Page 3 of 5 <12345>
Topic Options
#39397 - 06/18/10 07:35 PM Re: JFK [Re: Fnord]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 860
Loc: Nashville
What bothers me most about Bush was his decision to invade Iraq. I understand that Saddam Hussein had kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors numerous times and that action of some sort needed to be taken against him. I just wish Bush had used that rationale instead of his half-baked argument that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Finding no WMDís made Bush look inept at best, deceptive at worst and strained U.S. credibility with the rest of the world.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#39413 - 06/19/10 09:20 AM Re: JFK [Re: William Wright]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
OK, two cents in no particular order:

WMDs were the excuse to invade Iraq not the reason.

America has practiced a Pax Americana doctrine since about the end of the US Civil War.

Every POTUS since Kennedy has learned to play ball.

Obama was not elected by the people but rather installed in office. It is worth noting that since being elected he has done nothing that he said he would. His goal has been pretty much the same as the rest of these asshats - consolidated Federal power, crony capitalism, and multi-generational warfare. In other words, he has continued to use Prison Planet doctrine to advance the Reptilian Agenda.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#39418 - 06/19/10 10:55 AM Re: JFK [Re: Fist]
mmatraus Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/14/09
Posts: 13
Loc: Tennessee
Basically a continuation of the two party dictatorship we have not enjoyed for many many years as a people. I love the "installed" concept as compared to my "elected by four men" concept. It is ironic how the "same ole same ole" concept can be used in so many forms come each new election although it leads to same ole screwing of the American people all in the same form and fashion although I feel it is worse then it ever was.
Top
#39419 - 06/19/10 11:14 AM Re: JFK [Re: Fist]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Fist

Every POTUS since Kennedy has learned to play ball.


Or has agreed to play ball before ever getting on the ballot and becoming a 'choice'.

I share your point of view on this, excellent post.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#39423 - 06/19/10 11:16 PM Re: Sham Election? [Re: Fist]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 860
Loc: Nashville
Fist, please explain your statement that Obama was not elected but installed. He didnít become president because 53% of Americans who voted in the 2008 presidential election voted for him? What about the 365 electoral votes? How exactly was he installed?
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#39447 - 06/21/10 04:43 AM Re: Sham Election? [Re: William Wright]
mmatraus Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/14/09
Posts: 13
Loc: Tennessee
Obana was not the choice of the majority of the people to be on the ballot for being elected as president Hillary Clinton was. He has shown no prove of citizenship and should not have legally been put on the ballot to be elected as president so therefore he should not be president at all.
He was put of the ballot against the will of the people by a few so called super delegates and if that is not being "installed" I don't know what is. It is the way dictators are "installed" in other countries. It should not happen in America so called the land of the free.

Top
#39450 - 06/21/10 08:04 AM Re: Sham Election? [Re: mmatraus]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
Does every candidate for the US Presidency have to show prove of citizenship prior to standing or before they are sworn in? To whom do they have to show this? What evidence is there that this was not done?
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#39453 - 06/21/10 09:34 AM Re: Sham Election? [Re: felixgarnet]
mmatraus Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/14/09
Posts: 13
Loc: Tennessee
As to who they show it to I am not sure but the law does state that you must be a citiczen of the United States to become it"s president. If not any person wanting to be president from any country for any reason could come here and be president. Does that make any sense to you and could anyone from the U.S. go to any other country and become their president. I think not.
Top
#39460 - 06/21/10 01:59 PM Re: Sham Election? [Re: mmatraus]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
Well it makes some sense to me. Surely, though anyone (in theory) could go to America from another country, become a citizen and run for President? Would they not have a Consititutional right to do so? Or are you saying only people born in the United States are acceptable?
In the UK, anyone with UK citizenship (which includes many born in the US) can become a Member of Parliament and may be elected as prime Minister.
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#39461 - 06/21/10 02:22 PM Re: Sham Election? [Re: felixgarnet]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
No, Felix. The Presidency is reserved for naturally born citizens of the US, that is, born on US soil. This is extended to include the children of personnel serving overseas in support of the United States, such as diplomats or US servicemen/women stationed outside or the United States. It's even been considered by NASA that at some point, a child will be born in space (really it's a necessity at some point because we just don't know if the biology will work in space yet, and it could well come into play on loooooong missions in the future) and it's been decided that a child born on a US flag carrying space craft OR on a US colonized area will be considered a naturally born US citizen, thus making them eligible for election to the Presidency.

A case where a foreign born but naturalized citizen in politics is not eligible can be seen in the case of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California. Born in Austria, be became a US citizen through naturalization and was elected to be Governor of the State of Califorina. There is no requirement for a Governor, Representative of the House of Representatives or a Senator to be born in the US, so one can be elected and serve. However, even though they are in the political system and serving the US, they cannot become President.

*** EDIT: Also in the case of a person on a spacecraft owned and operated by the US, they would retain citizenship of their respective countries with all the rights and privileges of that sovereign nation.


Edited by Jake999 (06/21/10 02:28 PM)
Edit Reason: EDIT added
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#39462 - 06/21/10 03:44 PM Re: Sham Election? [Re: Jake999]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
Thanks, Jake! Very informative and a political issue I had never heard of until today. Neither did I know of people doubting Obama's right to serve as President. Wasn't he born in Hawaii or did I imagine that from the TV or Google or something? \:\)
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#39463 - 06/21/10 04:01 PM Re: Sham Election? [Re: felixgarnet]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Yeah... it's pretty much a red herring issue, but people still want to play games with it. Guess it beats actually getting out and doing something.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#39551 - 06/25/10 06:12 AM Re: JFK [Re: Fnord]
Knievel74 Offline
member


Registered: 05/18/10
Posts: 147
Loc: NY
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
 Originally Posted By: Knievel74
I'm not an Obama supporter or detractor. My only opinion is, how can ANYBODY get this country back on track after only being in the White House for just over 17 months after an incompetent schmuck like Bush spent 8 YEARS flushing it down the toilet?

Because of Bush this country is morally, spiritually and financially bankrupt.

Because of Bush, Obama is trying to put out a forest fire with a spray bottle.


I suppose actually backing up exactly HOW Bush single handedly ruined this country is going to prove too much for this thread. You're the second one in this thread to bring the unsupported hyperbole despite my asking for specific examples on page one.

Maybe you have something to teach. Honestly, I'd love to hear it. Please supply specific examples of exactly and precisely how Bush was such a horrible president based upon his specific acts.


Ok. Here are some facts:

1) Bush's failure to capture Osama bin Laden.

2) The Patriot Act - Bush signed it into law on Oct. 26th 2001. Which gives law enforcement agencies - and other agencies - the right to search telephone, email, medical and financial records (among others) to find "suspected" terrorists. It violates our civil liberties.

3) The invasion of Afghanistan - At the beginning of the invasion, Bush had no proof that Afghanistan had any involvement or any knowlege of the Sept. 11th attacks. But the country was invaded anyway. TO THIS DAY, there is still NO PROOF that Afghanistan had any involvement or knowlege of the attacks on Sept. 11th.

4) The invasion of Iraq - Bush stated that Iraq had WMD's but had no proof. Both Hans Blix and Mohammed Elbaradei requested to continue their investigation of Iraq's suspected WMD's because they were unsuccessful in finding any but were pulled out of the country four days before the invasion. And TO THIS DAY, there has never been ANY PROOF that Iraq had or has WMD's.

5) Bush's decision to NOT invade Saudi Arabia - 15 of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11th were from Saudi Arabia. The Bush family have some very close personal and business relationships with the leaders of Saudi Arabia. This is well known.

6) Bush's support of the C.I.A.'s "Waterboarding".

7) The "Bush Doctrine" - I'll just state one: Preventive War. Which means that the U.S can invade a country whose leader MIGHT be a threat to the U.S.. Even if there isn't any substatial proof or if the threat is not immediate.

8) FEMA - Bush hired the leaders of FEMA. We all know how they handled the New Orleans disaster.

9) Here is a quote from Bush in his 2003 State Of The Union Address: ďAmericans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity"...Really? This is why Bush had such a shitty foreign policy. Because democracy is "God's gift".

10) The invasion of Afghanistan didn't destroy the Taliban. It made them stronger, more fierce and hate the U.S. even more. I'll give one example: Faisal Shahzad. He's the terrorist who planted a car bomb in the middle of Times Square, NYC on May 1st to kill americans. He was trained by the Pakistani Taliban.

Bush has spent untold amounts of U.S. money in his "War on terror" that's left thousands of americans and foreign people dead. And the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are alive and well.

Now, is that hyperbole?
_________________________
"Man was meant to live, not just to exist". - Evel Knievel

Top
#39558 - 06/26/10 01:13 AM Re: JFK [Re: Knievel74]
Nyte Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 380
Loc: Ohio
 Originally Posted By: Knievel74
Ok. Here are some facts:

1) Bush's failure to capture Osama bin Laden.

3) The invasion of Afghanistan - At the beginning of the invasion, Bush had no proof that Afghanistan had any involvement or any knowlege of the Sept. 11th attacks. But the country was invaded anyway. TO THIS DAY, there is still NO PROOF that Afghanistan had any involvement or knowlege of the attacks on Sept. 11th.


First and foremost, Clinton failed to capture bin Laden as well, long before Bush.

Secondly, if you go back and check, the "invasion" of Afghanistan occurred well before Bush was in office, even though the "official invasion" was claimed by Bush. It was called "Clinton's silent war" a year prior to 9/11 and pertained to the Taliban and oil pileline routes that had been bombed by bin Laden. When you look closely at many information sources, it's clear that our forces were being put in place long before 9/11 and plans were laid for attack as far back as '91(at least from what I can find that seems credible anyway).

This is just one of dozens of articles that can be found all over the net about the US in Afghanistan well before 9/11 and before Bush was in office.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml

Bush has done enough all on his own, let's at least keep the records straight, as best as possible with the barage of indormation that is slowly surfacing (some we may not know for YEARS, if at all).
_________________________
If only just for today.....

Top
#39594 - 06/27/10 02:29 PM Re: JFK [Re: Nyte]
Knievel74 Offline
member


Registered: 05/18/10
Posts: 147
Loc: NY
 Originally Posted By: Nyte
 Originally Posted By: Knievel74
Ok. Here are some facts:

1) Bush's failure to capture Osama bin Laden.

3) The invasion of Afghanistan - At the beginning of the invasion, Bush had no proof that Afghanistan had any involvement or any knowlege of the Sept. 11th attacks. But the country was invaded anyway. TO THIS DAY, there is still NO PROOF that Afghanistan had any involvement or knowlege of the attacks on Sept. 11th.


First and foremost, Clinton failed to capture bin Laden as well, long before Bush.

Secondly, if you go back and check, the "invasion" of Afghanistan occurred well before Bush was in office, even though the "official invasion" was claimed by Bush. It was called "Clinton's silent war" a year prior to 9/11 and pertained to the Taliban and oil pileline routes that had been bombed by bin Laden. When you look closely at many information sources, it's clear that our forces were being put in place long before 9/11 and plans were laid for attack as far back as '91(at least from what I can find that seems credible anyway).

This is just one of dozens of articles that can be found all over the net about the US in Afghanistan well before 9/11 and before Bush was in office.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml

Bush has done enough all on his own, let's at least keep the records straight, as best as possible with the barage of indormation that is slowly surfacing (some we may not know for YEARS, if at all).


I was asked to prove why Bush was a bad president. I proved my point. Bringing Cinton into this makes absolutely no sense.

We all know that Clinton tried to get bin Laden.

We all know that the U.S. was involved with Afghanistan way before Clinton's administration.

Bush was the first president to officially go after bin Laden with full U.S. force. He failed.

Bush was the first president to officially invade Afghanistan with full U.S. power to destroy the Taliban. He failed.

My point was, to this day, there is no proof that Afghanistan was ever involved with 9/11. Bush used that as an excuse to officially invade that country. And because of that, thousands of innocent civilians were killed. Along with U.S. and allied soldiers.

And because of Bush's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, we'll have to pour TONS of U.S. money into keeping our troops there. Permanently. We can never fully pull out of those countries. Just like all the other countries we've invaded throughout our histroy. To this day, we still have bases in Japan and Germany, just to name two.

Bush invaded two countries with no strategy. No timeline. We just went in headfirst.

And again, my response is about Bush and Bush only. My point of view on why Bush was a bad president was challenged and I've proven it.
_________________________
"Man was meant to live, not just to exist". - Evel Knievel

Top
Page 3 of 5 <12345>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.327 seconds of which 0.301 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.