Trying to pick and choose what questions to answer? Sort of like how bush did in China when he tried to run out the locked door
When someone actually asks a question I will gladly answer it. However, if your game is to try and bait me by asking the same key catch phrases you learned watching lefty TV, then I really have nothing to say that has not already been said before.
It is a very simple question, how can election frauds, death squads, secret torture centers mean progress, democracy and winning the war as Bush and his supporters claim? Statements by Allawi, Mr. Bush friend: A representative for former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi described the Dec. 15 vote as “fraudulent†and the elected lawmakers “illegitimate.†It also said the more than 1,250 complaints about fraud, ballot box stuffing and intimidation should be reviewed by international organizations such as the United Nations. “These elections are fraudulent, they are fraudulent, and the next parliament is illegitimate. We reject all this process,†“People are doing the same as Saddam’s time and worse,†Ayad Allawi told The Observer newspaper. “It is an appropriate comparison.†Allawi accused fellow Shiites in the government of being responsible for death squads and secret torture centers and said the brutality of elements in the new security forces rivals that of Saddam’s secret police.
We've been going at this for 4-5 pages and I've been responding to your posts, as you've made them. How much more could I possibly read them? That's why I'm noting the varying positions. For example, even in this very post, you continue to suggest Bush has violated the Constitution. It's been your theme since the discussion turned to this topic. However, when asked to show where it has been violated, you've refrained (as far as I can tell) from showing such. And ultimately resort back to the safety of conditions by using "if". I again point out who the article said was the target. Terrorists. Again, you've chosen not counter that point. The NYT article noted who the targets were. They didn't offer any conditions or said "it could have been," they said who it was. In regards to the NYT pre-book sales article, I didn't note any conditions. They said exactly who the target was, reluctantly. Grasping for Hitler comparisons seems to be the only thing left to do. One one hand, you perpetuate Bush has violated the constitution by continuously repeating it. On the other, you resort to the safety of conditional response (even though the NYT has noted who the targets were) and say you don't have enough information to make a decision. But you are making those decisions by continuing to perpetuate Bush has violated the constitution. You just won't post in what way you feel he has. The Hitler comparisons are grasping for straws here. I figured you would be above that sort of thing. Really? Yet you continue to perpetuate in every post that Bush has violated the constitution. Perhaps my mistake here is assuming you are not biased in your conclusions. It is clear as can be that you have taken the position that Bush has violated the constitution and continue to argue that point, while reaching for the safety of conditions when called upon it. I'm quoting your responses and respoding to them. You've stated many things, and I've continued to respond to them. I've been responding to your posts for a good five pages now. My position has remained the same and yours has too...that Bush has violated the constitution and that you don't have enough information (even though the NYT article clearly notes who the targets were) to draw any conclusions. You can state one position, then fall back to not having enough information to make the position. Don't be afraid to be wrong. You are already arguing that Bush violated the constitution by referencing it virtually every post. Yes, I've noted your "if"s several times. I've also noted the persistence that Bush did violate the constitution. The "if"s, I expect. We've debated before and that is a safety tactic I'm accustomed to now. Two different things. The article you attempted to use to dismiss Clinton's executive order was regarding police actions. It was a nice attempt, but it doesn't work. Which the above shows what I continue to point out, that on one hand you take the safety of offering conditions, but continue to argue the president has, or cannot, broken the consitution as if he/they have. Perhaps you are not familiar with the timeline? Mia posted one that clearly laid it out. The "war on terror" was started AFTER 9/11. How could one possibly expect the president was fighting it before it began? I hadn't really thought about it. I suppose I should anticipate such, as history shows how powerfully important "admissions" to something obscure are in these debates. It's all about some admission. 9/11 was a wake up call. Some are still asleep I'm glad we have a president who took it seriously. Not like how it was taken the first time the WTC was bombed. I can only presume you simply didn't see Mia's posting. And that you are trying to compare eight years of "inaction is the best course of action" to a few months of Bush's service. That wouldn't surprise me in the least bit though. I guess BDS is setting in.
Gtech you realy need to reread as I have not once stated Bush has violated the constitution. What you have posted above is not only false to the highest degree it's not even worth responding to. In plain clear english for the last time at this point I DO NOT BELIEVE BUSH VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION with the info in the current article. Now please reread and stop making items up
Anyone seen or heard of this lawsuit filed against Bush, Cheney, etc by the widow of a 9/11 victim? http://www.nancho.net/911/mariani.html It looks like it was filed in 2003, whatever happened with the case?
You wouldn't care, with your undying loyalty to a guy that can't speak a single comprehendable sentence
Thank you for reclarifying your position. I took the liberty to go through a few pages of your posts to validate what I've been saying. I've previously corrected this one. What you posted had nothing to do with, nor was it in regards to, Clinton's executive order. Presumption that the article was fact checked, but falling back to safety by using an "if" strategy and suggesting there isn't enough information to make a decision, even though arguing persistently that it breaks the constitution. Followed by: On one hand, they haven't rushed it, on the other hand, even though it says who the targets were, the story is not full. There are more, but I'll stop there. On one hand, often referring to the president breaking the constitution, on the other hand saying he didn't. Ambiguity. These are your words HRB, not mine. I'm simply responding to the varying positions you take. My apologies if highlighting that offends you.
Gtech nice try but I suggest you reread yet again and comprehend this time. You merged me rebutting Mia's statement with my opinion on Bush's current issue, nice try but sorry again totally false.. You also did not in anyway shape or form Let me put this as simply as possible so that you might understand it. If an item is ruled unconstitutional the president can not use that same item as it's 'unconstitutional' can he/she? It does not matter if it's the police, your local post office or the feds... There are so many other falsehoods above it's not even funny from your last 2 posts, but until you reread the posts and understand that you are off based I'm not even going to attempt to debate with you, as I'd have more of an interesting and challenging time debating with my neighbors dog on the complexity of his tennis ball.
hrb, those were your varying comments. Pulled directly from your posts. They are clear as day. You take the safety net of declaring conditions to be met. You say on one hand it wasn't rushed, on another there isn't full information. You say you don't think Bush has violated the constitution, but continue right on suggesting (numerous times, as noted) that he has. They are your words. If you think your words are falsehoods, you should try to reclarify them, again. I too appreciate a good challenge and good debate, but you are all over the place on this one. You are trying to have it too many ways, and as your own words show, it's quite apparent.
Gtech yet again you are combining 2 totally different arguments... #1 being based off of Mia's statement which I refuted, #2 being the issue on Bush... they are totally different yet you have combined them even after I have stated over and over and over again what each part was for you still combined them
No, they are the same argument that has been ongoing. From this page: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=30149&page=364 Mia's post in question is there. It is in regards to the NYT article discussion. The only combining being done is highlighting the various positions. They are not totally different, yet not exclusive of where I pulled your comments from this discussion.
Gtech you are incorrect, you argued against my rebuttal of mia's position in the same posts as what we were discussing the Bush instance you merged them and they were discussed on the same posts they are seperate issues, you arguing against my rebuttal of mia's position put into the same topic of the Bush topic directly merged them, yet I made my position very clear on the Bush position, you however have attempted to merge the 2 totally different items into 1......
Herbal - I think you two are both correct in this part of the argument - you are looking at things from the side saying what if? I understand your argument that you don't want too much power given that would POSSIBLY used in a way that was against the constitution, however, you have no cause to say it has actually happened. Gtech is taking this as you saying that it is being used in a way that is braking someones' rights. So I find his arguments legitimate, but just that he is misunderstanding your point. Gtech, I think you need to chill on this one, cause I don't think he is stating that is happened but is very concerned it could. This is a very legitimate point. We need to make sure laws are adjusted accordingly, since we all know that senators love to add their little things to the books! Just think what the oil drillers would do if we didn't have the earth-first fanatics to say they can't drill anything? Oil driller, miners, loggers would for the most part just take and destroy. We need the opposite extremes to help balance. Both sides in many cases are wrong, both have gone to an extreme.
I chose truth but it seems you and your friends chose the lies. Is it possible that you have repeated the lies so many times that you are not capable to tell the difference between the lies and truth anymore?
No, you have the same statements both in and out of that argument, both of which surrounded the same issue, the NYT article and both of which you persistently suggest the president violated the constitution and which your posts clearly indicate. And your comments that I pulled from varying posts show the exact pattern I reference. You are trying to have it too many ways. Obviously you are not going to admit to it, even when I pull your posts that clearly show you are. Fair enough. My point was made.
Truth isn't a "who" is it? We see who you choose. How's Jose doing? BTW, got some of your buds! What's this, a buried weapons cache? Say it isn't so. Oh, the outrage!
Please reread yet again. I have never, not once stated or insinuated that Bush somehow bypassed the constitution... I have stated over, and over, even within the same threads you accuse me of stating the president did something unconstitutional that I did not think that and that I wanted to know the entire story on it. Please reread as you are absolutely incorrect, and it's making you look quite foolish IMO