Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85239 35211

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace
Register FAQ GFWiki Community Donate Arcade ChocoJournal Calendar

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


Impeaching Bush
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Zio
I'm so cool, I got my own castle.


Member 456

Level 19.69

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2007, 08:51 PM Local time: Apr 15, 2007, 08:51 PM #51 of 77
I'm not going to read the entire Constitution to make my point stick. My argument is that as a Canadian I can only criticize American policies, like you can ours.
Yes, but if I'm going to criticize or attack your country and your laws. I'm going to do research to make my point as valid as I could.

Quote:
But Americans have the power to change your laws.
Yes, we do but the Senate or even Supreme Court can go lol, u r stupid, no way.

Quote:
The only shred of evidence Bush has ever provided as I see, with the events I mentioned, is his incompetence and inability to act.
What are you talking about? He did act, maybe not as strong or as best as some people wanted but he did ACT. And his incompetence comes from his intelligence. Someone told him that there was WMDs and that he was violating(Wasn't he?) UN sanctions and was told to stop. He didn't so Bush felt it right to invade? Or atleast that is what I got from it.

Quote:
Do you truly believe in your heart of heart that the failures of 9/11 are acceptable? Do you truly believe nothing could have been done to help prevent the Katrina disaster?
What failure of 9/11? You can't really expect to do much when people randomly hijack planes and then crash em.

And what are you going to do? Tell people and use brute force to tell people, ROFL HEY THERE IS A LOLICANE(Hurricane), COMING 4 JOO. YOU BETTER MOVE OUT BEFORE YOU GET SMITED UPON THE GROUND!

You can't just go about and force people from thier homes. That would be the only -way- to prevent such troubles that happened. The Gov't did acted on the situation, might not be as best as some would have expected but they did act as Lord Styphon said.

Quote:
Do you truly believe Bush did everything possible to provide the necessary relief as quickly as possible in the aftermath?
Yes, but you have to talk to the governers of those states affected by the aftermath. They used the funds + forces that were sent there to help too.
Oh and anther thing, you can't just 'relocate' resources at will without harming others as well.

Quote:
I don't believe these things and I don't see much evidence to sway me otherwise. In my dissatisfaction I was merely posing a question for which the answer has now evidently been established. Which is more criminal? Clinton lying about that handjob from his personal secretary or Bush proving his unfitness to run the damn country. [/rhetorical]
What unfitness? He went by what the CIA told him and he acted. Maybe the CIA lied? Or maybe there was WMDs.... Somewhere if there was ever any. The CIA provided poor information. It's kinda like your spies that you sent tell you that the army has only 10,000 troops and you have 100,000. Your oging to win but once you hit the battlefield, they have 500,000. That isn't JUST YOUR FAULT. That's the SPIES AND YOUR fault.

Oh, and by the way, what is more criminal? Perjury or someone acting on what the CIA tell you? To some people, perjurt is a serious offense and that is why he was. Bush hasn't committed any 'high' crimes.

Oh and anther thing, the Senate could easily stop the war in Iraq.(Even though there was no declariation of war. And only Senate can declare war.) The Senate coudl just say, hey you have no right to use those troops anymore and you must return them. Even though the president can use the troops for so long, he must return to them to get an extension.

To me, it isn't just Bush's fault, the whole Gov't is at fault.


Quote:
This does nothing to explain the "failures" which occurred on 9/11.
What failures?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Originally Posted by Zio
Heh, heh, heh. Now, now. That's the expression I want to see! A face filled with pain and anguish, begging fearfully for help, a face quivering with anger! Go, on! Get angry! Suffer! Be sad! That would truly be the ultimate offering to me and my great god!

Last edited by Zio; Apr 15, 2007 at 08:53 PM.
No. Hard Pass.
Salty for Salt's Sake


Member 27

Level 61.14

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2007, 09:30 PM Local time: Apr 15, 2007, 08:30 PM 1 #52 of 77
What unfitness? He went by what the CIA told him and he acted. Maybe the CIA lied? Or maybe there was WMDs.... Somewhere if there was ever any. The CIA provided poor information.
Actually, the issue was that Bush ignored the advice of the CIA and went on the advice of his own personally created information group. I think Rove was involved in its creation. Rove and Rumsfeld, because the CIA had been wrong about something during Bush Sr's time in office. Way to do that homework you talked about earlier.

Quote:
Oh and anther thing, the Senate could easily stop the war in Iraq.(Even though there was no declariation of war. And only Senate can declare war.) The Senate coudl just say, hey you have no right to use those troops anymore and you must return them. Even though the president can use the troops for so long, he must return to them to get an extension.

To me, it isn't just Bush's fault, the whole Gov't is at fault.

What failures?
The Senate could stop the war unless the president promised to veto any attempt to do just that. But I mean he wouldn't do tha- O, wait... he already did that? Right.

And what failures? What about the failures of deliberately only stocking "loyal bushies" (thanks for the quote, Mr. Rove) into the supreme court and forcing out people who were qualified because they were moderate? How about chasing out civil servants who didn't agree with him? Did Bush personally do it? Nope. But you want to tell me Karl Rove didn't tell him about it? What failures? How about being the single most hated Commander in Chief since Nixon? How about making the entire outside world hate you? The man takes bad advice from the good old boys rather than good advice from people qualified to give it. Just ask all the 20 something uber-republican, pro-Bush, non-arab speaking kids Bush sent in to nation build rather than a qualified, more mature group.

Impeachment is stupid. It's just as stupid as when they impeached Clinton. It's his last term. Let him run it out and bury himself. But to say he hasn't done anything is fucking clown shoes.

Most amazing jew boots


John Mayer just asked me, personally, through an assistant, to sing backup on his new CD.

Night Phoenix
The Last Great Hope™


Member 668

Level 20.50

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2007, 11:36 PM Local time: Apr 15, 2007, 11:36 PM #53 of 77
Quote:
What about the failures of deliberately only stocking "loyal bushies" (thanks for the quote, Mr. Rove) into the supreme court and forcing out people who were qualified because they were moderate?
While I don't see how that qualifies as a 'failure' per se - what moderates were forced out of the Supreme Court? Furthermore, how? Supreme Court justices have lifetime appointments.

I was speaking idiomatically.
No. Hard Pass.
Salty for Salt's Sake


Member 27

Level 61.14

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2007, 11:45 PM Local time: Apr 15, 2007, 10:45 PM #54 of 77
Oh, U.S. Attorneys. Sorry, NP. Canadian, not used to your judicial system. And it's a failure because it makes him look like an idiot to anyone not in his paltry 36%. Team Texas has been thoroughly bounced, and his decisions have cost him Rumsfeld, Powell and probably Gonzalez. That's a failure. When your team implodes like that, that's what we call it.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?


John Mayer just asked me, personally, through an assistant, to sing backup on his new CD.

RacinReaver
Never Forget


Member 7

Level 44.22

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2007, 11:59 PM Local time: Apr 15, 2007, 09:59 PM #55 of 77
The Senate could stop the war unless the president promised to veto any attempt to do just that. But I mean he wouldn't do tha- O, wait... he already did that? Right.
Doesn't the Senate only need an extra 16% of the vote to go from requiring presidential permission to bypassing it?

FELIPE NO
Night Phoenix
The Last Great Hope™


Member 668

Level 20.50

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2007, 12:07 AM Local time: Apr 16, 2007, 12:07 AM #56 of 77
Quote:
Oh, U.S. Attorneys. Sorry, NP. Canadian, not used to your judicial system. And it's a failure because it makes him look like an idiot to anyone not in his paltry 36%. Team Texas has been thoroughly bounced, and his decisions have cost him Rumsfeld, Powell and probably Gonzalez. That's a failure. When your team implodes like that, that's what we call it.
That U.S. Attorney scandal is complete and utter bullshit. There was ZERO controversy when Clinton removed all 96 during his term. Bush's Justice Department gets rid of 8 and it's a scandal? Be fucking serious.

How ya doing, buddy?
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2007, 12:12 AM Local time: Apr 16, 2007, 12:12 AM #57 of 77
Doesn't the Senate only need an extra 16% of the vote to go from requiring presidential permission to bypassing it?
2/3rds majorities are sooooooooo hard, though. Congress doesn't have time for 2/3rds majorities, they should just let the President handle it. That way they can say later that they "didn't know."

I'm pretty sure, though, that the president require's congress's approval before going to war. If there was a war that congress could have stopped it isn't a failure of Bush's.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
No. Hard Pass.
Salty for Salt's Sake


Member 27

Level 61.14

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2007, 12:25 AM Local time: Apr 15, 2007, 11:25 PM #58 of 77
That U.S. Attorney scandal is complete and utter bullshit. There was ZERO controversy when Clinton removed all 96 during his term. Bush's Justice Department gets rid of 8 and it's a scandal? Be fucking serious.
Please. No one ever found an email saying they should remove all the non-Clintonites. Crawl back in your right wing closet, NP. I don't need your party line.

Brady, when 9/11 happened, Congress didn't know Bush had relied on heinously bad information and ignored the CIA recommendations. He swore up and down there were WMDs and that death was the horizon unless something was done. So now we've heard from the libertarian and the right wing party spokesman. Anyone without an agenda?

Oh, RR. Hey. I have no idea what the rules are, but I'd be interested to know if that's true.

There's nowhere I can't reach.


John Mayer just asked me, personally, through an assistant, to sing backup on his new CD.

Arainach
Sensors indicate an Ancient Civilization


Member 1200

Level 26.94

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2007, 12:45 AM #59 of 77
That U.S. Attorney scandal is complete and utter bullshit. There was ZERO controversy when Clinton removed all 96 during his term. Bush's Justice Department gets rid of 8 and it's a scandal? Be fucking serious.
Clinton purged them at the BEGINNING of his term and did it unilaterally to clean out house. Bush did it in the MIDDLE of his term for political purposes. There's a very strong difference - one is corruption and one isn't. You don't see Presidents keeping the cabinet members of past Administrations - they replace them at the beginning of their terms.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2007, 12:53 AM Local time: Apr 16, 2007, 12:53 AM #60 of 77
Quote:
Brady, when 9/11 happened, Congress didn't know Bush had relied on heinously bad information and ignored the CIA recommendations.
We didn't invade Iraq on 9/11.

Quote:
Anyone without an agenda?
Of that there never shall be.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
No. Hard Pass.
Salty for Salt's Sake


Member 27

Level 61.14

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2007, 12:56 AM Local time: Apr 15, 2007, 11:56 PM #61 of 77
And 9/11 wasn't directly responsible for the emotional response by congress to approve the war, or anything. The information came out after the US was already in the sand, Brady. 20/20 hindsight, remember?

I was speaking idiomatically.


John Mayer just asked me, personally, through an assistant, to sing backup on his new CD.

Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2007, 01:03 AM Local time: Apr 16, 2007, 01:03 AM #62 of 77
Nevermind that there was already sufficient cause to believe that Iraq wasn't a threat to national security. It's not as if greenlighting the damn thing was near-unanimous.

Is it really that hard for Congress to insist that they declare war instead of just letting the president invade any country he wants? I guess so, becuase it would mean they'd have to take responsibility for something. Or maybe it's just that peace treaties are too hard?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Night Phoenix
The Last Great Hope™


Member 668

Level 20.50

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2007, 07:14 AM Local time: Apr 16, 2007, 07:14 AM #63 of 77
Quote:
Clinton purged them at the BEGINNING of his term and did it unilaterally to clean out house. Bush did it in the MIDDLE of his term for political purposes. There's a very strong difference - one is corruption and one isn't.
Ok, Clinton removed every last one of the previous administration's U.S. attorneys in order to clean house and put in the people he wanted. That is fine with you and you don't consider it corruption.

Bush, on the other hand, removes 8 and it qualifies as corruption? How in the fuck do you get that leap in logic?

Most amazing jew boots
Arainach
Sensors indicate an Ancient Civilization


Member 1200

Level 26.94

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2007, 11:20 AM #64 of 77
Presidents are allowed to clear out house at the beginning of their terms. But when you're 6 years into your term and these people have been doing a good job and you fire them because they won't go after as many Democrats as you want, THAT is corruption.

Mind you that Bush HIMSELF appointed all 93 in his first term and no one complained. It's THIS instance right NOW that is corruption

Also, enough with the "But Clinton" card. Saying "A is bad but B is worse" never makes A an OK person. Not to mention that when Clinton came into office the GOP had been in power for 12 years so ever the conservative strategists acknowledged that he was merely trying to get some people he could work with.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Last edited by Arainach; Apr 16, 2007 at 11:24 AM.
Lord Styphon
Malevolently Mercurial


Member 3

Level 50.41

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2007, 11:30 AM Local time: Apr 16, 2007, 11:30 AM #65 of 77
Originally Posted by Arainach
Presidents are allowed to clear out house at the beginning of their terms.
Presidents are allowed to "clear out house" whenever they want, since executive branch appointees serve at the pleasure of the President. The Senate gets to approve or refuse the people he chooses to replace them, but he's allowed to fire them at any time.

Most amazing jew boots
Zio
I'm so cool, I got my own castle.


Member 456

Level 19.69

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2007, 11:38 AM Local time: Apr 16, 2007, 11:38 AM #66 of 77
Also, enough with the "But Clinton" card. Saying "A is bad but B is worse" never makes A an OK person. Not to mention that when Clinton came into office the GOP had been in power for 12 years so ever the conservative strategists acknowledged that he was merely trying to get some people he could work with.
Maybe Bush was getting people he could work with? Maybe those 6 people he removed or how many was cause they weren't working with him quite right?

Actually, the issue was that Bush ignored the advice of the CIA and went on the advice of his own personally created information group. I think Rove was involved in its creation. Rove and Rumsfeld, because the CIA had been wrong about something during Bush Sr's time in office. Way to do that homework you talked about earlier.
Funny, all through all this thread they said the CIA said there was WMDs. So that is where I got the info, unless I misread somewhere. Oh and Denicalis, I want proof of what you said about the CIA, Rumsfeld and etc. Cause I could have swore that Bush said the CIA said they had weapons and was a greenlight to go in.



Quote:
The Senate could stop the war unless the president promised to veto any attempt to do just that. But I mean he wouldn't do tha- O, wait... he already did that? Right.
Again, I want proof cause I don't ever hear about the senate going against what Bush has done cause I do believe as Brady said earlier, it's better to just let it go and then be like, oops.

Quote:
And what failures? What about the failures of deliberately only stocking "loyal bushies" (thanks for the quote, Mr. Rove) into the supreme court and forcing out people who were qualified because they were moderate?
Maybe he wanted them in cause he could work with em.

Quote:
How about chasing out civil servants who didn't agree with him? Did Bush personally do it? Nope. But you want to tell me Karl Rove didn't tell him about it? What failures?
Proof?

Quote:
How about being the single most hated Commander in Chief since Nixon?
Mmm, let I've told people, I barly ever had a problem with Bush at all. Sure there was things I didn't like but majoritly, I liked him. Second of all, I think around here in Wisconsin or atleast people I talk with, didn't have a problem with him either. *shrugs* But then again the small population of who I know does not make up for majority, but from what I've seen though. Many do like him.

Quote:
How about making the entire outside world hate you?
Meh the world problay hated us even before all this happened. After all, we did help Israel and more then likely that made a lot of people in the middle east + some parts of Africa hate us. Thus being, why we were attacked. (Yes I know this has nothing to do with Iraq and yes, I still don't know why we are in Iraq.)

Quote:
The man takes bad advice from the good old boys rather than good advice from people qualified to give it.
Advice, is advice. May not be good but it is.

Quote:
Just ask all the 20 something uber-republican, pro-Bush, non-arab speaking kids Bush sent in to nation build rather than a qualified, more mature group.
Proof?

Quote:
Impeachment is stupid. It's just as stupid as when they impeached Clinton. It's his last term. Let him run it out and bury himself. But to say he hasn't done anything is fucking clown shoes.
Didn't they impeach him or let it finalize after he was out of office? Just so he wouldn't have the benefits of being a 'ex-president?'

But then again, what President hasn't done anything that bad. Last I checked the Kennedies(Sp?), had some rather fullfilling relationships in the past with women. But then again that means nothing right now.

How ya doing, buddy?
Originally Posted by Zio
Heh, heh, heh. Now, now. That's the expression I want to see! A face filled with pain and anguish, begging fearfully for help, a face quivering with anger! Go, on! Get angry! Suffer! Be sad! That would truly be the ultimate offering to me and my great god!
JackyBoy
A Cinnamon Role?


Member 2219

Level 13.14

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2007, 03:57 PM #67 of 77
It's a fact that President Bush was given several documents from both the CIA and foreign intelligences many months beforehand that terrorists were planning to attack the U.S. which Bush ignored. If Bush knew of a threat and failed to act (which there is plenty of evidence to suggest and this is part of what I speak of when I mention the many "failures" of 9/11), then he should be brought down on treason. Nevermind a "lie" as I described in previous posts.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

You're staring at me like I just asked you what the fucking square root of something.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2007, 04:41 PM Local time: Apr 16, 2007, 04:41 PM #68 of 77
Terrorists are always planning on attacking the US. Having a warning of relative danger isn't cause for policy change.

Also, zio, quit with the fucking quote-nukes, for the love of God.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Night Phoenix
The Last Great Hope™


Member 668

Level 20.50

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2007, 06:08 PM Local time: Apr 16, 2007, 06:08 PM #69 of 77
Quote:
It's a fact that President Bush was given several documents from both the CIA and foreign intelligences many months beforehand that terrorists were planning to attack the U.S. which Bush ignored.
As someone who does private contract work for the CIA from time to time, CIA analysts always write up reports warning of some terrorist who wants to or plans to attack the United States. You know how many of these the President sees on a daily basis - dozens.

Of the hundreds he sees a month, one happened to come to fruition. Hindsight is 20/20, but given the sheer volume of these 'serious threats' that come across his desk, it isn't a reach to see how one slipped by.

I was speaking idiomatically.
soapy
Chocobo


Member 903

Level 12.68

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2007, 12:47 AM Local time: Apr 16, 2007, 10:47 PM #70 of 77
Wasn't the only war that was approved by Congress since WWII was Afghanistan? Congress never ratified anything to declare war on Iraq, they've only been approving a huge chunk of our tax dollars for Bush to waste.

I think Bush as president as consent to use the military without Congress' technical support. They just keep feeding him money, which essentially means the same thing but what are they supposed to do? Let the troops fight with no weapons?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Arainach
Sensors indicate an Ancient Civilization


Member 1200

Level 26.94

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2007, 12:52 AM #71 of 77
We haven't formally declared war since WWII ever. But resolutions authorizing use of forces in Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, and the current War were all passed by Congress.

FELIPE NO
JackyBoy
A Cinnamon Role?


Member 2219

Level 13.14

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2007, 02:58 PM #72 of 77
As someone who does private contract work for the CIA from time to time, CIA analysts always write up reports warning of some terrorist who wants to or plans to attack the United States. You know how many of these the President sees on a daily basis - dozens.
Of the hundreds he sees a month, one happened to come to fruition. Hindsight is 20/20, but given the sheer volume of these 'serious threats' that come across his desk, it isn't a reach to see how one slipped by.
This to me is a wholly unsatisfactory answer. Not a single American would have humbly accepted Bush if he addressed the nation saying he had received documents indicating a threat of attack but decided to ignore it because gosh darn his desk just gets filled with so many bogus reports.

The U.S. has the most sophisticated intelligence and defense on the globe. Terrorist attacks on the magnitude of 9/11 do not "slip by". That's like the idiots referring to Pearl Harbor as a "surprise attack". How the fuck can you not see a 1,000 bombers flying towards you. A radar made from a coat hanger and tin foil would have seen that shit coming. Historians often tell us a document titled: “The God Damn Japs Are Coming” was never able to reach some General guy’s desk and therefore nothing could be done to prepare for the attack. But with all the other bogus WWII reports falling on his desk why should he look at it? What ever else they have in common, Pearl Habor and 9/11 are certainly laden with failures of communication.

The damning thing is how easily avoided the attacks were. If a passenger airliner deviates 6 miles from its original flight plan, red lights start flashing and fighter jets are scrambled to intercept and escort it to a new flight path. If the pilot fails to make contact or communicate in anyway the fighters are ordered to destroy the aircraft. This isn’t from the scenes of a James Bond flick. These are standard procedures that were in place for many years before 9/11. On 9/11 there is evidence that someone ordered to “ground” these fighters. If that is the case who has that authority when it was known at this point you have aircraft under the control of hijackers.

The hijackers must have watched the film Con Air the previous night and made sure to roll down a window so they could toss out the transponder. The FAA on 9/11 essentially claimed they were “blind” and just had no idea what was going on and where these 4 hijacked aircraft were or where they were headed. No problems with the hundreds of other aircraft flying in U.S. air space at the time however. All those were grounded with meticulous precision all in a very short amount of time. Something you would expect from the FAA after all. But 4 aircraft dodged the radar so to speak. Inconveniently, that being the 4 hijacked aircraft.

This is the very first time in aviation history that 4 passenger airliners more or less de-atomized if that’s even a word. There was essentially not a single recognizeable piece of debris recovered. The only piece I recall is a single small turbine recovered from the Pentagon which is dubious at best not to mention suspicious. No wings. No fuselage. No engines. Nothing.

You’re the President of the United States. You just learn your country is under attack. What do you do? Something? Or do you continue reading “My Little Pony” with a classroom of children? This is not appropriate behaviour from a Commander in Chief. You cannot form tactical strategies inside a classroom when seemingly you do not even know if you yourself are a target.

On 9/11, 3 buildings collapse due to fire. A first in structural engineering. 2 of these buildings collapse, in what was called the “pancake theory”, at same speed as free fall while no explanation was given to account for #7. Educated people refer to this as the post 9/11 laws of physics. Before 9/11 the universe operated under “Newtonian” physics. 9/11 introduced a new law, “Bushism”.

9/11 was a day of misinformation, disinformation, deception, secrets, and lies. Why were so many officials from all these organizations afraid? Suddenly everyone was “mum” on the issue. When Boeing was asked about the turbine recovered from the Pentagon they said nothing, that it was classified. What? Everything which could have provided answers and clues were shrouded as “national security” “classified information”. Someone was afraid. And someone did their best to cover the truth.

If one of these failed it could be counted as incompetence. That all of these failed in tandem suggests not incompetence but implicit and indirect involvement.

How ya doing, buddy?

You're staring at me like I just asked you what the fucking square root of something.
Zio
I'm so cool, I got my own castle.


Member 456

Level 19.69

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2007, 09:30 PM Local time: Apr 19, 2007, 09:30 PM #73 of 77
Jackyboy, what if the plan commincations are not working? Are you still going to shoot it down even though possibly it may not know it's off path and etc?

Second, imagine your in a classroom, your a kid. You see the big guy in black suit sya something to the president, and then he HAS to leave. You start to wonder or PANIC cause the President, the cheif commander HAD to leave.

It might not be reasonable but take it as this. I work with Residents in assisted living for the elderly. Take it as this.

Say you have one that has alzermier or Dementia or some other brain/memory problem. They CONSTANTLY are paranoid, say things out of place, things are stolen and etc, even if they move it or do something. They could be right but out of the 5,000 times they've said it, you just kinda shrug your shoulder at it. Yanno?

You can't just take any case and be like, OMG SOME OF THESE ARABS THEY ARE GOING TO ATTACK THE TWO TOWERS! BUILD SAM SITES, LETS MAKE SURE WE SEND THEM TO ALLAH IF THEY TRY TO CRASH THESE PLANES!

I bet we'd be in constant alert from how many people 'threaten' the white house or us.

Most amazing jew boots
Originally Posted by Zio
Heh, heh, heh. Now, now. That's the expression I want to see! A face filled with pain and anguish, begging fearfully for help, a face quivering with anger! Go, on! Get angry! Suffer! Be sad! That would truly be the ultimate offering to me and my great god!
Lord Styphon
Malevolently Mercurial


Member 3

Level 50.41

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2007, 10:13 PM Local time: Apr 19, 2007, 10:13 PM #74 of 77
Quote:
If one of these failed it could be counted as incompetence. That all of these failed in tandem suggests not incompetence but implicit and indirect involvement.
There are serious problems with this conclusion.

Your first post attacked Bush for being incompetent. For an administration that is supposedly so incompetent and has failed so repeatedly, something like 9/11 would seem to be outside of the range of their capacity to pull off. Yet it would seem that they managed to pull it off perfectly. Where did the competence go since then?

There is an even bigger problem, though. For the government to have pulled it all off, as you are suggesting, it would have required the services of a great many people, none of whom have said anything. This is especially interesting considering the straits the administration now finds itself; if someone wanted to drag Bush down, this would be the perfect opportunity.

But nothing.

If the administration was still practically invincible, this would be one thing. But they aren't.

Oh, and another thing.

Quote:
There was essentially not a single recognizeable piece of debris recovered. The only piece I recall is a single small turbine recovered from the Pentagon which is dubious at best not to mention suspicious. No wings. No fuselage. No engines. Nothing.
Handy video the credibility of which you'll no doubt attack says otherwise.

As does Popular Mechanics:
Quote:
Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"


Given the amount of things you've been wrong about, going by the standard you use for President Bush, you're a liar.

There's nowhere I can't reach.
speculative
Hard to believe it was just 5 seasons...


Member 1399

Level 25.03

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2007, 12:50 AM Local time: Apr 24, 2007, 11:50 PM #75 of 77
Life's a bitch, but we can't impeach presidents we don't like. If you don't like that, donate or volunteer for the presidential candidates you do like.
It's funny how the rationale of many people nowadays, some on both sides of the aisle, is to simply take a shortcut around the system if they don't like the outcome the system is creating. For example, the democrats trying to conduct foreign relations through Congress which is illegal. Or on the Republican side, Bush conducting wire taps without warrants. I think this kind of anarchic behavior is the most dangerous thing in politics.

I guess you could argue about who started it, but that is irrelevant at this point. The point is it's escalating, and the "impeach Bush" crowd is only contributing to it. (Who, again, is trying to control the country by fear? The radical left wants people to fear that Bush is controlling America through fear. That kind of "hall of mirrors" approach should make peoples' heads spin if they're keeping their eyes open. Just an example since that is the topic of this thread; I'm sure an example on the other side could be found too.) Reality has already been tossed out the window; the Constitution isn't far behind. Sane people on both sides of the isle should be very concerned about this trend imho. Where people should be looking at objective reality and debating about how to deal with it politically based on their ideology, they are now skipping the objective analysis altogether and creating their own reality from scratch which of course backs up their subjective ideology from the start. We're at the "No gas for 100 miles" sign on that road, but it's not too late to turn back.

Most amazing jew boots
"We are all the sum of our tears. Too little, and the ground is not fertile and nothing can grow there. Too much – the best of us is washed away…" - G'Kar

Last edited by speculative; Apr 25, 2007 at 01:11 AM.
Reply


Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > Impeaching Bush

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.