George Bush

[Random]

Originally Posted by Draven

There are three definitions of treason the COnstitution, Federal Law and UCMJ

This concerns me. Why should an act by a soldier constitute treason any more or less than the same act by a civilian? Also, the constitution governs both parties - so why would there be seperate definitions? Bureaucracy at its finest, no doubt.

Which of those three definitions did you quote?

Originally Posted by Draven

I was refering to the artcles of impeachment.

That would explain my confusion. Personally, I'd appreciate it if you were slightly clearer in future (even if it means stating in each paragraph what it is you're talking about - despite the repetition, there would be minimal confusion).

Originally Posted by Draven

In many cases the US government has labelled federal criminals as enemies of the state.

Again...for example?

(yes, I will keep on your back about examples and references)

Originally Posted by Draven

Hitler, Roman, The Greeks just off the top of my head.

For the sake of not going too far off-topic (we're pushing the boundaries now - the only relevance is that we're discussing whether or not a charge of treason would be valid for Bush specifically), I won't respond to this in detail, though I'd gladly respond to the same in a particular thread.

Nazi Germany... The Roman Empire... The Greek Empire... each of these collapsed from more in-depth causes than just sending out armies. Military played a factor in each case, but not the key factor in any case.

Again, to discuss that topic further, please make a new thread.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Random

This concerns me. Why should an act by a soldier constitute treason any more or less than the same act by a civilian? Also, the constitution governs both parties - so why would there be seperate definitions? Bureaucracy at its finest, no doubt.

Which of those three definitions did you quote?

All three...

The Constitution gives a basic frame work, aiding the enemy & levying war against the US.
Federal law sticks to this but the UCMJ defines aiding the enemy more strickly. UCMJ can not be used against a civilian, except during martial law...

Originally Posted by Random

For the sake of not going too far off-topic (we're pushing the boundaries now - the only relevance is that we're discussing whether or not a charge of treason would be valid for Bush specifically), I won't respond to this in detail, though I'd gladly respond to the same in a particular thread.

Nazi Germany... The Roman Empire... The Greek Empire... each of these collapsed from more in-depth causes than just sending out armies. Military played a factor in each case, but not the key factor in any case.

Again, to discuss that topic further, please make a new thread.

Hitler's rise to power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nazi Germany, while Hitler came to power through elections, he also burned down his own building the Reichstag. Then used the act to pass the Reichatsg act to sustend basic rights including Habeas Corpus (right to appeal). This is very similar to the patriot act (though limited to terrorist, right?), but many journal papers on terrorism by the US government say that crime is terrorism.

Louise Shelley, The Globalization of Crime and Terrorism, The Challenges of Globalization, eJournal USA, February 2006

"The artificial distinction made between crime and terrorism is based on an antiquated concept of both."

USA Patriot Act of 2001, Sections 802-811

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

Please note that the above is only the relivant portion of the terrorisy definition. Any actdangerous to human life that is a violation of criminal laws. Does this mean a mugger is a terrorist> How about the guy who gets into a bar fight over his girl friend? While these are criminal acts they are also not the actions of terrorists, but this allows for almost anyone to labelled a terrorist very similar to Hilters Reichatsg act.

The Romans, specifically Julius Caesar in his memoirs states he used war to blind people and become dictator for life. Very similar to the way Bush is using powers given to him for the "war on terror" to snoop on individual people for reasons we simply don't know.
Rome: Julius Caesar

[Zazza]

George Bush is a man, well known but still a man.
Our country is one led by many people and the end of everything that happens is contributed by many of those people (not simply politicians).
I would be more concerned about a group of small people APPOINTED for life to a place where they get to decide among themselves what is right and wrong (regardless of whether harm is done in our actions) for generations to come.

[Hetfield]

Originally Posted by CHEVY_454_POWER

I believe President Bush is a good God fearing man and has great christian values. I dont believe he has done alot of things right but i also belive he was dealt a plate of steamy shit when he came into office (both times). With what he has been handed, i believe he has handled it exceptionaly well. I support the war in Iraq, the troops do not get near as much honor as they deserve. If the war (which it definately is) was on American soil every goddamn democrat and USA hater living here would feel alot different because there fucking pretty little world would be threatened.
I am sick of this country being hated by its own folk. If you dont like it GET THE FUCK OUT. Yes, America has its ups and downs but if you dont know and belive that it is still the greatest country in the world then you are a dumbshit. Every other country in the world fears and respects us. They may not admit it but deep down inside they know it.

I apologize if i offended any one from Europe and such, ya'll have it quite nice aswell.

Any one on here listen to Limbaugh? Glenn Beck?

USA all the Way


Chevy Power!!!!

I have only just discovered this thread so i am only just picking up on this point:

The part of your post when you mentioned the president being "A God fearing man, I found to be a bad point. I believe that in a "Free" Country such as the good ol' US of A religion and pollitics should be 2 entirely different things as to avoid being biased in such a diverse country.

Also i believe, that soldiers of any nation on the planet deserve a great deal of respect because they do an incredibly dangerous job to protect the freedom and ideals of the citezens, and they dont ask questions.

HOWEVER I think bush has made far too many fuck up's including the war in Iraq.

Many people hate him and to be honest that speaks volumes

I think he will go down in history as one of the dumbest "Important" men in History

And just because people don't like their rulers, doesnt mean they hate their country or are unpatriotic in the slightest.

You seem to be a MAJOR right winger!


Thats my 2 Cents anyway

-Hetfield

[jrly]

Originally Posted by Core Entropy

Sorry it took so long for me to come back. Even though the Terrorist did not come from Iraq, Iraq was still putting themselves in a position of conflict with the US by helping refuge the terrorists. And come now if we didn't go to war pretty much everybody who is not a hippy would be saying WHY THE FUCK AREN'T YOU TAKING THEM OUT BUSH YOU IDIOT!!! So you need to look at that perspective. We need to pull out of Iraq as soon as we can get its own forces to suppress those damn Muslim extremists.

Speaking of harboring terrorists then why hasn't the US attacked Saudi Arabia where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from, oh but wait they send the US lots of oil we can't attack them.

Originally Posted by Darkshadow666

He managed to be elected president for 8 years...

1. That doesn't mean he's intellegint that justs means the people who work for him are.
2. He didn't.

Originally Posted by Random

Do you care to elaborate? What, under US law, has Bush done which constitutes an act (or acts) of treason?

During time of war it is treason to release the name of a spy which Cheney did with Valerie Plame and in my book a captain is responsible for his troops actions just like Bush is responsible for his cabinet and other upper officials actions.

[Mauler3050]

For the last few years, i have been the steriotypical bush hater, sitting and listening to rants and looking up his grammatical errors.

BUT!

Is Bush really that terrible of a president?

Most would agree that although our national debt's slope declined under Clinton, he still left Bush a hurting economy. RealClearPolitics - Articles - The Bush Economy

I urge you not to digress to conspiracy theories and empty claims, cite sources and keep strong arguments. This is not just about economy, feel free to branch into the war, quality of life, and national policies. Anything else you feel is worth arguing about do so, but just make sure it aims to justify Bush as either a Disadvantageous or Advantageous president.

I realize that this may be hard seeing as how this site is primarily Bush haters, but lets give it a shot.

[Beyond]

Well, he definitely didn't have as peaceful of a tenure as Clinton, or Bush, or even Reagan did. He also is having to deal with and attempt to fix a majority of problems he had nothing to do with (oil prices, mortgage crisis, etc.).

I feel really bad for Bush, he was really handed a shitty deck almost from the start and it never seemed to get any better.

9/11 conspiracies aside, he had almost nothing to do with the banks lending out money to anyone that could breath. Now the economy is in the shitter because of it and he's expected to do something about it to improve the situation.

Then you have 60% of America actually thinking he has any sort of influence on oil prices, it's just getting out of hand. I firmly believe he is the scapegoat for America's problems. They started pilling shit on him from the get go and he's trying to take on all of these problems despite it.

It seems as if anyone is slighted or in any sort of dilemma over anything, Bush is at fault. Then you begin to realize they're in their current situation because of THEIR choices and not anything Bush did.

Obama isn't helping either by filling everyone's head with these magical and wonderful things that he can't fulfill. He makes it out like Bush has been keeping the American people back by not socializing medicine, or taking care of the poor, etc. The American people eat it up though because they want a free ride at someone else's expense.

[jrly]

Originally Posted by Beyond

I firmly believe he is the scapegoat for America's problems. They started pilling shit on him from the get go and he's trying to take on all of these problems despite it.

It seems as if anyone is slighted or in any sort of dilemma over anything, Bush is at fault. Then you begin to realize they're in their current situation because of THEIR choices and not anything Bush did.

Exactly, its not like the president actually influences what actually happens. So its not the most powerful figure in the world's effect that his country is going to shit.

[Mauler3050]

Very good responses. It does seem that Obama makes a great deal of promises that seem... well they seem very socialist. Now that isn't a terrible thing, just as FDR showed back in the 40's, perhaps a great amount of government intervention is just what we need, but remember all of that money comes more or less from us, so prepare for some higher taxes.

Back to Bush, it's very funny IMO that most of the people who deride him for his lack of offshore drilling don't know that Bush is majorly pushing for the offshore drilling, and taking a lot of democratic opposition because of it. Myself being particularly democratic think this is a step back for us.

Now what do you all think Bush could have done better? Or where were some areas where he fucked up? I was sadly only 9 or 10 when he was elected, and just too young and stupid to care at all about about civic responsibility or politics until about now, so I kinda missed the bus in that area.

Great comments thus far, and if this needs to be moved to the Politics board, i urge administrators to do so.

[bloodlusta]

I believe George Bush was a really bad president. he has shown an inability to react to situations i.e Hurricane Katrina. He has also proven that he is an incapable war time leader. his "war of terror' has only helped the terrorists. This is partly because he is trying to fight it like fighting the cold war.

He has ruined America's relations with other countries and has really isolated America.

Im probably going to get attacked for saying this but oh well.

[Mauler3050]

I agree that Bush has extremely poor PR with other countries. As far as his War on Terror helping the Terrorists goes, I believe that to be absolutely untrue.

If he has been helping the "terrorists"(I assume that we are referring to Al Quida installations and the Taliban Government) then I believe there would be Islamic rule in Afghanistan, and Osama would be there liberating "George Washington". Although George Washington put together a liberating government of the people whereas Osama wants to install a regime of Islamic Rule. But that is an absolute digression from the topic.

And as far as the "cold war" idea is concerned, I don't even feel I need to construct an argument for that, because the 2 Wars show almost no like symptoms.

Please put some more support behind your arguments. I will come back tonight and site sources for the above statements but unfortunatly am late for work. Keep it going shockers

[Beyond]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

he has shown an inability to react to situations i.e Hurricane Katrina.

Inability to react?

He had FEMA down there days BEFORE it landed stocking supplies and preparing for the worst. He also allocated $10.5 billion in relief funding BEFORE it hit land.

Here's a quick lesson on how disasters work in America: Federal agencies only become involved AFTER local efforts have failed and/or exhausted their resources. He had federal agencies, specifically FEMA and the US Coast Guard/National Guard, in place days BEFORE the hurricane hit land.

[jrly]

Originally Posted by Beyond

He had FEMA down there days BEFORE it landed stocking supplies and preparing for the worst. He also allocated $10.5 billion in relief funding BEFORE it hit land.

But FEMA was so helpful wasn't it. And I am sure this didn't help. No Bush didn't give the movey to aid agencies until four days after Katrina. Cite.

I think what bloodlusta was saying in regard to the US fighting the war on terror like the cold war is that the US is trying to fight an idea, communism for the cold war and "antidemocracy" for the war on terror.

I think it is funny Beyond that whenever I say things that are without sources, I also get jumped(by you if you are also posting that thread) but you almost never post sources, you just post something and I generally prove it wrong and you just shut the fuck up.

[Beyond]

Originally Posted by jrly

But FEMA was so helpful wasn't it.

How often do major hurricanes hit major cities? Almost never. They told everyone to get out, not everyone listened. They shouldn't be held accountable for everyone's stupidity.

A few weeks after, Rita hit Houston and nearly every citizen evacuated before hand. We didn't have many fuck ups then now did we?

This is just another example of people using Bush as the scapegoat. When people listen to what their government advises, good things generally occur. When they don't, the government just gets blamed anyways.

No Bush didn't give the movey to aid agencies until four days after Katrina. Cite.

I said allocate. Do you know what allocate means?

I think it is funny Beyond that whenever I say things that are without sources, I also get jumped(by you if you are also posting that thread)

Because you say outlandish things like, Bush has direct ties to oil companies that profit from Iraq when he has no more ties than say, the average ExxonMobil stock holder.

but you almost never post sources

You need sources for something that happened just a few years back? What do you need cited?

you just post something and I generally prove it wrong and you just shut the fuck up.

What did you prove wrong?

[Mauler3050]

No need to flame you guys. Just stick to the debates. And I'm going to have to agree with jrly on the government lack of preparedness. To quote former secretary of state Colin Powell

"When you look at those who weren't able to get out, it should have been a blinding flash of the obvious to everybody that when you order a mandatory evacuation, you can't expect everybody to evacuate on their own. These are people who don't have credit cards; only one in 10 families at that economic level in New Orleans have a car. So it wasn't a racial thing ? but poverty disproportionately affects African-Americans in this country. And it happened because they were poor."

Now I do realize that Hurricane Katrina is sort of off topic, but it does show extremely well how Bush handles a national crisis that we knew was coming. I would highly suggest some review this TPM Hurricane Katrina Timeline.

Feel free to dive into first term stuff as well. 9/11, War in Iraq, just make sure it all relates to Bush's abilities or disabilities as president.

[FerretBone]

The piranhas will be feeding here soon. Get ready because I seem to atract them. They Usually wait for people like me and you (Beyond) to post. Then read the post carefully, drawing on any little statement that they can trap us and drag us into a long exchange.



We do have poor PR with other countries. So what. A president running this country who is more worried about what the rest of the world thinks, is not going to make decisions that are in the best interest of the US.
I like the fact that, Bush has reminded the rest of the world we still have some bite to our bark. Even tho to some we have bit all the wrong people.

Originally Posted by Beyond

What did you prove wrong?

I've never seen Jrly prove anyone wrong. I've seen him echo some ridiculous claim, then when pushed will dig up some source that matches his claim. Usually an article of someone else’s ridiculous cliam's. He will often read some article and find out, that someone, came to the same conclusion as him. then offers that as "proof".