(No, He's Not a Nut.) Feingold: President Could Order Assassination of Americans

[quote name='Msut77']BMullet are you willing to say that Bush didnt break the law and was completely honest about the reasons for Invading Iraq?

If not...[/QUOTE]

I'm saying it has never been determined that Bush is breaking the law with the wiretapping program except by ignorant underecducated, self-proclaimed law experts like yourself and all the other commoners the damocrats like to pander to in order to get re-elected. But don't fool yourself. These same democrats have no intentions of stopping this wiretapping practice. They need to appeal to your pre-programmed hatred of Bush to get elected this november, that's all. They fully intend to use this power when they can finally take back the white house and spy on their enemies without repercussion. They are using you. Doesn't that sound exactly like what you think about Bush?

As far as the Iraq war is concerned, you have alreaqdy been programmed to believe Bush is a liar no matter what evidence exists to the contrary. You claim as fact that he lied about Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, and Al Queda meetings, yet most of it was based on the same intelligence to everyone in the Clinton administration and every other world leader who thought and corroborated the exact same thing. Accounts of thousands of pounds of nerve and other agents were never accounted for as being destroyed, so locically we SHOULD have assumed them to still be in existence.

Much other evidence has been found to counter your claims of fabrication like mobile laboratories deemed to be "pesticide" labs, illegal silkworm and other french and chineese made missiles illegal under the UN sanctions and terms of surrender. Bunkers stocked with chemical suits undoubtedly to protect Iraqi soldiers if chemical weapons were to have been used. Many "pesticide" bunkers hidden with camouflage, and documents recently and formerly released stating known travellings of Al Queida members through Iraq.

Why do "pesticides" need to be kept in camouflaged bunkers? Why to fertilizer factories need to be housed in mobile trailers? I'm sure that's common place in every other country in the world. The fact is that you would not believe ANY evidence even if it were staring you directly in the face as you have been brainwashed into believing the party line that Bush is a liar, we're spiling blood for oil, Bush is really the new hitler, and the terrorists would just go away if we left Iraq.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']not everyone is obsessed with him and his supposed lies as you and your ultra-liberal pals are.[/QUOTE]


Supposed?

P.s. Bmullet before I even bother to respond to you, Commoners?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Are you Dick Morris, Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton or something? How the hell do you know what went on between them? Again, even if what you say is the truth (and who really knows that, except Monica and Bill?), it still is unethical.
I've never heard anything from a reputable source (remember, with clinton someone at one point has accused him of everything ranging from murder to raping hillary), let alone lewinsky herself, suggesting that lewinsky was taken advantage of. By her own account of the events they both initiated sexual contact at different times. Clinton argued that he was passive, everything was essentially done to him and went along for the ride. Monica argued it was mutual. Clinton had reason to argue he didn't do anything. Monica had the most to gain by either siding with him, or arguing that he took advantage of her. She did neither.

Remember, monica has an entire book out and gave extensive testimony once given immunity.

I believe I read one time that monica inititated the relationship by coming on to him, but I have no idea where I got that from, and whether it is accurate or not. But in my previous argument I stated I did not know, and was simply arguing that to make a point.
 
[quote name='Msut77']So did you have any point whatsoever?[/QUOTE]




Like Iraq, the fact that you can't find something (ethics in the case of Bush et al. ) doesn't mean it's not there!!!!
 
I'm not sure where el is saying only democrats are unethical. He's simply holding everyone to an unreasonably high standard. It may be admirable in a sense, but I think few, if any, president would survive their term if his standards were in place. He wants to throw the book at every politician for almost any offense.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'm not sure where el is saying only democrats are unethical. He's simply holding everyone to an unreasonably high standard. It may be admirable in a sense, but I think few, if any, president would survive their term if his standards were in place. He wants to throw the book at every politician for almost any offense.[/QUOTE]

I don't think it's unreasonable. Whether they're Bill Clinton or Tom DeLay let them pay for their crimes (although I guess DeLay is not proven in a court of law yet...maybe say Duke Cunningham instead).

What it really boils down to is our current two-party political system encourages corruption, career politicians and pandering to extremists in both parties. Sure there are good people who don't fit this mold, but the system is weighted against them. That is why we need to fight the two-party system.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You misunderstand me.

Impeach him.

Tell the American people that tapping phone calls between Americans and Al Qaeda contacts overseas is a bad thing. Make it happen.

See what the results are.

I'm not arguing against it, I'm saying move it forward.[/QUOTE]

as soon as you show me proof that it was just calls between Americans and Al Qaeda, I won't consider what you said complete bulls**t

and Feingold is 100% right

you're trying to make it sound like some outlandish, wild-eyed and uninformed claim when that's really the exact point that he is making

based on the defense of the Illegal Wiretapping that the admin has put forward - 'post 9/11 we can ignore any law we see fit for whatever reason we see fit' - it wouldn't be too far of a stretch for the admin. to say - 'hey... this person is a threat. we needed to take them out, don't ask why. we promise he was a bad guy'

the fact that you are trying to paint Feingold as 'certifiable' just highlights how 'certifiable' the Bush Administrations defense of illegal wiretapping is

thanks for supporting Feingold's point
;)

i'm sure he appreciates it

lol
 
bringing up Clinton = you have no argument and must shift the topic to avoid people realizing the fact that you are out of sauce

"Clinton did it!!!"

lmfao

how utterly pathetic

you need to let that one go... I know he's the ***** you love to hate, but he's been out of office for a long, LONG time...

Bush is President now
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Oh I forgot, unless I mention George W. Bush in every sentence I type on here I don't care. Get a grip, not everyone is obsessed with him and his supposed lies as you and your ultra-liberal pals are.

.[/QUOTE]

news flash, Conservatives hate Bush

lots of them

;)
 
[quote name='PKRipp3r']news flash, Conservatives hate Bush

lots of them

;)[/QUOTE]

Maybe not lots of them, but some of them no doubt, for various reasons (incuding being too liberal!).

As for your Clinton remark, since I brought it up I'll respond. It was simply to point out the utter hypocrisy from those on the left who are now saying, and I quote:

I believe that having broken the law, a president should be impeached.

I found that particularly amusing because the same people who yell this about Bush think Clinton's impeachment was wrong, even people who admit that he committed perjury, which is a crime. It was not meant as an excuse for anything Bush has or may have done, just a little jab at holier-than-thou leftists who seem to bleat in every thread on this board "Clinton good, Bush bad!"
 
But most people view it as a shade of grey. Certain crimes demand harsher punishment. Impeachment is not justifiable for some crimes, but it is for others.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Maybe not lots of them, but some of them no doubt, for various reasons (incuding being too liberal!).

As for your Clinton remark, since I brought it up I'll respond. It was simply to point out the utter hypocrisy from those on the left who are now saying, and I quote:



I found that particularly amusing because the same people who yell this about Bush think Clinton's impeachment was wrong, even people who admit that he committed perjury, which is a crime. It was not meant as an excuse for anything Bush has or may have done, just a little jab at holier-than-thou leftists who seem to bleat in every thread on this board "Clinton good, Bush bad!"[/QUOTE]

no, lots of them and i disagree that it's b/c he's being too 'liberal' it's SO not that black & white in my opinion

we can get into a stupid intarweb list war if you want but i'm ready to rock with scores of R pols who have been feeling free enough to slam Bush on lots of issues lately from immmigration to homeland security (his main weakness)

and i can't speak for anyone else but ANY ____ good, ______ bad stance is a mentally deficient one. as a registered Independent, i believe this strongly.

the fact remains that ESPECIALLY now, it is used NOT as an excuse but as a diversion... as a way of just totally deflecting the conversation into another tangent, b/c so many people are passionate about defending Clinton. it's a VERY easy and VERY cheap way to dodge, and can be summed up thusly....

"Buh... buh.. buhhh... Cllliiinton!!!"

Lame and a clear admission that the person using it is out of any genuine points to be made and wishes to debase the conversation to their favor.

The second someone brings up Clinton to me in the middle of a Bush discussion (w/RARE exception) I know the discussion is over b/c either they ran out of actual facts or they know they are wrong.
 
[quote name='PKRipp3r']no, lots of them and i disagree that it's b/c he's being too 'liberal' it's SO not that black & white in my opinion

we can get into a stupid intarweb list war if you want but i'm ready to rock with scores of R pols who have been feeling free enough to slam Bush on lots of issues lately from immmigration to homeland security (his main weakness)[/quote]

Umm..did you not read the part where I wrote "for various reasons (including being too liberal)"?

[quote name='PKRipp3r']and i can't speak for anyone else but ANY ____ good, ______ bad stance is a mentally deficient one. as a registered Independent, i believe this strongly.[/quote]

Good, of course it is. And it's good to have more independents on this board as it is dominated by a lot of leftists and a few outspoken righties.

[quote name='PKRipp3r']the fact remains that ESPECIALLY now, it is used NOT as an excuse but as a diversion... as a way of just totally deflecting the conversation into another tangent, b/c so many people are passionate about defending Clinton. it's a VERY easy and VERY cheap way to dodge, and can be summed up thusly....

"Buh... buh.. buhhh... Cllliiinton!!!"

Lame and a clear admission that the person using it is out of any genuine points to be made and wishes to debase the conversation to their favor.

The second someone brings up Clinton to me in the middle of a Bush discussion (w/RARE exception) I know the discussion is over b/c either they ran out of actual facts or they know they are wrong.[/QUOTE]

Well, I've already given my reason for bringing it up and why it was no attempt at a dodge. Since I wasn't even defending Bush in this thread, it's hard to see what I would have to dodge anyway.
 
bread's done
Back
Top