Let's impeach the president.

firstdown · 06-04-2007, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmek25

and congress doesn't have anything better to do? come on. if you are a Republican, its your duty to attack the Dem's on as many levels as you can. and the same goes for the Dem's. its not about beliefs anymore. its attacking each other. and this is what we have come to

I don't have a problem with them attacking (so to speak) each other on ideas its the personal attacks that is getting so old.

12thMan · 06-04-2007, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firstdown

I don't have a problem with them attacking (so to speak) each other on ideas its the personal attacks that is getting so old.

But you see this is where everything becomes gray. Attacks beget more attacks, and at some point they do become personal.

Each side and each candidate is constantly trying to get the edge by boosting his/her poll numbers. Unfortunately, we're breeding a generation of politicians that are more programmed and concerned by they want the polls to read the next morning.

jsarno · 06-04-2007, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Agreed. The democratic strategy currently is to look at George Bush's poor approval rating and claim that the plan is to do the opposite of what he's doing.

There are no fresh ideas. NONE.

- How do you propose we get out of Iraq without seeing the Iraqi government, military, and police force fold to the well-funded (by Iran and Syria) insurgency?

- How do you propose we maintain the historically very low levels of unemployment and inflation AND balance the budget at the same time?

- How do you propose we free ourselves from the dependency on foreign oil? I hear you say "we have to reduce our dependency on foreign oil", but I don't hear any "HOW".

- How do you propose we stop the ascending costs of healthcare and college education?

If you're going to just crap on George Bush and expect to make it into office, well, it just might work because so few like George Bush. But you won't get my vote, because crapping on Bush doesn't make you a leader, it just makes you a critic.

Good post. It's very true. It didn't work as Kerry's campaign strategy and it won't work now either.

Crazyhorse1 · 06-05-2007, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

First, to say that the "torture" techniques employed at Gitmo are the "most vicious permanently impairing system ... in the world" is a major overstatement. Hyperbole works great with some people, but not with me.

Second, to say that Rumself personally participated in the torture on a prisoner is also a little strange. Please see my first point. Speaking the truth and making sound arguments goes a lot further than making things up or exaggerating.

Neither statement is hyperbole. Do the research. Rumsfeild directly participated in the torture of a prisoner at Gitmo.

Crazyhorse1 · 06-05-2007, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRPLG

See that's what he is talking about. All these Dems basically jusy say that. They have no answers other than "not what we are currently doing." That is why so many people look at the Dems as the party of no ideas. Of course just as many people look at the Reps as the party of bad ideas. Which is worse? I don't know. But years of doing nothing about Muslim extremists didn't do the job. It is time the Dems started saying what we should be doing to combat terrorism in general.

When people like John Edwards deny that there is even a war against terrorism it just shows have naive they are.

We should go to war against terrorism, which is a good reason for leaving Iraq, which is engaging in a civil war having zip to do with terrorism. The Iraqis are a decade or two away from getting it together well enough to terrorize anyone but each other. Osama's boys are slipping into Iraq for a little fun, which they wouldn't have the leisure to do if we attacked a country actually harboring terrorists and having an interest in terrorizing us.

Crazyhorse1 · 06-05-2007, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Crazyhorse,
Acccording to the U.S. Supreme Court (which, by the way, consists of people a lot smarter than either of us and who just might know a lot about the law), military tribunals that try unlawful enemy combatants are perfectly legal and not barred by ANY treaty signed by the U.S. Those military tribunals, which you call kangaroo courts, are "competent tribunals" under the GCs who CAN legally determine whether someone is an enemy combatant and can be denied POW status. Moreover, FDR used such military tribunals to try and execute Nazis who ended up on our shores to conduct sabotage operations. So, the use of tribunals is nothing new. Finally, when researching this stuff, please refer to U.S. case-law (including that which interprets international law).

PS - I'm still wondering where you found out that Rumsfeld personally tortured a detainee.

I'll find a link for the Runsfeld party at Gitmo. By the way, the world court or courts of other countries care less about Supreme Court rulings. The SC is a Bush court anyway. Germany recently decided not to prosecute Bush for war crimes in relation to behaviour toward prisoners at Gitmo, among other things, not because of Supreme Court rulings, but because of difficulties presented by America's fire power.

saden1 · 06-05-2007, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

Neither statement is hyperbole. Do the research. Rumsfeild directly participated in the torture of a prisoner at Gitmo.

He was the guy in charge of the entire defense department. Whether he personally tortured a prisoner or not is inconsequential. The only thing that you and I should be concerned about is the fact that he approved of torture.

SmootSmack · 06-05-2007, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

I'll find a link for the Runsfeld party at Gitmo. By the way, the world court or courts of other countries care less about Supreme Court rulings. The SC is a Bush court anyway. Germany recently decided not to prosecute Bush for war crimes in relation to behaviour toward prisoners at Gitmo, among other things, not because of Supreme Court rulings, but because of difficulties presented by America's fire power.

I think you're confusing Bush with Rumsfeld (the court decided not to prosecute Rumsfeld).

Crazyhorse1 · 06-05-2007, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

First, to say that the "torture" techniques employed at Gitmo are the "most vicious permanently impairing system ... in the world" is a major overstatement. Hyperbole works great with some people, but not with me.

Second, to say that Rumself personally participated in the torture on a prisoner is also a little strange. Please see my first point. Speaking the truth and making sound arguments goes a lot further than making things up or exaggerating.

Here's a link giving a little history of the system of torture used at Gitmo and its severity. Compellng reading.

Here's a link on Rumsfeld's personal involvement in the torture of a prisoner.

Here's also an article on the Bush Administration's attitude and policy toward the Geneva Conventions.

Lastly, here's an article on even the Supreme Court rejecting Bush's claim the our Military commissions could try prisoners under the authority of the Geneva Conventions.

If the above seems not definitive to you, there are plenty of articles on the net dealing with the topics we've been discussing.

I recommend Seymore Hersh's book on Abu Graib for a much more detailed account of some of the above.

Torture American Style by James McWilliams - The Texas Observer

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...urce=whitelist

U.S.: Bush Errs in Geneva Convention Rules (Human Rights Watch, 7-2-2002)

U.S. Shifts Policy on Geneva Conventions

firstdown · 06-05-2007, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

Here's a link giving a little history of the system of torture used at Gitmo and its severity. Compellng reading.

Here's a link on Rumsfeld's personal involvement in the torture of a prisoner.

Here's also an article on the Bush Administration's attitude and policy toward the Geneva Conventions.

Lastly, here's an article on even the Supreme Court rejecting Bush's claim the our Military commissions could try prisoners under the authority of the Geneva Conventions.

If the above seems not definitive to you, there are plenty of articles on the net dealing with the topics we've been discussing.

I recommend Seymore Hersh's book on Abu Graib for a much more detailed account of some of the above.

Torture American Style by James McWilliams - The Texas Observer

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...urce=whitelist

U.S.: Bush Errs in Geneva Convention Rules (Human Rights Watch, 7-2-2002)

U.S. Shifts Policy on Geneva Conventions

None of the links you posted said that Rumpheld had personal involvement in the tortur of a prisoner. It said that he was presaent at an interagation but never said that any tortur took place while he was there. Your

firstdown · 06-05-2007, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

Here's a link giving a little history of the system of torture used at Gitmo and its severity. Compellng reading.

Here's a link on Rumsfeld's personal involvement in the torture of a prisoner.

Here's also an article on the Bush Administration's attitude and policy toward the Geneva Conventions.

Lastly, here's an article on even the Supreme Court rejecting Bush's claim the our Military commissions could try prisoners under the authority of the Geneva Conventions.

If the above seems not definitive to you, there are plenty of articles on the net dealing with the topics we've been discussing.

I recommend Seymore Hersh's book on Abu Graib for a much more detailed account of some of the above.

Torture American Style by James McWilliams - The Texas Observer

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...urce=whitelist

U.S.: Bush Errs in Geneva Convention Rules (Human Rights Watch, 7-2-2002)

U.S. Shifts Policy on Geneva Conventions

None of the links you posted said that Rumpheld had personal involvement in the tortur of a prisoner. It said that he was presaent at an interagation but never said that any tortur took place while he was there. Your adding in the word tortur where the article said interigation.

FRPLG · 06-05-2007, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

We should go to war against terrorism, which is a good reason for leaving Iraq, which is engaging in a civil war having zip to do with terrorism. The Iraqis are a decade or two away from getting it together well enough to terrorize anyone but each other. Osama's boys are slipping into Iraq for a little fun, which they wouldn't have the leisure to do if we attacked a country actually harboring terrorists and having an interest in terrorizing us.

Huh?

You think if we leave Iraq that terrorists won't move and set up camp there? You are out of your mind. They're there with us going around shooting them uyp. Imagine what a haven it'll be when we leave. Your entire statement ignores the real situation and is terribly naive. I'll agree they are in a civil war and I couldn't care less. What I care about is the fact that a country like Iraq in a civil war is a breeding ground for terrorists and terrorist trainging camps. That is fact.

Crazyhorse1 · 06-05-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Huh?

You think if we leave Iraq that terrorists won't move and set up camp there? You are out of your mind. They're there with us going around shooting them uyp. Imagine what a haven it'll be when we leave. Your entire statement ignores the real situation and is terribly naive. I'll agree they are in a civil war and I couldn't care less. What I care about is the fact that a country like Iraq in a civil war is a breeding ground for terrorists and terrorist trainging camps. That is fact.

You didn't understand my point. Why and who would they terrorize in Iraq if we left. Why would they use Iraq as a breeding ground if we carried the fight to their forces in Pakistan? The terrorists are after us, not Iraq, and the whole 'breeding ground" concept is nonsense; they have no ability to win power in Iraq, unless we win in Iraq and and hand over the government to our supposed puppet government, which strongly favors Iran and wants us gone. We are on the wrong side in Iraq. It's the group we support that is the greatest danger to us and will likely join fundamentalists in Iran. Our foreign policy, as forged by this president, is regarded as insane by the whole civilized world, including our own generals and the majority of the American people.l

The perception that Iraq would be a breeding ground for terrorists if we left is delusional PR from the White House. The actual breeding grounds are Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. The White House has been presenting us with the wrong enemy for years now. For oil? Probably.
From stupidity? Yes. Because it's been useful for profits for a few and a power grab by Chaney and Bush. Absolutely.

Crazyhorse1 · 06-05-2007, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I think you're confusing Bush with Rumsfeld (the court decided not to prosecute Rumsfeld).

You're correct. I tend to think of any action against the White House to be anti-Bush.

saden1 · 06-05-2007, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Huh?

You think if we leave Iraq that terrorists won't move and set up camp there?

A determined man can not be stopped. Anyone determined enough can become a successful terrorist. Besides it doesn't take much to get into the US. I personally crossed the board with Canada with little effort when I went to the boarder to pick up a family member. I didn't show ID and no one talked to me as I walked through the custom area. It is impossible to secure the United States. I'm not saying we shouldn't try but what transpires outside the country is really irrelevant to securing this country. You're not safe today and you'll never be safe. It's an illusion.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Let's impeach the president.

Parking Lot