A must read...Bush responds to Sheehan...kindof

MonsterMark

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
9,018
Reaction score
3
Location
United States
If only George Bush would get up and say this to our Country and to the World.

Thank you Scott Ott. This is the best response I have seen written or spoken about the the sacrifices our men and women in the military make for our Country.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Leak: Draft of Bush Answer to Cindy Sheehan
by Scott Ott
(2005-08-24) -- An internal White House memo, leaked today, indicates how President George Bush initially planned to address Cindy Sheehan's question: What "noble cause" did my son die for?

The draft memo includes suggestions from White House communications staff, followed by several paragraphs apparently handwritten by the president.

While handwriting experts from CBS News continue to pore over the document to verify its authenticity, here is the text of the president's alleged response to the grieving Mom whose protest has captured the hearts of America's journalists.



Dear Mrs. Sheehan, You have asked me to identify the noble cause for which your son died. I have not answered you personally out of respect for the nobility of your son's sacrifice.



Being president forces me into the spotlight, but I would rather stand in the shadows of men like Casey Sheehan.

Directing national attention on my response to your protest creates a distraction from what matters. The focus of our attention, and our admiration, should rest on people like Casey Sheehan, who stand in the breach when evil threatens to break out and consume a helpless people.

The running story on the news networks should be the valiant efforts of our troops -- the merchants of mercy who export freedom and import honor. They trade their own lives for the sake of others.

As a result, we live in a nation where a woman can camp outside of the president's house and verbally attack the president for weeks on end without fear of prison, torture or death. And the number of nations where such protest is possible has multiplied thanks to the work of our military.

You ask for what noble cause your son died?

In a sense he died so that people like you, who passionately oppose government policies, can freely express that opposition. As you camp in Crawford, you should take off your shoes, for you stand on holy ground. This land was bought with the blood of men like your son.

Now, 25 million Iraqis cry out to enjoy the life you take for granted. Most of them will never use their freedom to denigrate the sacrifice of those who paid for it. But once liberty is enshrined in law, they will be free to do so. And when the Iraqis finally escape their incarceration, hope will spread throughout that enslaved region of the world, eventually making us all safer and more free.

The key is in the lock of the prison door. Bold men risk everything to turn it.

Mrs. Sheehan, everyone dies. But few experience the bittersweet glory of death with a purpose -- death that sets people free and produces ripples of liberty hundreds of years into the future.

Casey Sheehan died that freedom might triumph over bondage, hope over despair, prosperity over misery. He died restoring justice and mercy. He lived and died to help to destroy the last stubborn vestiges of the Dark Ages.

To paraphrase President Lincoln, the world will little note nor long remember what you and I say here. But it can never forget what Casey Sheehan did during his brief turn on earth. If we are wise, we will take increased devotion to that cause for which he gave the last full measure of devotion.

Our brave warriors have blazed a trail. They have entrusted the completion of the task to those of us they left behind. Let's, you and I, resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.

Let's finish the work that they have thus far so nobly advanced.

Sincerely,
George W. Bush



 
More good stuff.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Hinderaker over at www.powerlineblog.com has this outtake from his longer piece:
"The sins of the news media in reporting on Iraq are mainly sins of omission. Not only do news outlets generally fail to report the progress that is being made, and often fail to put military operations into any kind of tactical or strategic perspective, they assiduously avoid talking about the overarching strategic reason for our involvement there: the Bush administration's conviction that the only way to solve the problem of Islamic terrorism, long term, is to help liberate the Arab countries so that their peoples' energies will be channelled into the peaceful pursuits of free enterprise and democracy, rather than into bizarre ideologies and terrorism. Partly this omission is due to laziness or incomprehension, but I think it is mostly attributable to the fact that if the media acknowledged that reforming the Arab world, in order to drain the terrorist swamp, has always been the principal purpose of the Iraq war, it would take the sting out of their "No large stockpiles of WMDs!" theme."

The Cindy Sheehans so celebrated by the press simply echo the shabby portrayal of the Iraq mission by the press. Unfortunately, their combined efforts demoralize those capable of thinking more largely and diminish the meritorious actions of those who see beyond their own personal comfort.
 
fossten said:
That's good stuff.

Even if it's complete bull :q:q:q:q!

Iraqi citizens don't want the same "freedom" that we have in the United States. You know what the big hold up is on the Iraqi Constitution? An argument over whether it will include islamic laws like the subjugation of women, or if it will be more progressive. And by progressive they don't mean laws protecting a free market economy and making the rights of all people equal...to most Iraqis progressive means that women don't have to cover their faces while shopping for their husband's dinner, and the man must close his shutters before he beats the :q:q:q:q out of her for buying turnips again.

The new Iraq constitution is doomed to failure. You know why? It was not brought about by a revolution mandated by the people of Iraq...it was brought about by an invading force. Who the heck cares what it says in that country? Put yourself in the average Iraqi's shoes for a second people... Another country just came down my street blowing the :q:q:q:q out of my whole economic system and government (no matter how corrupt...I was probably finding a way to make it by)... They've set up some people I've never heard of as my 'leaders'... and now they want me to forget all of my family's traditions and history. The last time this happened; Great Britain, France, and Russia all joined in to stop the perpetrator and it was a Hitler led Germany invading Poland and telling the Polish people that he was liberating them from an oppressive government led by the wilily Jews controlling everything.

I support our country whole heartedly, I just don't support it's leadership.

George Bush has preformed more than one impeachable offense since taking office, and has totally failed his duties as President of The United States of America. :bsflag:
 
raVeneyes said:
George Bush has preformed more than one impeachable offense since taking office, and has totally failed his duties as President of The United States of America. :bsflag:

Your last statement was totally irrelevant to your topic, and was left unsupported. What offenses are you referring to, and what evidence do you have?
 
raVeneyes said:
The new Iraq constitution is doomed to failure. You know why? It was not brought about by a revolution mandated by the people of Iraq...it was brought about by an invading force..
1st: Welcome. Your opinions are appreciated but will be dissected and refuted where applicable.

Wrong on the constitution thing. Got a question for you. Without there ever being a Saddam, what would Iraq look like today?

raVeneyes said:
Who the heck cares what it says in that country? Put yourself in the average Iraqi's shoes for a second people... Another country just came down my street blowing the crap out of my whole economic system and government (no matter how corrupt...I was probably finding a way to make it by)... They've set up some people I've never heard of as my 'leaders'... and now they want me to forget all of my family's traditions and history. The last time this happened; Great Britain, France, and Russia all joined in to stop the perpetrator and it was a Hitler led Germany invading Poland and telling the Polish people that he was liberating them from an oppressive government led by the wilily Jews controlling everything..

More people in Iraq voted as a percentage of their population than in the United States (in their 1st election) and we've been at this democratic thing for 200 years. Plus, how many snipers, suicide bombers and buried IED devices did you have to avoid on your way to the poll? The turnout to vote in Iraq alone renders most of your arguments moot. Heck, if we even had a terror alert and one car bomb going off in podunk arkansas on election day, you can bet that have the voters would stay home and lock their doors.

raVeneyes said:
I support our country whole heartedly, I just don't support it's leadership.

George Bush has preformed more than one impeachable offense since taking office, and has totally failed his duties as President of The United States of America.
Still playing the game of pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey eh. Your last line is a total joke. I have posted at least 100 'duties' that Bush has performed on the past 4-1/2 years that makes him one of the most active and best Presidents in terms of policy we have ever had.
 
oooooooo, another liberal for my enjoyment!!! This calls for a celebration!!! OH, and welcome to the site raVeneyes!!! I'm sure we'll all get to know eachother very well. By the way, is it me, or does Barry seem to disappear every so often?
 
fossten said:
Your last statement was totally irrelevant to your topic, and was left unsupported. What offenses are you referring to, and what evidence do you have?

Let's take a look at the Oath of Office for the President of The United States:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Firstly this President has signed in to law more bills that have been deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court than any other President in history.

Secondly this President has seen fit to suspend without prejudice most of our constitutional freedoms under the 'Patriot act'.

We can start there...he lied during his presidential oath. We can go on with the fact that he perjured himself in front of congress saying he had clear evidence of a link between Iraq and September 11th. We could add the clear violations of free trade laws and defaults on the values of separation of church and state. We can include his hand in the Haliburton scandal and his drug use during his college years.

The accusations are not undocumented or unsupported, they are just unusable. The majority Republican congress isn't about to bring it's golden boy up on articles of impeachment.
 
raVeneyes said:
Let's take a look at the Oath of Office for the President of The United States:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Firstly this President has signed in to law more bills that have been deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court than any other President in history.

Secondly this President has seen fit to suspend without prejudice most of our constitutional freedoms under the 'Patriot act'.

We can start there...he lied during his presidential oath. We can go on with the fact that he perjured himself in front of congress saying he had clear evidence of a link between Iraq and September 11th. We could add the clear violations of free trade laws and defaults on the values of separation of church and state. We can include his hand in the Haliburton scandal and his drug use during his college years.

The accusations are not undocumented or unsupported, they are just unusable. The majority Republican congress isn't about to bring it's golden boy up on articles of impeachment.

That's absurd. The Patriot Act was an ACT of Congress, hence the word ACT. It was not an executive order. You need to take High School Civics again?

Furthermore, name those bills that were unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

What Halliburton scandal? And what is his involvement? He never worked for Halliburton.

I just posted a long article DETAILING multiple links b/t Iraq and Al Qaeda. You need to read other posts and threads before you comment and come off like you don't know what you're talking about. Just read my thread about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Jeez. You sound like a summary of already-disproven talking points by the fringe left. Your comments have already been discredited, before you even made them.

If you're gonna parrot, you might as well start with "Michael Moore want a cracker?"
 
raVeneyes said:
Firstly this President has signed in to law more bills that have been deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court than any other President in history.

Laws passed by the Congress which You vote into office to represent you in government. You don't like the laws being passed by your congressman? ...vote him out. Can't because you're the minority? ...tough sh!t. That's how a our government works. Don't like it...go somewhere else.

Secondly this President has seen fit to suspend without prejudice most of our constitutional freedoms under the 'Patriot act'.

Like what? Taking away the ability of terrorists to blow themselves up on US streets? Good. What are you worried about? Trust me, the US Governmet isn't interested in your porn collection or conversations about smokin a joint in the back yard. You aren't Mulder and this isn't the X-Files...enough with the government conspiracy.



Oh...and the Halliburton/WMD thing has been beat to death...find another horse.
 
MonsterMark said:
1st: Welcome. Your opinions are appreciated but will be dissected and refuted where applicable.

Wrong on the constitution thing. Got a question for you. Without there ever being a Saddam, what would Iraq look like today?

Without a Saddam, Iraq would most likely have become a three state system on the verge of civil war...in fact that's why the United States supported Saddam and helped him to gain power over the other two factions the Kurds (who were Soviet backed) in the North, and the Shiites (the more peaceful, progressive muslims) in the South. The southern Iraqis are by far the largest group...having well over 50% of the total population. The Shiites and Kurds are a lot like the more liberal side of the United States - pushing for centralized government, freedoms of speech and worship, equal rights, and government programs to help the poor, sick, elderly, and disabled. The Kurds of course do this out of a view of being the smallest group...barely a quarter of the population...and being the underdogs they fight for equality. The Shiites have always been a progressive group of Islam and have the view that Christianity is Islam...minus a few prophets.

The Sunni muslims...where Saddam came from...has always been a militant and radical group of conservatives. They advocate strict interpretations of the Koran and adhering to it's laws and other traditional Islamic laws. They are just shy of being one third of the population and were helped to power by military aid from the US in the late 70's and early 80's. Once Saddam had power, he created the Bath party and started killing off the easy rivals the Kurds. At first, the US was all behind Saddam's efforts because he was fighting Communism, but the Berlin wall fell, the iron curtain rusted, and no one got the message in Iraq... So Saddam kept fighting because he'd gained so much power he could do as he wished.

Without Saddam, a unified Iraq would have long ago broken in to separate city/states one Kurdish in the North, one Shiite in the South and in the central and western areas a tribal government of Sunnis.

More people in Iraq voted as a percentage of their population than in the United States (in their 1st election) and we've been at this democratic thing for 200 years. Plus, how many snipers, suicide bombers and buried IED devices did you have to avoid on your way to the poll? The turnout to vote in Iraq alone renders most of your arguments moot. Heck, if we even had a terror alert and one car bomb going off in podunk arkansas on election day, you can bet that have the voters would stay home and lock their doors.

You are correct...Iraqis are a passionate and politically active people. They do care what a constitution that governs their country says, however they probably all disagree to some extent with how it was brought about. I was using the good old literary tool of facetiousness to emphasize a point

Still playing the game of pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey eh. Your last line is a total joke. I have posted at least 100 'duties' that Bush has performed on the past 4-1/2 years that makes him one of the most active and best Presidents in terms of policy we have ever had.

And I've since posted a list of faults with the way Bush has preformed his duties as President.
 
in fact that's why the United States supported Saddam and helped him to gain power over the other two factions the Kurds (who were Soviet backed) in the North, and the Shiites (the more peaceful, progressive muslims) in the South.

WHAT?!?!?! In 1972, Iraq and the Soviet Union signed a treaty of friendship. The two countries agreed to cooperate in political, economic, and military affairs. The Soviet Union also agreed to supply Iraq with arms. These were intended to be used to solve the "Kurdish Problem"

Your ignorance of world history is only paralleled by your ingnorance of governmental policy.
 
It was only until after the "Islamic Revolution" in Iran that the US started to support Iraq...and even that support didn't come until after 1984.
 
fossten said:
That's absurd. The Patriot Act was an ACT of Congress, hence the word ACT. It was not an executive order. You need to take High School Civics again?

The Act was signed in to law by President Bush...also the act was originally called for and then supported the Act in it's passage through congress.

Furthermore, name those bills that were unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme court has recently ruled several parts of the Patriot Act unconstitutional and removed them from law

What Halliburton scandal? And what is his involvement? He never worked for Halliburton.
Halliburton is just one of the many examples of the Good ol' boy way of doing things that the Bush family is used to. The whole family was involved it doesn't require working for the company.

I just posted a long article DETAILING multiple links b/t Iraq and Al Qaeda.

AMAZING! you found a links that the people responsible (the leader of the US military, the Presidential publicist, the US Representative to the United Nations) for finding and demonstrating those links; with all the resources of the intelligence agencies of the Army, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Secret Service; were unable to find. Your links...whatever they are...are crap...and I don't even have to read them to know that, because if they weren't crap, they would have been used by the President and White house staff to justify their actions already.

You need to read other posts and threads before you comment and come off like you don't know what you're talking about. Just read my thread about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Jeez. You sound like a summary of already-disproven talking points by the fringe left. Your comments have already been discredited, before you even made them.

Why should I read hours and hours worth of useless drivel from people who know less about international politics than Bush? I'm not saying I know any more than anyone else here, I'm just saying whatever arguments to prove/disprove talking points is just regurgitated Fox news channel propaganda. This is why I generally don't participate in this forum because the rebuttals to my arguments are inane and never have any backing...they always fall to partisan chest beating. It really gets retarded in here.

as an example:

If you're gonna parrot, you might as well start with "Michael Moore want a cracker?"
 
FreeFaller said:
Laws passed by the Congress which You vote into office to represent you in government. You don't like the laws being passed by your congressman? ...vote him out. Can't because you're the minority? ...tough sh!t. That's how a our government works. Don't like it...go somewhere else.

That's your answer? Go somewhere else? See what I mean about chest beating retarded comments?

Our government also works by allowing me, the minority, to raise issues and concerns of the group with my own voice. I live in New Jersey, which has a liberal representation in Congress, so voting my congressman out will do no good. I don't want to go somewhere else because this is my country...I was born here...and I will contribute to making it a better place.

Like what? Taking away the ability of terrorists to blow themselves up on US streets? Good. What are you worried about? Trust me, the US Governmet isn't interested in your porn collection or conversations about smokin a joint in the back yard. You aren't Mulder and this isn't the X-Files...enough with the government conspiracy.

Again, name calling and pandering aren't necessary. The Patriot act suspends the basic rights to a fair and speedy trial, the right to representation, the rights to property. In essence it completely suspends the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Oh...and the Halliburton/WMD thing has been beat to death...find another horse.

The issues of Halliburton and Weapons of Mass Destruction both have not been addressed by the government. Until these issues have been properly investigated and prosecuted they have not been beaten to death. Until there is a hearing and someone is found guilty or not guilty of a charge, then the issue has not been resolved.
 
FreeFaller said:
It was only until after the "Islamic Revolution" in Iran that the US started to support Iraq...and even that support didn't come until after 1984.

Ok. I got something wrong. I still answered the original question which was what would Iraq look like had there never been Saddam.

My apologies for the incorrect info on the timeline of support for Saddam.
 
Well, since you're obviously talking about the recent implications from the ACLU here are some myths and facts concerning the patriot act.

Myth: The ACLU claims that the Patriot Act "expands terrorism laws to include 'domestic terrorism' which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy." They also claim that it includes a "provision that might allow the actions of peaceful groups that dissent from government policy, such as Greenpeace, to be treated as 'domestic terrorism.'" (ACLU, February 11, 2003; ACLU fundraising letter, cited by Stuart Taylor in "UnPATRIOTic," National Journal, August 4, 2003)

Reality: The Patriot Act limits domestic terrorism to conduct that breaks criminal laws, endangering human life. "Peaceful groups that dissent from government policy" without breaking laws cannot be targeted.




Myth: The ACLU has claimed that "Many [people] are unaware that their library habits could become the target of government surveillance. In a free society, such monitoring is odious and unnecessary. . . The secrecy that surrounds section 215 leads us to a society where the 'thought police' can target us for what we choose to read or what Websites we visit." (ACLU, July 22, 2003)

Reality: The Patriot Act specifically protects Americans' First Amendment rights, and terrorism investigators have no interest in the library habits of ordinary Americans.

Myth: The ACLU claims that the Patriot Act provision about delayed notification search warrants "would allow law enforcement agencies to delay giving notice when they conduct a search. . . . This provision would mark a sea change in the way search warrants are executed in the United States." (ACLU, October 23, 2001)

Reality: Delayed notification search warrants are a long-existing, crime-fighting tool upheld by courts nationwide for decades in organized crime, drug cases and child pornography.

The Supreme Court has held the Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to give immediate notice of the execution of a search warrant. The Supreme Court emphasized "that covert entries are constitutional in some circumstances, at least if they are made pursuant to a warrant." In fact, the Court stated that an argument to the contrary was "frivolous." Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238 (1979)


Source: US Department of Justice
 
raVeneyes said:
Ok. I got something wrong. I still answered the original question which was what would Iraq look like had there never been Saddam.

My apologies for the incorrect info on the timeline of support for Saddam.

Mad Respect! If you can prove me wrong...I'll do the same :Beer
 
raVeneyes said:
The Act was signed in to law by President Bush...also the act was originally called for and then supported the Act in it's passage through congress.

Ok, since I can't attack you personally, all I will say is that appearently you have no clue how the balance of powers work. Just because he signs it doesn't mean it's from the Executive Branch. And even if he called for it, he'd still have to convince what, like 2/3 of the Senate and I don't know how many in the House to have it ratified before he even gets it? Sounds like a Bipartisan move to me, but then again, I just am a Fox News watching fool.



The Supreme court has recently ruled several parts of the Patriot Act unconstitutional and removed them from law

Yeah, is this the same supreme court that said eminent domain is constitutional?? I forget, do we have two? Oh, that's right, we have a majority of somewhat idiots on the bench.


Halliburton is just one of the many examples of the Good ol' boy way of doing things that the Bush family is used to. The whole family was involved it doesn't require working for the company.

PROOF???? You can't fool me just by being so sure of yourself. Give me some proof, and I'll say the sem thing that you say below.



AMAZING! you found a links that the people responsible (the leader of the US military, the Presidential publicist, the US Representative to the United Nations) for finding and demonstrating those links; with all the resources of the intelligence agencies of the Army, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Secret Service; were unable to find. Your links...whatever they are...are crap...and I don't even have to read them to know that, because if they weren't crap, they would have been used by the President and White house staff to justify their actions already.

So you won't read them? But you know they are crap? You must be a genious. Pure and simple. Even Barry would read a link I think.



Why should I read hours and hours worth of useless drivel from people who know less about international politics than Bush? I'm not saying I know any more than anyone else here, I'm just saying whatever arguments to prove/disprove talking points is just regurgitated Fox news channel propaganda. This is why I generally don't participate in this forum because the rebuttals to my arguments are inane and never have any backing...they always fall to partisan chest beating. It really gets retarded in here.

as an example:

If you think it's retarded, then don't participate, that's all. I for one would love to have another lib in here, but if you don't like it, don't complain about it, just don't partake in it. And in essence you just said you know less than Bush does, so who are you to comment on his performance???
 
raVeneyes said:
Ok. I got something wrong. I still answered the original question which was what would Iraq look like had there never been Saddam.

So my follow up question is:

Is Iraq better off without Saddam?
Will the United States succeed like it has in Japan and Germany and the Balkans, even Afganistan, in bringing a semblance of peace and prosperity to the people who were once our enemies?

Only in North Korea and North Vietnam where we failed to go in and force a surrender and rebuild the country, did democracy not take root and look at where the countries are today ~ at best, 3rd world countries.
 
FreeFaller said:
Reality: The Patriot Act limits domestic terrorism to conduct that breaks criminal laws, endangering human life. "Peaceful groups that dissent from government policy" without breaking laws cannot be targeted.

This is a myth...and propaganda.

Steve Kurtz is currently suffering through the fallout of being wrongly accused and prosecuted under the Patriot act. It's the scariest thing I've seen in a while, and if you don't think that one or two over zealous FBI agents are a big deal please read about this artist's problems arising when his wife died and two EMTs thought something was fishy in his house.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/23/DDGPJEAQ4J1.DTL
 
raVeneyes said:
That's your answer? Go somewhere else? See what I mean about chest beating retarded comments?

But I guess name calling and pandering are okay when you do it...

I have thick skin though so I'll look past it.


Our government also works by allowing me, the minority, to raise issues and concerns of the group with my own voice. I live in New Jersey, which has a liberal representation in Congress, so voting my congressman out will do no good. I don't want to go somewhere else because this is my country...I was born here...and I will contribute to making it a better place.

Right it does. But if you're the only one bitching in a room of 50 people...guess what? Nobody's gonna give a damn! If your congressman's voice isn't loud enough, find someone who's is. Hell, become part of the process by running for government. I applaud your desire to make this country better...but do so with an informed idea of how the system works. Otherwise you ultimatly hurt your cause and make yourself look silly.
 
raVeneyes said:
The Act was signed in to law by President Bush...also the act was originally called for and then supported the Act in it's passage through congress.



The Supreme court has recently ruled several parts of the Patriot Act unconstitutional and removed them from law


Halliburton is just one of the many examples of the Good ol' boy way of doing things that the Bush family is used to. The whole family was involved it doesn't require working for the company.



AMAZING! you found a links that the people responsible (the leader of the US military, the Presidential publicist, the US Representative to the United Nations) for finding and demonstrating those links; with all the resources of the intelligence agencies of the Army, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Secret Service; were unable to find. Your links...whatever they are...are crap...and I don't even have to read them to know that, because if they weren't crap, they would have been used by the President and White house staff to justify their actions already.



Why should I read hours and hours worth of useless drivel from people who know less about international politics than Bush? I'm not saying I know any more than anyone else here, I'm just saying whatever arguments to prove/disprove talking points is just regurgitated Fox news channel propaganda. This is why I generally don't participate in this forum because the rebuttals to my arguments are inane and never have any backing...they always fall to partisan chest beating. It really gets retarded in here.

as an example:

Oh, so you found ONE ACT? I thought you said that the Court found more of his signed-into-law bills unconstitutional than any other president in history! As far as the President calling for the Act and supporting its passage, READ THE CONSTITUTION. It is the power and job of the executive branch to set the agenda for Congress.
U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 3

Article 2 - The Executive Branch

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
(Dang I'm good)



The fact that you are unwilling to read facts presented to you, just because they might rebut inane statements that you have made, shows that you are no better than the blatting trumpet fringe left wackos on this site. If you had the BALLS you would read them and make a sound judgment. What are you afraid of? That your wittle bubble might burst?
 
raVeneyes said:
This is a myth...and propaganda.

Steve Kurtz is currently suffering through the fallout of being wrongly accused and prosecuted under the Patriot act. It's the scariest thing I've seen in a while, and if you don't think that one or two over zealous FBI agents are a big deal please read about this artist's problems arising when his wife died and two EMTs thought something was fishy in his house.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/23/DDGPJEAQ4J1.DTL


Uh...Steve Kurtz broke the law. A law that is there for a reason. Maybe if he wasn't a left wing nutjob who wanted to stick his finger in the eye of "da man" he could calmly explain himself and work the issue out with the Federal Government. But instead he chooses to run to the People's Republic of San Francisco (my hometown unfortunately) and cry like a little baby. So screw him...
 
fosstenWhat are you afraid of? That your wittle bubble might burst?[/QUOTE said:
It can't be too little to fit so much bull sh!t in it.....
 

Members online

Back
Top