Let's we forget ..... the Repug insanity

[hussker]

unreasonable search and siezure laws in the PATRIOT ACT

Again, your opinion of something uncons utional that was passed by governmental bodies.

It's like saying that it is uncons utional that I have to wear my seat belt when I drive, or (fill in the blank with something you may not like...) Perhaps it is semantics, but I see no violations of cons utional rights.

[mookie2001]

the right to not wear your seatbelt is not in the bill

[hussker]

so if im across the street from a protest zone, PROTESTING under my cons utional rights, and a cop can come and arrest me if i do not stop and take me to jail?
how is that not taking away someones rights?

Go do it, get arrested, sue the government (the Executive and Legislative branches) and have legal evidence that you were acquitted and I will buy it from you. By the way, you said the GOP and President Bush...not the police. Be specific now. We have seen in N.O. that there is a LOCAL leadership issue and a FEDERAL leadership issue that some on the board do not quite get.

[hussker]

the right to not wear your seatbelt is not in the bill

Anything in the cons ution that says I have the right to NOT wear the seat belt? That I MUST wear the seat belt?

[mookie2001]

of RIGHTS


I ING LOVE IT
over and over again these pussy ass republicans have to argue AGAINST the CONS UION of the UNITED STATES
how PITIFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hussker]

Getting silly now The Executive and Legislative branches have not taken anyone's rights. Bottom line. Think before you type.

[mookie2001]

cool man
Bush lovers keep arguing against the cons ution and calling people who dont support the war anti-american

thats where i get my laughs from nowadays

[hussker]

of RIGHTS


I ING LOVE IT
over and over again these pussy ass republicans have to argue AGAINST the CONS UION of the UNITED STATES
how PITIFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am neither republican, nor democrat, I am simply a hard-working, tax paying, US Citizen that happens to love my country and be proud of it. You may too, I am not sure.

God Bless,
Hussker

[hussker]

cool man
Bush lovers keep arguing against the cons ution and calling people who dont support the war anti-american

thats where i get my laughs from nowadays

And you all were the ones falsely accusing a Person and a Party of taking away cons utional rights, I did not start that banter. Frankly, it is a waste of time. I am obviously not going to educate or inform. It is humorous to see the profanity fly from the voids in gray matter.

[Clandestino]

Here's the transcript of Bush's speech before hostilities began in Iraq.



In reading that again several times today, don't see any mention, in the White House's articulated reasons for going to war, of Iraqi firing on United States citizens, whether civilian or military. Instead, Bush cites only Iraq's possession of WMD (citing the fact that his refusal to disclose his weapons violated Security Council resolutions, since, without such resolutions, mere possession of such weapons wouldn't have justified a war against any nation) and the likelihood that Saddam would provide such weapons to terrorists. To date, we've been unable to find any concrete evidence to support either of those justifications.

We're fighting 2 very different wars. 9/11 very clearly gave rise and justification for the war in Afghanistan, which I fully support. The war in Iraq, to me, is an entirely different matter -- a politician's war, rather than a war of justification. I support the men and women who are in Iraq, but I fully believe that their efforts and lives could be better spent pursuing other goals.

9/11 isn't about Iraq.

i'm sure they could've wrote an whole volume of encyclopedias with reasons to attack iraq, but they aren't going to put every single one in a speech of that sort.

[FromWayDowntown]

i'm sure they could've wrote an whole volume of encyclopedias with reasons to attack iraq, but they aren't going to put every single one in a speech of that sort.

That's funny. This was the President's speech to his cons uents. Are you saying that the White House wouldn't tell the people -- the very people who have trusted them enough to elect the President -- the whole truth about why it had decided that our young people should be put into harm's way?

You know, maybe if the President had bothered to lay out his "entire" case against Iraq, he might enjoy a bit more support for his decision to invade a sovereign country. But since the only reasons that he bothered to give us have pretty much been proven to be wholly bogus, it's no wonder that the President's credibility is subject to attack.

At least he didn't commit the unpardonable sin of lying about getting a hummer in the Oval Office.

[Clandestino]

the majority of america voted for bush and his plan. i would say he has support.

[mookie2001]

registered voters...

[boutons]

"both have attacked americans for the past 10-15 years."

In the case of Saddam, evidence absent.

[ChumpDumper]

the majority of america voted for bush and his plan. i would say he has support.

Public opinion has never changed over the course of a year in the history of the US.

Understood.

[FromWayDowntown]

the majority of america voted for bush and his plan. i would say he has support.

So then, a President has no obligation to be completely honest with the American people, as long as he can win re-election?

[boutons]

"the majority of america voted for bush and his plan."

yes, a majority, but wihtout context, yours is a distortion in the extreme. Typical.

shrub won re-election in 2004 by the smallest %age, 3.5%, of any victorious sitting president since Woody Wilson in 1916. Hardly a mandate.

shrub's re-election victory was with the full benefit of "don't change (war) horses in the middle of the war", and still he just sneaked by.

Rove was right: let's start a war on a prostrated Iraq , early in 03 (war was the ONLY option, and had to be IMMEDIATELY started) enough in advance of Nov 2003 so that a US war victory would assure a Repug election victory.

That Mission Accomplished bull didn't work out, so

Rove's plan B: the war continuing, shrub runs as the "war president", daring people to replace him in the middle of a war. THAT plan worked, but only just barely.

The Iraq war is nothing but an exclusively Repug war, started for their own re-election purposes, bathed in the wasted blood of US military and 1000's of innocent Iraqis.

And now Rove doesn't have a ing clue how finish the war.

Repug-nant, indeed.

[mookie2001]

^got that right

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Why did 11 repugs vote against the $51 billion in Katrina aid?

[hussker]

Funny how when one makes an obvious conclusion, the feces stops flying...

God Bless,
Hussker

[Clandestino]

"both have attacked americans for the past 10-15 years."

In the case of Saddam, evidence absent.

you must only read nbadan's posts for news. saddam constantly fired upon our planes in the no fly zones.

[Clandestino]

"the majority of america voted for bush and his plan."

yes, a majority, but wihtout context, yours is a distortion in the extreme. Typical.

shrub won re-election in 2004 by the smallest %age, 3.5%, of any victorious sitting president since Woody Wilson in 1916. Hardly a mandate.

shrub's re-election victory was with the full benefit of "don't change (war) horses in the middle of the war", and still he just sneaked by.

Rove was right: let's start a war on a prostrated Iraq , early in 03 (war was the ONLY option, and had to be IMMEDIATELY started) enough in advance of Nov 2003 so that a US war victory would assure a Repug election victory.

That Mission Accomplished bull didn't work out, so

Rove's plan B: the war continuing, shrub runs as the "war president", daring people to replace him in the middle of a war. THAT plan worked, but only just barely.

The Iraq war is nothing but an exclusively Repug war, started for their own re-election purposes, bathed in the wasted blood of US military and 1000's of innocent Iraqis.

And now Rove doesn't have a ing clue how finish the war.

Repug-nant, indeed.

they know how, but nothing is an overnight process. anyone who thinks so is a ing idiot. why do you think we still have servicemembers in germany, japan, bosnia, kosovo, korea, afghanistan, etc...

[hussker]

This is a dead thread

[FromWayDowntown]

you must only read nbadan's posts for news. saddam constantly fired upon our planes in the no fly zones.

Sure, but again, please find me one place where the White House ever advanced that as a justification for sending our troops to war in Iraq.

It's quite clear that concerns about the no fly zones were not among the issues cited by the White House to whip up a frenzy to justify invasion. It may have been brought up after the fact, but that doesn't change the truth that the Administration never once put forward no fly zone issues in its buildup.

The White House has been consistent only in developing other "justifications" for this war after the original bases were shredded by the facts.

Pointing to a reason we're at war in Iraq is like trying to hit a moving target. I truly suspect that is the case because the White House can't honestly admit that this war is about revenge and oil without jeopardizing whatever support they might still have.

[Clandestino]

they fit into un violations!!!