George W. Bush, war criminal

[Debunker]

Like any large piece of legislation, there are some good ideas buried in there. The Patriot Act removed some of the artificial barriers that had been put in place to prevent different intelligence agencies from sharing information. Overall, though, it has more potential for abuse, fraud and waste than the good it actually produces (at least, it does in my opinion).

That's right, you and the terrorist agree and I am sure that Obama will abolish the Patriot Act once he sees its lack of necessity to maintain his protection of the home land. In fact, he will close GITMO and give the terrorist there their freedoms and liberties that they have been deprived of under GWB. In fact, he will keep none of Bush's policies and if he does do one thing of Bush's policies, the liberal USA will vot him out.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's right, you and the terrorist agree and I am sure that Obama will abolish the Patriot Act once he sees its lack of necessity to maintain his protection of the home land. In fact, he will close GITMO and give the terrorist there their freedoms and liberties that they have been deprived of under GWB. In fact, he will keep none of Bush's policies and if he does do one thing of Bush's policies, the liberal USA will vot him out.

*sigh*
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

 

[Jacksnyte]

*sigh*
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap

 

[angellous_evangellous]

:takeabow:

 

[Debunker]

The Patriot Act vs. The US Constitution.
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Patriot Act: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Patriot Act: The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Patriot Act: To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity.

Amendment VI: ... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Patriot Act: The government may monitor conversations between attorneys and clients in federal prisons and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ...

Patriot Act: The government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

Amendment VI: ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him ...

Patriot Act: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. US citizens (labeled "unlawful combatants") have been held incommunicado and refused attorneys.


I hope my posting of specific Amendments to the US Constitution was not too contemptuous.

And for the record, I do not condone Obama's continued support of the Patriot Act.

What you say is important. They came through my community, knocked down all our doors, drug us into the streets, search every house and demanded we give up the terrorist. When we told the, all 150 of us, that we did know what a terrorist was, they pulled out folders on each of us and read to us all the un-American activities that each of us had participated in. It was really a bad thing and I understand the this is happening all over the USA and the conservative news media will not broadcast a word about this abuse. The P.A. is so bad, why does Obama not repeal it?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What you say is important. They came through my community, knocked down all our doors, drug us into the streets, search every house and demanded we give up the terrorist. When we told the, all 150 of us, that we did know what a terrorist was, they pulled out folders on each of us and read to us all the un-American activities that each of us had participated in. It was really a bad thing and I understand the this is happening all over the USA and the conservative news media will not broadcast a word about this abuse. The P.A. is so bad, why does Obama not repeal it?

Because he's enraptured with the idealism of Bush.

 

[Debunker]

Yeah, possibly not an attack. It was more like pretending the Constitution simply didn't exist.

The realist just can't get through his head that the word protctmeans nothing in the Constitution. He thinks the President should no ignore that word. Just how un-American can he be to encourage GWB to protect the citizens of the USA?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The realist just can't get through his head that the word protctmeans nothing in the Constitution. He thinks the President should no ignore that word. Just how un-American can he be to encourage GWB to protect the citizens of the USA?

We've learned now how self destructive it is to put a liar, a drunk, and a theif in charge of protecting the citizens of the USA. It is much more constructive, however, to entrust the protection of citizens in the hands of someone intelligent, sober, and capable.

So yes, it's insanely un-American to encourage GWB to "protect the citizens of the USA." All he did was instigate two ruthless wars against people who didn't even attack us. And he did succeed in lining the pockets of thousands of contractors.

 

[Debunker]

Well, I could have been more precise.

The economic collapse could not have happened without the housing bubble and unbridled greed. The systematic deregulation of the financial industry beginning with Clinton (pbuh) and trickle down theory didn't help anything.

But the unprecedented spending by Bush is absolutely true.

The doubling of the national debt is true as well. Just think of it. Our national debt doubled.

I'm mad as hell that the Republicans want to do it all over again. And the swing vote morons who thought Obama didn't act fast enough (etc) are going to vote for someone who completely does not support their values. It's insane.

It certainly is ridicules to say the spend and tax Democrats had anything to do with the national debt. One thing for sure is that the national debt has not increased at the fastest rate in American history and the Democratic Congress would certainly not allow that, especially in the last two years. People may not have realized it but Obama has been an economic conservative. Somebody turn off that damn Fox TV.

 

[Debunker]

To Luis Dantas:

The probability of additional terrorist attacks was discussed everywhere. Obama Bin LAden had declared war on the West, and had effected a number of attacks in the preceding years. It's impossible to prove a negative - obviously - these bad things didn't happen because we did so and so. You can only investigate the might-have-been intuitively. But we have had a good ten years, for which we can all be thankful.

There are no diminished liberties of US citizens. The society goes on as riotously open as always, and more so everyday. No one ignored the Constitution, or violated it, or attacked it. This is the core of the myth-making I noted. Obama has continued most of the security apparatus in place, as will his successor.

Let me go further. As the new government of Iraq gains strength and credibility, and a push develops for consensual governments in Egypt and elsewhere, there is a PROBABILITY that Bush, Blair, and the neo-conservative approach were correct. I know it's unthinkable, but try.

Realist, would you please stop bring up these facts of history? These fact tend to justify GWB and you know he is universally hated. Why can't you be broad minded like the rest of us.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It certainly is ridicules to say the spend and tax Democrats had anything to do with the national debt. One thing for sure is that the national debt has not increased at the fastest rate in American history and the Democratic Congress would certainly not allow that, especially in the last two years. People may not have realized it but Obama has been an economic conservative. Somebody turn off that damn Fox TV.

It had nothing to do with Bush doubling the national debt and speding more in his 8 years than all the other presidents before him combined. This kind of insane spending mades the pithy Republican polemic "tax and spend" Democrats seem more than a little trite.

Bush doubled the national debt. Clinton had a surplus budget. So much for the evils of tax and spend.

 

[Genuine Realist]

Not lying about the supposed WMDs would be a start. Respecting UN decisions would be better yet.

Sigh.

Every intelligence service in the world thought Iraq had WMD's. And the reason I can say that with some confidence is that you would have heard a different estimate from the French or Russians at the time, who were stridently opposed to the invasion. But you didn't.

Bush bears a heavy responsibility for being wrong - but he didn't lie.

As for 'reaching out to Moslem moderates', who did you have in mind? Assad in Syria? Qaddafi in Libya? The Iranians? The suggestion is typical of high concept opposition - it sounds just great in principle, until you start to break it down. Then it turns out to be a lot harder than it seems. (If you mean Bush should have made cafreful distinctions between terrorist and mainstream Muslims in his policy speeches, that's exactly what he DID do. I posted a link about it.)

I will now leave you all to the task of mutual reassurance, at which you are awfully good. But try to slip in a fact every now and then.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Every intelligence service in the world thought Iraq had WMD's.

Which ones and where are their reports?

 

[Genuine Realist]

It had nothing to do with Bush doubling the national debt and speding more in his 8 years than all the other presidents before him combined. This kind of insane spending mades the pithy Republican polemic "tax and spend" Democrats seem more than a little trite.

Bush doubled the national debt. Clinton had a surplus budget. So much for the evils of tax and spend.

Clinto had a budget surplus thanks to his predecessors and their policies, as to which he was completely opposed.

 

[Debunker]

The fact is that the occupying of Iraq has done more to further the terrorist agenda than anything else.

What fact is that?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Clinto had a budget surplus thanks to his predecessors and their policies, as to which he was completely opposed.

OK, consider this, then... Bush followed Clinton. Clinton obviously didn't mess it up, so why on earth would Bush not only run a deficit, but double the debt.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Bush bears a heavy responsibility for being wrong - but he didn't lie.

:biglaugh:

*pees in pants*

Boy, thanks for that. It's going to keep me in a good mood all day long.

 

[Debunker]

Yet you ignore the FACT that Bush did nothing more than STRENGTHEN those he was supposedly after...

Hypocrite much?

Again, what fact is that?You know you did not say how. You just said.

 

[Debunker]

Says you.
And hell yeah congress passed it twice.
Look at the powers it gives them...

The pariot act allows them to do pretty much anything they like without having to present anything to justify their actions before OR EVEN after the fact.
All they have to do is claim "National Security".
The really really sad part is that there are those like your self supporting it.

I guess ignorance truly is bliss.

And all us liberals that believe every word you say, we are very blessed.

 

[Debunker]

Where did you get your special glasses?
I need to get me a pair...

When are you going to explain how you would have handled all these world crisis that you say GWB mishandled? You have a better way, let's here it.