Wingnuts Praying for Obama's Death

People can say whatever they want, so long as it is not a threat. Religion or irreligion are irrelevant to free speech. We all enjoy it. What?!?! Every single president has faced slander in one form or another and most have had threats made against their life. That's the nature of the job, which is why the Secret Service exists. No matter what, as a president, someone, somewhere will despise you to the point of wanting to kill you. It is a big deal, for the Secret Service. The problem is that I suspect you're cherry picking on what appalls you and what doesn't. Do you have any idea how many death threats were made towards President Bush? Is it only an issue when a Christian zealot makes a death threat towards a president you personally like that it becomes a problem? What about a Muslim extremist that threatens a president you don't like? Did you throw a hissy fit for President Bush's would-be assassins or was it no big deal to you?For the record, I'm not religious and I didn't vote for either Bush or Obama.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

It is true that US foreign policy has many times picked what it felt was a lesser of two evils in one instance and at one time in order to fight proxy wars. The Russians fought the US proxy through Vietnam. Funding the Muhajedin in Afghanistan was our Cold War effort to retaliate by proxy.What often happens as a result of such interventionist strategy is something the CIA terms as "blowback," which is an unintended consequence for its actions. The theory they seem to forget is that the enemy of my enemy does not mean he is my friend by default. The US has had to learn that the hard way many times over.Iraq in the 80's was very much a blowback that would haunt the US intelligence community even to this day. The issue is that I've noticed that demonizing the Bush administration is one of your favorite soapboxes. On several occasions I've seen you smuggle in this topic in through the backdoor on other totally irrelevant topics like this one.There is little question in my mind that catastrophic blunders have been made, huge miscalculations that we all pay for in one way or another. I am not diminishing the failures or the outright lies perpetrated by a group of rogue armchair warrior. However, I think you have lost some objectivity on the subject because of your virulent hatred for Bush & Co.The reality of the situation is that truth concerning the matter usually lies somewhere in between your position and a diehard Bush fanatic. So we need to find some perspective in order to continue, and it should probably be done on a new thread since this is OT.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

I can agree with all of that.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

I fucking lol'd

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

I don't think he's anti-American (kind of a useless term, if you ask me because it's so open to varying interpretations), I just think he's too busy listening to one side of the debate.He seems like the kind of guy that would reject any rebuttal or refutation if it meant it would positively change his views on Bush.It's like that with people such as Rrhain. What ever would he do without people to loathe and belittle? Hating others apparently gives his life purpose and meaning.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

quote:

---

I think you have lost some objectivity on the subject because of your virulent hatred for Bush & Co.

​

The reality of the situation is that truth concerning the matter usually lies somewhere in between your position and a diehard Bush fanatic.

---

Only on a forum like this would objectivity be scorned and ridiculed as if it were a negative trait.Perhaps the only way someone like yourself would be satisfied is I partake in your scathing hatred. Sounds fascist to me.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

No, you're unfairly grouping me with people who avoid controversy and take a de facto position by sitting on the fence.If I'm intellectually lazy, does that make you intemperate, emotive, and easily led? Or is that presumptuous? Because for you to assume that I don't automatically take sides with an issue because I'm just intellectually lazy is presumptuous.I have opinions on what I feel I have a fair, impartial, and balanced understanding of rather than doing what most people do which is side with their party lines. So if choosing to be an owl instead of a sheep is wrong, then I don't want to be right. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : corrected typo

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Fond of character assassination, are we? I didn't even see it until I saw your post.Much to your dismay, I'm sure, I agree with it.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Because it's so broad of a topic! We'd first have to analyze every reason why he is bad and then come to a consensus on what was good.I never expected it to become this involved and this detailed. I just said that usually there is a little bit of truth and embellishment in everything. The topic of George Bush is no exception, as I will now detail.Dronester is content on saying things like he's a war criminal who targets civilians. Bush is a lot of things -- inept, agenda-driven, panders to the Left and Right, fucking retarded, yada, yada, yada. I am NOT here to defend Bush. There is no middle ground there. What I took exception to is half of the exaggerated claims about Bush made by Dronester.Take for instance the claim that Iraq is all about oil. According to the Department of Energy, Canada and Mexico is the largest supplier of US oil. Iraqi oil is barely even perceptible in relation.Attached to the oft-repeated misnomer is 9/11 being the pretext for war with Iraq. While there is little doubt that the US capitalized on the timing of 9/11 with millions of Americans swept up in a patriotic fervor, there is no reason to assume that the weapons of mass destruction debacle was a fabrication on the part of the Bush Admin.Even anecdote alone makes it an absurd claim for the sole fact that what were they going to do when everyone asked about the WMD's??? What, they didn't anticipate that? Yeah right. And if the administration was so fond of lying and manipulating truth, why couldn't have they simply planted WMD's and saved face? If they are as evil as Dronester makes them out, the Middle East would have been reduced to fields of glass (sand + heat in the form of indiscriminate carpet bombing as opposed to precision air strikes) and they would have simply planted WMD's and said, "Aha! See? We told you so."But that didn't happen because that's not the way it really was. The reality is that a combination of effects were at work here.1. Bad intelligence on the part of the US and UK intelligence agencies.
2. Saddam intentionally feigned having WMD's to keep his image of power.
3. Saddam intentionally feigned having WMD's to keep the US, Israel, and Iran in check.Watch the entirety of the 2 pieces, if for no other reason, they're very interesting.The 2nd clip goes in to Saddam's confession on his strategy for WMD's. BUT, as the 2nd tape goes on, Saddam himself and his interrogator's dispelled the false notion that Al Qaeda and Iraq were ever in cahoots with one another, something I never believed either for the sole fact that Saddam was never really a Muslim. He put on shows for the camera, but a man like that is too much of a megalomaniac to give away power to anyone other than himself. He and bin Laden were at odds.This is the kind of mixture of truth and falsehoods that I'm referring to, which you insist is mindless middle. Like I said, there is usually truth and falsehood mixed in with any claims of that magnitude. Well, now they're supported, and I still don't have choose allegiences other than whatever the truth is. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Fixed bad link

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This is way off topic. Expect it to get shut down. Substantiate your assertion. I can't give positive evidence of something that didn't happen. I can only agree with your information or refute it. Agreed. No, as I pointed out Saddam did everything he could to feign as if he had such weapons. A combination of bad intelligence, a disinformation campaign on the part of the Iraqi Defense Forces, and Saddam's inability for 10 years to cooperate with weapons investigator's.Even before George Bush was ever the president, bi-partisan efforts were long on the table about Iraq were discussed. This is not a concoction of GWB's Administration. So as you can see from the video, this couldn't possibly have been George Bush's doing.The very people who voted to go to war with Iraq then lied about their own involvement and turned it all around on Bush because it was such a selling point in the 2004 and 2008 elections. I already debunked that myth. I don't even know what that means. You're going to have to explain and substantiate this claim. You're going to have to be specific on what provision(s) was/were violated. George Bush went on international television and publicly declared it. I remember watching it. In its existence numerous resolutions had passed against Iraq, of which they repeatedly failed to comply with.The UN cannot endorse war as they only exist to mediate between nations under international law. The UN did not protest but rather took their inspectors out of Iraq for the impending invasion. True. A vote was taken to give appropriations for new body armor for the Government Accountability Office to purchase and dispense body armor. Certain Dems and Reps both voted for and against, Bush voted no to hurry up his war effort. I'm not familiar with this argument. Can you please explain it? He didn't explicitly state that he wanted permanent bases, but it was implied in a memorandum. Please substantiate this claim. Secret task force? Please substantiate this claim. This is a mishmash of blame from people in the Bush Admin and Democrats in Congress. (Like I said, truth and faleshood) TrueAbsolutely true. Truly true Correct Yes, again Not familiar with this allegation. Please clue me in. The goal is to see the Iranian government overthrown, which everyone in Congress agrees with. I don't see any misleading. You're going to have to substantiate that they are fearmongering. I don't know what "secret laws" you are referring to. Specific Executive Orders? Where, when and which branch of military? True True ? TrueNot true. The Supreme Court declared it in favor if Bush. Again, not true as per the evidence rendered by the highest court in the land. TrueNot true New Orleans was repeatedly warned of the levies and Bush did everything in his power to send all the resources possible to N.O. Not true, in several State of the Union addresses he specifically spoke about lessening dependence on fossil fuels and energy conservation. Bush doesn't buy the Gore model of "Global Warming" which in and of itself is suspect of misleading the public with its numerous instances of hands caught in the cookie jar. Not true. Please substantiate. Cheney and Bush refused to testify under oath, but so did Gore and Clinton. What??? Explain

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

That's very true except he did have full support of Congress. Only a handful in the Senate voted against it: 19 Democrats, 1 Republican, and 1 Independent.The issue is that it is pertaining to President Bush's proposed impeachment, so I'm only relating to him.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Well, the impeachment process has historically been a joke. The honorable thing to do when you've been naughty is step down. Apparently if you get fellatio in the Oral (Oval) Office and then perjure yourself in a sworn deposition and under oath, nothing will happen to you.That the two previous presidents weren't impeached was surprising then. Now I think a triple homicide in the White House is the only way the charges might actually stick.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston