Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8937 total)
32 online now:
DrJones*, GDR, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (7 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,876 Year: 16,912/19,786 Month: 1,037/2,598 Week: 283/251 Day: 11/43 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bush takes one more step toward outright fascism.
Grunwald
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 158 (335593)
07-26-2006 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by arachnophilia
07-26-2006 10:43 PM


Re: oh god not you too.
It happens. I won't quite have the posting frequency as other, as I couldn't care less about most of these topics.


"We are materialists and atheists, and we glory in the fact." - Mikhail Bakunin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2006 10:43 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2006 11:03 PM Grunwald has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 237 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 92 of 158 (335595)
07-26-2006 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Grunwald
07-26-2006 10:58 PM


Re: oh god not you too.
It happens. I won't quite have the posting frequency as other, as I couldn't care less about most of these topics.

give it time. you'll be swatting neo-cons and fundies right and l... well, further right, in the political threads sooner or later.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Grunwald, posted 07-26-2006 10:58 PM Grunwald has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 237 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 93 of 158 (335596)
07-26-2006 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by lfen
07-26-2006 10:41 PM


I guess Americans treasure their image of military officers as Dudley Doorights,

dudley dooright was canadian?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by lfen, posted 07-26-2006 10:41 PM lfen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Grunwald, posted 07-26-2006 11:50 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded
 Message 96 by lfen, posted 07-27-2006 12:32 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Grunwald
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 158 (335605)
07-26-2006 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by arachnophilia
07-26-2006 11:04 PM


He was totally a Canadian Mountie.


"We are materialists and atheists, and we glory in the fact." - Mikhail Bakunin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2006 11:04 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-27-2006 12:32 AM Grunwald has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3894
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 95 of 158 (335611)
07-27-2006 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Grunwald
07-26-2006 11:50 PM


Arach, Grunwald - This is a debate topic, not a chat line
Find a better place for it, like the forums "chat" area.

Don't respond to this message in this topic. If you feel you must make a response, do it at the "General..." topic, link below.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Grunwald, posted 07-26-2006 11:50 PM Grunwald has not yet responded

    
lfen
Member (Idle past 2937 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 96 of 158 (335612)
07-27-2006 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by arachnophilia
07-26-2006 11:04 PM


I know. I went for the name identification. It was a poor analogy. Probably should have dropped it. The thing is I knew when the story first broke that the as sure as ___ runs down hill the brass would find some little group of noncoms to pin the whole thing on, and the bulk of Americans would buy it.

And yet enough of them have either been in the service or have someone close to them in the service to explain how the fix was in. The media, congress, almost everyone went along with the charade. They had military intelligence in there supervising. They don't let guys wander around without uniforms or id just anywhere unless they are some one like that.

It's was all so depressingly predictable, the whole disgusting scapegoating that lets the guilty parties off to continue their wickedness.

lfen

So now they this little pregnant noncom who was probably following military intelligence orders in jail and the problem has been solved. They should have canned a lot of generals over that. Tom Ricks was pointing out that in other wars officers have been removed from command. But as we sink in the corruption of the Bush regime...well, pinning the thing on a pregnant noncom is so debased as well as insulting our intelligence except the press didn't seem to be insulted which really is scary.

Edited by lfen, : discovered my rant wasn't quite over.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2006 11:04 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2171 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 97 of 158 (335613)
07-27-2006 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by randman
07-26-2006 5:14 PM


Re: wrong, as usual....
I am just going to start ignoring the off topic portions of your posts. The more you rage on against liberals the more your are simply dodging the topic and trying to shift blame. Keep doing it. All it does is make your position seem more and more worthless.

Most conservatives have never unequivocally "supported Bush."

And how many times has a republican controlled congress gone against the desires of the president? How many pieces of legislation has Bush had to veto?

Last time I checked, the count was a big fat ONE.

If that is not unequivocal then maybe you can give me whatever revisionist definition of unequivocal you are using to make your claim. Even the conservative pundits are constantly giving Bush and the administration the proverbial hand job on a regular basis.

They even have the balls, unlike Bush's defenders here so far, to outright defend the NSA wiretapping as legitimate and necessary. Constitutionality be damned.

There is certainly an underbelly of moderate conservatives out there who don't give Bush a blank check but when they are not going with the flow to not rock the GOP boat they might as well be equivalent to a Delay or Santorium. It simply is not good enough. The GOP cannot handle the devil it made a deal with which is the religious liberals squeezing the government under the lie of being "conservative". Now they have a president who panders to that crowd and they can do nothing politically to counter it without self-destruction. Case in point, notice how McCain is playing kiss ass with Fallwell.

I think they are more likely to abuse their office and power

Perhaps. I don't necessarily disagree. You presumed that I am some sort of liberal die hard and your presumtion did nothing except make you look silly. But as it stands now Bush has one upped the whole lot. He will stand atop McCarthy and Wilson. He has brought us the closest to an Authoritarian government that we have ever been. And we still have 2 years to go.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by randman, posted 07-26-2006 5:14 PM randman has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 429 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 98 of 158 (335649)
07-27-2006 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by randman
07-26-2006 8:05 PM


signing statements
What about them, rand?

Bush has declared in these statements that he is exempt from over 750 laws that congress has passed, including laws prohibiting torturing prisoners of war, laws prohibiting government interference with scientific research, etc.

I think that we know why Bush has only used his veto once.

He just signs everything into law, but anything he doesn't want to personally follow, he just makes a signing statement and declares himself above the law.

Tell me, what do you think of a president who thinks himself above over seven hundred and fifty laws?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by randman, posted 07-26-2006 8:05 PM randman has not yet responded

    
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2187 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 99 of 158 (335775)
07-27-2006 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Grunwald
07-26-2006 8:47 PM


since no one else did it (really, guys, i'm ashamed of you), welcome to the board, dear. have fun. do read the rules and take note of the reference areas.

also, the admins are all fascist pigs and *coughs* i mean... the admins are here to.. oh i forget. i thought they were here to welcome people but apparently not.

ensuite. try to stay on topic and try not to lose your temper with any of the various intellectually distant persons here and you shold get on well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Grunwald, posted 07-26-2006 8:47 PM Grunwald has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 158 (336553)
07-30-2006 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by randman
07-26-2006 10:46 AM


Re: the New World Order?
You never saw the footage of Gore in the Buddhist Temple? How about the Chinese agents at the White House coffees?

No idea what you're talking about. Since when is it illegal for a US VP to enter a Buddhist temple?

You don't think sworn testimony, multitude of convictions, videotapes of people conducting illegal fundraising (soliciting bribes from foreign agents, etc,....) is evidence?

I guess it would be, if you had provided any of that. Can you do so now?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by randman, posted 07-26-2006 10:46 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by randman, posted 07-30-2006 5:07 AM crashfrog has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3158 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 101 of 158 (336578)
07-30-2006 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by crashfrog
07-30-2006 1:31 AM


Re: the New World Order?
No idea what you're talking about. Since when is it illegal for a US VP to enter a Buddhist temple?

To be the key-note speaker for a campaign fundraising event? You gotta be kidding me. Politicians at that level do know it is illegal even if you do not.

I guess it would be, if you had provided any of that. Can you do so now?

Did you read the wika-link and the references contained therein?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 07-30-2006 1:31 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by crashfrog, posted 07-30-2006 12:11 PM randman has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 158 (336622)
07-30-2006 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by randman
07-30-2006 5:07 AM


Re: the New World Order?
To be the key-note speaker for a campaign fundraising event? You gotta be kidding me. Politicians at that level do know it is illegal even if you do not.

I guess I still don't know what you're talking about. Bush speaks at fundraising events all the time. If it's illegal, under what provision of the campaign finance code that was present at the time is that the case?

Did you read the wika-link and the references contained therein?

Yes. The tapes etc. were alleged to exist, and alleged to contain something incriminating, but the link gave no evidence for those allegations. And neither have you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by randman, posted 07-30-2006 5:07 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by randman, posted 07-30-2006 4:57 PM crashfrog has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3158 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 103 of 158 (336681)
07-30-2006 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by crashfrog
07-30-2006 12:11 PM


Re: the New World Order?
You obviously didn't read the quotes and links provided to you. Using a non-profit religious organization for fundraising is against the law. Using it to funnel bribes from the government of China is even more against the law.

Do you understand it now?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by crashfrog, posted 07-30-2006 12:11 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 07-30-2006 5:08 PM randman has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 158 (336685)
07-30-2006 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by randman
07-30-2006 4:57 PM


Re: the New World Order?
Do you understand it now?

I understand pretty clearly that, like Whitewater and the Vince Foster "murder", this is mostly just another one of those right-wing generated fake conspiracies. The fact that you've failed to present any evidence now at about 100 posts pretty much proves it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by randman, posted 07-30-2006 4:57 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by randman, posted 07-30-2006 5:24 PM crashfrog has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3158 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 105 of 158 (336695)
07-30-2006 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by crashfrog
07-30-2006 5:08 PM


Re: the New World Order?
Crash, what a pathetic response on your part. There is actual videotape, heck millions of Americans saw it, of Gore soliciting cash in the Buddhist Temple, of Clinton and Gore meeting with Chinese agents at the White House coffees, etc, etc,....

Heck, even the DNC admits they took illegal money, paid a fine for it, and claimed to return millions back. They claim it was a mere mistake, of course, but the facts indicate otherwise.

It's clear that someone like you wouldn't admit to a crime committed by Clinton's admin or the dems regardless of how much evidence is there for it, and that's sad really, but what I have come to expect from you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 07-30-2006 5:08 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 07-30-2006 5:47 PM randman has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019