| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
15 Sep 2006 01:14:26 PM |
| Object: |
The Thugs in our White House |
It's glaringly apparent, isn't it? The fact that the president and
vice-president of these United States are thugs. At the moment,
they're trying to arm-twist our legislative branch into legally
permitting their callous thuggery. They want America to lead the world
in inhumanity. They want to torture others... to make them scream to
die... for relief from their barbaric assault upon human flesh and
dignity.
When the time is appropriate, they should really be investigated, and
likely punished, for violating the standards of American civility. The
number of issues of misconduct are too numerous to mention, but perhaps
the most chilling is their wanton use of cruel torture and abuse on
human beings.
It's not like they got carried away in some instances, and it's not
like it's just a few "rogue elements" that have carried interrogations
too far. No, it's the very public fact that they've made America a
rogue nation among the world community, partly by their clear intent to
demean humanity.
From the onset, they made their intent clear. They claimed they were
not intending to abide by America's treaty with the civilized world of
sixty years, the Geneva Conventions. And they didn't. Now, as the
number of Americans begin to question their aggression upon civility,
and their reckless claim to be above the laws of our land may be soon
restrained, they're wanting to twist the arms of our legislature to
pass laws that shield them from their accountability.
We'll see if America remains a nation of morals and civility. Time
will tell. But, regardless, one thing is for certain, George Bush, Jr
and ***** Cheney are thugs.
.
|
|
| User: "FiveTwoAlphaOne MikeOscarPapa.org" |
|
| Title: Re: The Thugs in our White House |
15 Sep 2006 01:18:21 PM |
|
|
wrote:
It's glaringly apparent, isn't it? The fact that the president and
vice-president of these United States are thugs. At the moment,
they're trying to arm-twist our legislative branch into legally
permitting their callous thuggery. They want America to lead the world
in inhumanity. They want to torture others... to make them scream to
die... for relief from their barbaric assault upon human flesh and
dignity.
When the time is appropriate, they should really be investigated, and
likely punished, for violating the standards of American civility. The
number of issues of misconduct are too numerous to mention, but perhaps
the most chilling is their wanton use of cruel torture and abuse on
human beings.
It's not like they got carried away in some instances, and it's not
like it's just a few "rogue elements" that have carried interrogations
too far. No, it's the very public fact that they've made America a
rogue nation among the world community, partly by their clear intent to
demean humanity.
From the onset, they made their intent clear. They claimed they were
not intending to abide by America's treaty with the civilized world of
sixty years, the Geneva Conventions. And they didn't. Now, as the
number of Americans begin to question their aggression upon civility,
and their reckless claim to be above the laws of our land may be soon
restrained, they're wanting to twist the arms of our legislature to
pass laws that shield them from their accountability.
We'll see if America remains a nation of morals and civility. Time
will tell. But, regardless, one thing is for certain, George Bush, Jr
and ***** Cheney are thugs.
Well, one thing is clear, if it is a Sulla-style thugocracy
then those voting for the overturn of the Geneva Convention
have never been in harms way nor needed it's protections.
Why do Chickenhawks always do that..?
The Neocons are trying their level best to
turn the USA into what was once the domain of
Bolsheviks.
--
MikeOscarPapa
Vote out all incumbents in November '06
Reform the Media:Boycott CBS, CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC
(C-SPAN is on warning)
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/
http://www.freepress.net/
http://www.prwatch.org/
http://www.alternet.org/
http://mediamatters.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Thugs in our White House |
15 Sep 2006 01:28:51 PM |
|
|
MikeOscarPapa.org (FiveTwoAlphaOne) wrote in
news:2cKdnbHN4ZVqcpfYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Well, one thing is clear, if it is a Sulla-style thugocracy
then those voting for the overturn of the Geneva Convention
have never been in harms way nor needed it's protections.
Why do Chickenhawks always do that..?
Are you suggesting adding military service as a constitutional
requirement for members of Congress?
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Thugs in our White House |
15 Sep 2006 01:53:21 PM |
|
|
Bert Hyman wrote:
MikeOscarPapa.org (FiveTwoAlphaOne) wrote in
news:2cKdnbHN4ZVqcpfYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Well, one thing is clear, if it is a Sulla-style thugocracy
then those voting for the overturn of the Geneva Convention
have never been in harms way nor needed it's protections.
Why do Chickenhawks always do that..?
Are you suggesting adding military service as a constitutional
requirement for members of Congress?
Bert, it appears to me that you're make quite a jump in your conclusion
there. Nothing Mike said suggests that he thinks that military service
should be a requirement for members of Congress.
But he does make a point on how those that lead the call for America to
abandon it's abidance to the Geneva Conventions were absent from
military service at the time of war, and, in my opinion, both George
Bush and ***** Cheney were literally 'draft-dodgers'.
In further support of Mike's remarks, it's notable that the prominent
Republicans that are publicly arguing against the Bush/Cheney intent to
legalize torture on human beings were proud members of our military.
One was a prisoner-of-war for many years.
One does wonder if George Bush and ***** Cheney had served... would they
still favor torture as a political tool?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Thugs in our White House |
15 Sep 2006 02:04:54 PM |
|
|
() wrote in
news:1158346401.180605.80190@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Bert Hyman wrote:
MikeOscarPapa.org (FiveTwoAlphaOne) wrote in
news:2cKdnbHN4ZVqcpfYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Well, one thing is clear, if it is a Sulla-style thugocracy
then those voting for the overturn of the Geneva Convention
have never been in harms way nor needed it's protections.
Why do Chickenhawks always do that..?
Are you suggesting adding military service as a constitutional
requirement for members of Congress?
Bert, it appears to me that you're make quite a jump in your
conclusion there. Nothing Mike said suggests that he thinks that
military service should be a requirement for members of Congress.
Then what am I supposed to make of this?
"... then those voting for the overturn of the Geneva Convention
have never been in harms way nor needed it's protections.
Why do Chickenhawks always do that..?"
But he does make a point on how those that lead the call for
America to abandon it's abidance to the Geneva Conventions were
absent from military service at the time of war, and, in my
opinion, both George Bush and ***** Cheney were literally
'draft-dodgers'.
Literally draft dodgers? You must be using a different definition of
"literal" and of "draft dodger" from the rest of us.
But, are ->you you suggesting adding military service as a
constitutional requirement for members of Congress, the President and
Vice President?
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Thugs in our White House |
15 Sep 2006 02:24:27 PM |
|
|
Bert Hyman wrote:
beachshark@gmail.com () wrote in
news:1158346401.180605.80190@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Bert Hyman wrote:
MikeOscarPapa.org (FiveTwoAlphaOne) wrote in
news:2cKdnbHN4ZVqcpfYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Well, one thing is clear, if it is a Sulla-style thugocracy
then those voting for the overturn of the Geneva Convention
have never been in harms way nor needed it's protections.
Why do Chickenhawks always do that..?
Are you suggesting adding military service as a constitutional
requirement for members of Congress?
Bert, it appears to me that you're make quite a jump in your
conclusion there. Nothing Mike said suggests that he thinks that
military service should be a requirement for members of Congress.
Then what am I supposed to make of this?
"... then those voting for the overturn of the Geneva Convention
have never been in harms way nor needed it's protections.
Why do Chickenhawks always do that..?"
I'm hearing you, but I still don't see how you arrive at such a
conclusion. No matter...
But he does make a point on how those that lead the call for
America to abandon it's abidance to the Geneva Conventions were
absent from military service at the time of war, and, in my
opinion, both George Bush and ***** Cheney were literally
'draft-dodgers'.
Literally draft dodgers? You must be using a different definition of
"literal" and of "draft dodger" from the rest of us.
Perhaps. I'm using literal similarly to the word 'actual', or,
perhaps, 'in reality', but I'm not going to bother to grab a dictionary
definition here. As for "draft dodger", I'm using it in the sense that
one 'dodges', or avoids, the military draft that might put them in
combat. From the credible reports I've read about both Bush's and
Cheney's strategic avoidance of serving the country in combat -- and
the country was in war when both came of age -- then both of these,
uh... 'men'... are indeed draft-dodgers.
Adding to Mike's point, it is interesting that these two have led the
charge of needlessly exposing our brave fighting men to dangers... both
by placing them in harms way unnecessarily in Iraq, and by choosing to
dismantle the protections that govern prisoners of combat.
But, are ->you you suggesting adding military service as a
constitutional requirement for members of Congress, the President and
Vice President?
No, I'm not suggesting adding military service as a constitutional
requirement for any political position. Not at all. In fact, while I
admire their bravery and the idealism behind many enlistees, I do worry
somewhat that the indoctrination and mind-influencing methods of
military men can warp the balance of perspective in some men. But,
whether this is true or not, I would not want to see their service in
the military as a legal disqualification or qualification for political
office. However, I do think that voters will always reserve the right
to use one's military service history in their decision of whom to
support... or not support, if they were 'draft-dodgers', even if not
illegally.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Thugs in our White House |
15 Sep 2006 02:30:44 PM |
|
|
() wrote in
news:1158348267.140574.46950@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
Bert Hyman wrote:
() wrote in
news:1158346401.180605.80190@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Bert Hyman wrote:
MikeOscarPapa.org (FiveTwoAlphaOne) wrote in
news:2cKdnbHN4ZVqcpfYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Well, one thing is clear, if it is a Sulla-style thugocracy
then those voting for the overturn of the Geneva Convention
have never been in harms way nor needed it's protections.
Why do Chickenhawks always do that..?
Are you suggesting adding military service as a constitutional
requirement for members of Congress?
Bert, it appears to me that you're make quite a jump in your
conclusion there. Nothing Mike said suggests that he thinks
that military service should be a requirement for members of
Congress.
Then what am I supposed to make of this?
"... then those voting for the overturn of the Geneva Convention
have never been in harms way nor needed it's protections.
Why do Chickenhawks always do that..?"
I'm hearing you, but I still don't see how you arrive at such a
conclusion. No matter...
But he does make a point on how those that lead the call for
America to abandon it's abidance to the Geneva Conventions were
absent from military service at the time of war, and, in my
opinion, both George Bush and ***** Cheney were literally
'draft-dodgers'.
Literally draft dodgers? You must be using a different definition
of "literal" and of "draft dodger" from the rest of us.
Perhaps. I'm using literal similarly to the word 'actual', or,
perhaps, 'in reality', but I'm not going to bother to grab a
dictionary definition here. As for "draft dodger", I'm using it in
the sense that one 'dodges', or avoids, the military draft that
might put them in combat.
Then by that interpretation, I guess I was a "draft dodger", since I
enlisted in the Army to avoid the draft and have a better chance at a
non-combat assignment.
Presumably, government planers believed that student, occupational
and family-related deferments were in the national interest. If you
don't think they are, you might lobby to be sure that they're not
included in any future draft.
If you're not calling for a military service requirement for public
office, then I suggest you stop whining about the fact that decisions
about military deployments are being made by people who never served.
That's the way it is, and that's the way it's always been. Was
Franklin Roosevelt a "chicken hawk"?
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Thugs in our White House |
15 Sep 2006 02:58:29 PM |
|
|
Bert Hyman wrote:
beachshark@gmail.com () wrote in
news:1158348267.140574.46950@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
Bert Hyman wrote:
beachshark@gmail.com () wrote in
news:1158346401.180605.80190@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Bert Hyman wrote:
MikeOscarPapa.org (FiveTwoAlphaOne) wrote in
news:2cKdnbHN4ZVqcpfYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Well, one thing is clear, if it is a Sulla-style thugocracy
then those voting for the overturn of the Geneva Convention
have never been in harms way nor needed it's protections.
Why do Chickenhawks always do that..?
Are you suggesting adding military service as a constitutional
requirement for members of Congress?
Bert, it appears to me that you're make quite a jump in your
conclusion there. Nothing Mike said suggests that he thinks
that military service should be a requirement for members of
Congress.
Then what am I supposed to make of this?
"... then those voting for the overturn of the Geneva Convention
have never been in harms way nor needed it's protections.
Why do Chickenhawks always do that..?"
I'm hearing you, but I still don't see how you arrive at such a
conclusion. No matter...
But he does make a point on how those that lead the call for
America to abandon it's abidance to the Geneva Conventions were
absent from military service at the time of war, and, in my
opinion, both George Bush and ***** Cheney were literally
'draft-dodgers'.
Literally draft dodgers? You must be using a different definition
of "literal" and of "draft dodger" from the rest of us.
Perhaps. I'm using literal similarly to the word 'actual', or,
perhaps, 'in reality', but I'm not going to bother to grab a
dictionary definition here. As for "draft dodger", I'm using it in
the sense that one 'dodges', or avoids, the military draft that
might put them in combat.
Then by that interpretation, I guess I was a "draft dodger", since I
enlisted in the Army to avoid the draft and have a better chance at a
non-combat assignment.
Presumably, government planers believed that student, occupational
and family-related deferments were in the national interest. If you
don't think they are, you might lobby to be sure that they're not
included in any future draft.
Well, maybe I should have added to my definition of a 'draft dodger'
the fact that individual engaged in unethical, immoral or illegal
conduct to avoid the draft. Taking advantage of the systematic
exclusions should not make one a 'draft dodger', as may have been the
case for you. Consider my definition amended as such.
If you're not calling for a military service requirement for public
office, then I suggest you stop whining about the fact that decisions
about military deployments are being made by people who never served.
That's the way it is, and that's the way it's always been. Was
Franklin Roosevelt a "chicken hawk"?
Bert, I'm not "whining" about the fact that Cheney/Bush didn't serve,
but I did make the point that your initial conclusion of Mike's
statement was seemingly inaccurate. As I said previously, I still
think it was.
However, in that point, I did make and still make the additional point
that it is even more galling that the two people leading the charge of
endangering our nation and our fighting forces, including the use of
barbaric torture, were two people who, at the least, avoided serving
the nation in combat themselves. And, those Republicans that are
standing up to their thuggishness, are proud of their military service,
and therefore are appalled at the lack of respect shown for our nation
and our military by the current White House.
As for you last line about Roosevelt, he was a great leader that didn't
serve as a youth, and, as I said previously, I don't personally favor
such a requirement for political office. It just happens that the two
rogues running things in this day and age are extremely poor "leaders"
(misleaders), and their lack of respect for our nation's dignity and
our servicement is even more galling considering the fact they were
draft-avoiders themselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Thugs in our White House |
15 Sep 2006 03:01:53 PM |
|
|
() wrote in
news:1158350308.692471.175560@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
It just happens that the two rogues running things in this day and
age are extremely poor "leaders" (misleaders),
So far, so good ...
and their lack of respect for our nation's dignity and our
servicement
No argument yet ...
is even more galling considering the fact they were
draft-avoiders themselves.
Darn. You should have quit while you were ahead :-)
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "FiveTwoAlphaOne MikeOscarPapa.org" |
|
| Title: Re: The Thugs in our White House |
15 Sep 2006 07:05:06 PM |
|
|
Bert Hyman wrote:
beachshark@gmail.com () wrote in
news:1158346401.180605.80190@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Bert Hyman wrote:
MikeOscarPapa.org (FiveTwoAlphaOne) wrote in
news:2cKdnbHN4ZVqcpfYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Well, one thing is clear, if it is a Sulla-style thugocracy
then those voting for the overturn of the Geneva Convention
have never been in harms way nor needed it's protections.
Why do Chickenhawks always do that..?
Are you suggesting adding military service as a constitutional
requirement for members of Congress?
Bert, it appears to me that you're make quite a jump in your
conclusion there. Nothing Mike said suggests that he thinks that
military service should be a requirement for members of Congress.
Then what am I supposed to make of this?
"... then those voting for the overturn of the Geneva Convention
have never been in harms way nor needed it's protections.
Why do Chickenhawks always do that..?"
Because as I pointed out, it's totally out of order
for non-serving politicians or those that have never
served to play God with rules that determine how
our armed forces are treated by others.
But he does make a point on how those that lead the call for
America to abandon it's abidance to the Geneva Conventions were
absent from military service at the time of war, and, in my
opinion, both George Bush and ***** Cheney were literally
'draft-dodgers'.
Literally draft dodgers? You must be using a different definition of
"literal" and of "draft dodger" from the rest of us.
But, are ->you you suggesting adding military service as a
constitutional requirement for members of Congress, the President and
Vice President?
--
MikeOscarPapa
Vote out all incumbents in November '06
Reform the Media:Boycott CBS, CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC
(C-SPAN is on warning)
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/
http://www.freepress.net/
http://www.prwatch.org/
http://www.alternet.org/
http://mediamatters.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "FiveTwoAlphaOne MikeOscarPapa.org" |
|
| Title: Re: The Thugs in our White House |
15 Sep 2006 06:57:36 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Bert Hyman wrote:
MikeOscarPapa.org (FiveTwoAlphaOne) wrote in
news:2cKdnbHN4ZVqcpfYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Well, one thing is clear, if it is a Sulla-style thugocracy
then those voting for the overturn of the Geneva Convention
have never been in harms way nor needed it's protections.
Why do Chickenhawks always do that..?
Are you suggesting adding military service as a constitutional
requirement for members of Congress?
Bert, it appears to me that you're make quite a jump in your conclusion
there. Nothing Mike said suggests that he thinks that military service
should be a requirement for members of Congress.
Yeah, just to clarify my previous post in response to the one
above, when I said "I would not be averse to the idea",
I should have fully qualified that to say:
I would not be averse to the idea if politicians without
military service are going to continue to make decisions
that have potentially huge effect on how our captured
airman or soldiers are treated by other countries in
the future. To the best of my knowledge, Saddam kept
prisoners largely in accordance with the provisions
of the GC during the first GW, and even Somalia
kept one.
But he does make a point on how those that lead the call for America to
abandon it's abidance to the Geneva Conventions were absent from
military service at the time of war, and, in my opinion, both George
Bush and ***** Cheney were literally 'draft-dodgers'.
Exactly. Basically plutocrats playing with the peasants rights.
In further support of Mike's remarks, it's notable that the prominent
Republicans that are publicly arguing against the Bush/Cheney intent to
legalize torture on human beings were proud members of our military.
One was a prisoner-of-war for many years.
One does wonder if George Bush and ***** Cheney had served... would they
still favor torture as a political tool?
I'll bet they wouldn't and would not have lasted 10 minutes
without spilling everything.
--
MikeOscarPapa
Vote out all incumbents in November '06
Reform the Media:Boycott CBS, CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC
(C-SPAN is on warning)
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/
http://www.freepress.net/
http://www.prwatch.org/
http://www.alternet.org/
http://mediamatters.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "FiveTwoAlphaOne MikeOscarPapa.org" |
|
| Title: Re: The Thugs in our White House |
15 Sep 2006 03:11:15 PM |
|
|
Bert Hyman wrote:
MikeOscarPapa.org (FiveTwoAlphaOne) wrote in
news:2cKdnbHN4ZVqcpfYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Well, one thing is clear, if it is a Sulla-style thugocracy
then those voting for the overturn of the Geneva Convention
have never been in harms way nor needed it's protections.
Why do Chickenhawks always do that..?
Are you suggesting adding military service as a constitutional
requirement for members of Congress?
I'm not averse to the concept.
I cannot imagine why politicians who have never served should
be trying to dictate the GC to those who have to. Shows that
they think of their soldiers as cannon fodder or peasants.
--
MikeOscarPapa
Vote out all incumbents in November '06
Reform the Media:Boycott CBS, CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC
(C-SPAN is on warning)
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/
http://www.freepress.net/
http://www.prwatch.org/
http://www.alternet.org/
http://mediamatters.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Thugs in our White House |
15 Sep 2006 03:23:28 PM |
|
|
MikeOscarPapa.org (FiveTwoAlphaOne) wrote in
news:EYednd6U6ebyl5bYnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com:
Bert Hyman wrote:
MikeOscarPapa.org (FiveTwoAlphaOne) wrote in
news:2cKdnbHN4ZVqcpfYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Well, one thing is clear, if it is a Sulla-style thugocracy
then those voting for the overturn of the Geneva Convention
have never been in harms way nor needed it's protections.
Why do Chickenhawks always do that..?
Are you suggesting adding military service as a constitutional
requirement for members of Congress?
I'm not averse to the concept.
I cannot imagine why politicians who have never served should
be trying to dictate the GC to those who have to. Shows that
they think of their soldiers as cannon fodder or peasants.
Presumably then, we'll ->have to remain in a constant state of war
just to guarantee a steady stream of battle-hardened veterans to
serve in all branches of government.
Will they also have to be at least trained, if not actually
experienced, in all other possible areas that the government might
choose to operate in or legislate about?
Are your state legislators, who rule on all things commercial,
all licensed barbers? Cosmetologists? Dentists? Auto mechanics?
Should they be?
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |
.
|
|
|
| User: "FiveTwoAlphaOne MikeOscarPapa.org" |
|
| Title: Re: The Thugs in our White House |
16 Sep 2006 05:18:10 AM |
|
|
Bert Hyman wrote:
MikeOscarPapa.org (FiveTwoAlphaOne) wrote in
news:EYednd6U6ebyl5bYnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com:
Bert Hyman wrote:
MikeOscarPapa.org (FiveTwoAlphaOne) wrote in
news:2cKdnbHN4ZVqcpfYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Well, one thing is clear, if it is a Sulla-style thugocracy
then those voting for the overturn of the Geneva Convention
have never been in harms way nor needed it's protections.
Why do Chickenhawks always do that..?
Are you suggesting adding military service as a constitutional
requirement for members of Congress?
I'm not averse to the concept.
I cannot imagine why politicians who have never served should
be trying to dictate the GC to those who have to. Shows that
they think of their soldiers as cannon fodder or peasants.
Presumably then, we'll ->have to remain in a constant state of war
just to guarantee a steady stream of battle-hardened veterans to
serve in all branches of government.
No, just keep politicians out of issues like
the GC and go solely on the advice of the pentagon
and military advisors, not foolish lawyers trying to nitpick
the 'interpretation' of the words of the GC to suit
political ends.
--
MikeOscarPapa
Vote out all incumbents in November '06
Reform the Media:Boycott CBS, CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC
(C-SPAN is on warning)
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/
http://www.freepress.net/
http://www.prwatch.org/
http://www.alternet.org/
http://mediamatters.org/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "FiveTwoAlphaOne MikeOscarPapa.org" |
|
| Title: Re: The Thugs in our White House |
16 Sep 2006 05:29:58 AM |
|
|
Here's the issue that no-one is talking about:
These idiots are trying to claim that since these
guys are evil, wicked, murderous, barbaric etc they
should not be afforded any protections from torture
or given any human rights that we routinely give to
a whole collection of evil, wicked, murderous,
barbaric prisoners already sitting in US jails
awaiting death sentences or incarcerated for life.
What's the difference? Our murderers are better than
their murderers?
What the heck is everyone thinking?
This places our own soldiers at risk!!
I can only see that that wouldn't matter to someone
with no skin in the game.
--
MikeOscarPapa
Vote out all incumbents in November '06
Reform the Media:Boycott CBS, CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC
(C-SPAN is on warning)
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/
http://www.freepress.net/
http://www.prwatch.org/
http://www.alternet.org/
http://mediamatters.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Thugs in our White House |
16 Sep 2006 02:06:32 PM |
|
|
FiveTwoAlphaOne wrote:
Here's the issue that no-one is talking about:
These idiots are trying to claim that since these
guys are evil, wicked, murderous, barbaric etc they
should not be afforded any protections from torture
or given any human rights that we routinely give to
a whole collection of evil, wicked, murderous,
barbaric prisoners already sitting in US jails
awaiting death sentences or incarcerated for life.
What's the difference? Our murderers are better than
their murderers?
And, remember, the suspects that Bush wants to torture are just that,
SUSPECTS! Whereas the American murderers you mention aren't tortured,
and they're convicts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "FiveTwoAlphaOne MikeOscarPapa.org" |
|
| Title: Re: The Thugs in our White House |
17 Sep 2006 06:47:51 AM |
|
|
wrote:
FiveTwoAlphaOne wrote:
Here's the issue that no-one is talking about:
These idiots are trying to claim that since these
guys are evil, wicked, murderous, barbaric etc they
should not be afforded any protections from torture
or given any human rights that we routinely give to
a whole collection of evil, wicked, murderous,
barbaric prisoners already sitting in US jails
awaiting death sentences or incarcerated for life.
What's the difference? Our murderers are better than
their murderers?
And, remember, the suspects that Bush wants to torture are just that,
SUSPECTS! Whereas the American murderers you mention aren't tortured,
and they're convicts.
Good point! Precisely that, but no-one asked the president
about this non-sequitur, or ever dares mention it.
--
MikeOscarPapa
Vote out all incumbents in November '06
Reform the Media:Boycott CBS, CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC
(C-SPAN is on warning)
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/
http://www.freepress.net/
http://www.prwatch.org/
http://www.alternet.org/
http://mediamatters.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Absolom" |
|
| Title: Re: The Thugs in our White House |
17 Sep 2006 12:39:54 PM |
|
|
"FiveTwoAlphaOne" <MikeOscarPapa.org> wrote in message
news:HZ6dnROfk5lMqpDYnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
beachshark1@yahoo.com wrote:
FiveTwoAlphaOne wrote:
Here's the issue that no-one is talking about:
These idiots are trying to claim that since these
guys are evil, wicked, murderous, barbaric etc they
should not be afforded any protections from torture
or given any human rights that we routinely give to
a whole collection of evil, wicked, murderous,
barbaric prisoners already sitting in US jails
awaiting death sentences or incarcerated for life.
What's the difference? Our murderers are better than
their murderers?
And, remember, the suspects that Bush wants to torture are just that,
SUSPECTS! Whereas the American murderers you mention aren't tortured,
and they're convicts.
Good point! Precisely that, but no-one asked the president
about this non-sequitur, or ever dares mention it.
The reason it's a 'non-sequitur' is that the two are indeed completely
different in circumstance, motive and results. "Our murderer" is generally
an individual acting against another individual, whereas "their murderers"
are a group of people acting against a greater number of people. In short,
the terrorists consider their "murders' an act of war. Given that this is
true, don't you think it prudent that we handle "their murdrers"
accordingly, given that national security is involved? To do otherwise would
be foolosh.
Perhaps an example might be if a small group of terrorists were to plan an
attack on the east coast, Delaware in particular, and one of the terrorists
were caught. Would you prefer that they spend months preparing for trial and
focusing on the terrorist's 'rights', by which time Delaware might be wiped
off the map, or your wife's office building blown up, killing all inside, or
would you prefer unconventional means be used, quickly extracting
information about the plan and stopping it beforehand, preventing any
deaths, including that of your wife?
.
|
|
|
| User: "FiveTwoAlphaOne MikeOscarPapa.org" |
|
| Title: Re: The Thugs in our White House |
17 Sep 2006 02:17:08 PM |
|
|
Absolom wrote:
"FiveTwoAlphaOne" <MikeOscarPapa.org> wrote in message
news:HZ6dnROfk5lMqpDYnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
beachshark1@yahoo.com wrote:
FiveTwoAlphaOne wrote:
Here's the issue that no-one is talking about:
These idiots are trying to claim that since these
guys are evil, wicked, murderous, barbaric etc they
should not be afforded any protections from torture
or given any human rights that we routinely give to
a whole collection of evil, wicked, murderous,
barbaric prisoners already sitting in US jails
awaiting death sentences or incarcerated for life.
What's the difference? Our murderers are better than
their murderers?
And, remember, the suspects that Bush wants to torture are just that,
SUSPECTS! Whereas the American murderers you mention aren't tortured,
and they're convicts.
Good point! Precisely that, but no-one asked the president
about this non-sequitur, or ever dares mention it.
The reason it's a 'non-sequitur' is that the two are indeed completely
different in circumstance, motive and results.
Ah, our bestial, brutal and barbaric murderers are better!
I see.
"Our murderer" is generally
an individual acting against another individual, whereas "their murderers"
are a group of people acting against a greater number of people.
You think our serial killers are only constrained by lack of
infrastructure?
In short,
the terrorists consider their "murders' an act of war. Given that this is
true, don't you think it prudent that we handle "their murdrers"
accordingly, given that national security is involved? To do otherwise would
be foolosh.
So what are you suggesting? The Geneva Convention?
Fine, then lets have war crimes trials for them at the Hague.
Rope in some Hezbollah and Israeli generals too!
Perhaps an example might be if a small group of terrorists were to plan an
attack on the east coast, Delaware in particular, and one of the terrorists
were caught. Would you prefer that they spend months preparing for trial and
focusing on the terrorist's 'rights', by which time Delaware might be wiped
off the map, or your wife's office building blown up, killing all inside, or
would you prefer unconventional means be used, quickly extracting
information about the plan and stopping it beforehand, preventing any
deaths, including that of your wife?
You are either morally superior to them or you are not.
If you are going to behave like Bolshevik or Cambodian
torturer/murderers then what's the point of the US
and all we believe in thats good here and makes
us BETTER??
--
MikeOscarPapa
Vote out all incumbents in November '06
Reform the Media:Boycott CBS, CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC
(C-SPAN is on warning)
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/
http://www.freepress.net/
http://www.prwatch.org/
http://www.alternet.org/
http://mediamatters.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Absolom" |
|
| Title: Re: The Thugs in our White House |
18 Sep 2006 08:51:57 AM |
|
|
"FiveTwoAlphaOne" <MikeOscarPapa.org> wrote in message
news:9Z-dnerwHYerPJDYnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com...
Absolom wrote:
"FiveTwoAlphaOne" <MikeOscarPapa.org> wrote in message
news:HZ6dnROfk5lMqpDYnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
beachshark1@yahoo.com wrote:
FiveTwoAlphaOne wrote:
Here's the issue that no-one is talking about:
These idiots are trying to claim that since these
guys are evil, wicked, murderous, barbaric etc they
should not be afforded any protections from torture
or given any human rights that we routinely give to
a whole collection of evil, wicked, murderous,
barbaric prisoners already sitting in US jails
awaiting death sentences or incarcerated for life.
What's the difference? Our murderers are better than
their murderers?
And, remember, the suspects that Bush wants to torture are just that,
SUSPECTS! Whereas the American murderers you mention aren't tortured,
and they're convicts.
Good point! Precisely that, but no-one asked the president
about this non-sequitur, or ever dares mention it.
The reason it's a 'non-sequitur' is that the two are indeed completely
different in circumstance, motive and results.
Ah, our bestial, brutal and barbaric murderers are better!
I see.
No, I'm afraid you don't (or you are being deliberately obtuse or, perhaps
just argumentative). Do you really have to be handheld through the logic
here? You speak of two different circumstances which require two different
responses.
If you propose to treat terrorists as you would the common criminal, you
haven't really examined your stance. It's poorly thought out and would
produce undesirable results. You may attempt to distract form the point by
attacking my character, but nonetheless, to employ such a strategy would be
a grave mistake.
"Our murderer" is generally
an individual acting against another individual, whereas "their
murderers" are a group of people acting against a greater number of
people.
You think our serial killers are only constrained by lack of
infrastructure?
In short,
the terrorists consider their "murders' an act of war. Given that this is
true, don't you think it prudent that we handle "their murdrers"
accordingly, given that national security is involved? To do otherwise
would be foolosh.
So what are you suggesting? The Geneva Convention?
Fine, then lets have war crimes trials for them at the Hague.
Rope in some Hezbollah and Israeli generals too!
Perhaps an example might be if a small group of terrorists were to plan
an attack on the east coast, Delaware in particular, and one of the
terrorists were caught. Would you prefer that they spend months preparing
for trial and focusing on the terrorist's 'rights', by which time
Delaware might be wiped off the map, or your wife's office building blown
up, killing all inside, or would you prefer unconventional means be used,
quickly extracting information about the plan and stopping it beforehand,
preventing any deaths, including that of your wife?
You are either morally superior to them or you are not.
If you are going to behave like Bolshevik or Cambodian
torturer/murderers then what's the point of the US
and all we believe in thats good here and makes
us BETTER??
--
MikeOscarPapa
Vote out all incumbents in November '06
Reform the Media:Boycott CBS, CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC
(C-SPAN is on warning)
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/
http://www.freepress.net/
http://www.prwatch.org/
http://www.alternet.org/
http://mediamatters.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JustLooking" |
|
| Title: Re: The Thugs in our White House |
15 Sep 2006 02:20:26 PM |
|
|
Islamic Republic of BAGHDAD! Trenches around it against hostile neighbor
IRAQ !!! Yes, IRAQ!
If this is not enough to throw the imbecile gwb in an asylum along with
rummy,
the U.S. is really gone! And you with it!
Iraq's interior ministry has announced plans to increase security in Baghdad
by digging trenches AROUND THE CITY, and surrounding it with checkpoints.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5349398.stm
The new republic of Baghdad - free and democratic!
BWAAA HAAAA HAAAA - REPUBLICAN IDIOTS AT WORK!
This after yesterday Iraq+Iran have just made Bush & the formerly great U.S.
look like
stupid idiots.
SEE them shaking hands and smiling WHILE 2 AMERICAN SOLDIERS HAVE JUST
DIED!!! FOR WHAT???
Bush's folly ... helped by imbecile religious zealots, uneducated imbreeding
rednecks ...
"The American military today reported the deaths of two soldiers, one killed
by a roadside bomb south of Baghdad late Tuesday, the other killed on Monday
in combat in Anbar province in the country's west. " FOR WHAT????
BUT CHECK THIS OUT - UNBELIEVABLE!
"In Tehran, Mr. Maliki met with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and declared
afterwards that "even in security issues, there is no barrier in the way of
cooperation." For his part, Mr. Ahmadinejad said, "Iran will give its
assistance to establish complete security in Iraq, because Iraq's security
is Iran's security." It was not clear what form Iranian support on security
would take, or how it would be regarded by the American authorities here."
See photo here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/ap/iraqiran2.jpg
Full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/13/world/middleeast/13cnd-iraq.html
What impeachment? The mfkr-in-chief should be thrown in jail now!
Incompetent, clownish, fanatic!
Bush IS an imbecile!
<beachshark1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158344066.122981.196360@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It's glaringly apparent, isn't it? The fact that the president and
vice-president of these United States are thugs. At the moment,
they're trying to arm-twist our legislative branch into legally
permitting their callous thuggery. They want America to lead the world
in inhumanity. They want to torture others... to make them scream to
die... for relief from their barbaric assault upon human flesh and
dignity.
When the time is appropriate, they should really be investigated, and
likely punished, for violating the standards of American civility. The
number of issues of misconduct are too numerous to mention, but perhaps
the most chilling is their wanton use of cruel torture and abuse on
human beings.
It's not like they got carried away in some instances, and it's not
like it's just a few "rogue elements" that have carried interrogations
too far. No, it's the very public fact that they've made America a
rogue nation among the world community, partly by their clear intent to
demean humanity.
From the onset, they made their intent clear. They claimed they were
not intending to abide by America's treaty with the civilized world of
sixty years, the Geneva Conventions. And they didn't. Now, as the
number of Americans begin to question their aggression upon civility,
and their reckless claim to be above the laws of our land may be soon
restrained, they're wanting to twist the arms of our legislature to
pass laws that shield them from their accountability.
We'll see if America remains a nation of morals and civility. Time
will tell. But, regardless, one thing is for certain, George Bush, Jr
and ***** Cheney are thugs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Absolom" |
|
| Title: Re: The Thugs in our White House |
15 Sep 2006 10:36:36 PM |
|
|
"JustLooking" <bgthy@htyredrf.net> wrote in message
news:MsydnRClnP2dYJfYnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
Islamic Republic of BAGHDAD! Trenches around it against hostile neighbor
IRAQ !!! Yes, IRAQ!
If this is not enough to throw the imbecile gwb in an asylum along with
rummy,
the U.S. is really gone! And you with it!
Iraq's interior ministry has announced plans to increase security in
Baghdad
by digging trenches AROUND THE CITY, and surrounding it with checkpoints.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5349398.stm
The new republic of Baghdad - free and democratic!
BWAAA HAAAA HAAAA - REPUBLICAN IDIOTS AT WORK!
This after yesterday Iraq+Iran have just made Bush & the formerly great
U.S. look like
stupid idiots.
Sorry, but that was happening quite some time before Bush took office, and
your liberal heros had something to do with that too. Couple this with the
other contributing factors to arrive at the state that we are now and you
have a factually correct assessment. Perhaps you've heard of such a thing?
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: These are the real thugs-the White House is protecting you from them |
16 Sep 2006 06:37:22 AM |
|
|
Those so-called "thugs" are protecting us from these maniacs.
How do you reason with this ?
Click here: http://www.youtube.com/v/-HlaVpqUXF0
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Our Great Leader is sure stayin' on top of treason in his White House, ain't he.
Eventually, it will take a SWAT team to remove Cheney & Bush from our White House
The worst environmental White House we've ever had in our history.
Hiding from you in our White House
***** kills white *****'s baby in Oz (welcome to our world)
The Bushies diddle with our heads - black is white and white is black.
Jacksonville's Pirate John Wesley Gilmer III regarding Vietnam vets: All of them white supremacists, Black-hating, Hispanic-hating, rednecks, Fuckups, Subhuman wankers, laughingstocks, moronic losers, pussys, hamburger-flipping greasers, offal of our
It’s Not Our White Flag, Mr. Bush, It's Yours.
| Bush and Republicans accused of lacking concern for our economic future.
What happened to all those "support our troops" flag-wavers?
Re: Our secrets remain safe
Re: Our secrets remain safe
Will Mel Gibson Serve Our LORD GOD, JESUS CHRIST... or the Evil ANTI-CHRIST jews !!
A prayer for our Prez!
Our civilisation progresses daily (was: 'I sense it slipping away')
|
|
|
