if thats true you must be writing this from Gitmo or some secret CIA prison right?
2006-09-29 14:46:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by TLJaguar 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
DUmBYA also said the Constitution is "just a G-D piece of paper..."
He also said this:
Bush: 'History Cannot Judge Me If I End It Soon'
September 7, 2006 | Issue 42•36
WASHINGTON, DC—Despite, or perhaps because of, rising fuel prices, the unpopularity of the U.S. presence in Iraq, and mounting legal problems surrounding his administration, President Bush informed his Cabinet Monday that he is unworried about his place in history, White House sources said. "I'm telling you, pretty soon some things are going to develop so that I won't have history to worry about any longer," Bush said. "History may be written by the winners, but it doesn't get written at all if all of human language is lost in, say, fire storms, right? So I can still get off the hook." Although troubles faced by his presidency have been relatively recent, sources said they believed Bush's plan had been put into motion long before he had even taken office.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/52331
http://p2pnet.net/story/9795
Digg goes down…for a little while.
And this:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State” ~~~~~ George W. Bush
Does that seem like it's coming from a SANE person?
So if you're a "terrorist", then I am, too. I guess we're both having our computers scanned/hacked into/monitored by the NSA right NOW!
2006-09-29 21:57:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by x_southernbelle 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
I am in agreement that the definition of a terrorist is ambivalent and far too broad to protect citizens rights as provided by the Bill of Rights. It may be some time before anyone has the ability to challenge the new act before the Supreme Court, since one party controls the administrative branch, the executive branch, and unfortunately the judiciary branch. That loosely allied party of primarily wealthy corporate moguls has also gained control of the majority of the media, or rather the media that reaches the majority. We really should resist "government" (capitalist) control of the internet, it is one of few remaining means of communicating the truth, even though there are already mechanisms to prevent mass communication via the internet in the form of anti-spam programs. Radio can't reach enough people at the same time.
Remember the lessons of Kampuchea, most quickly and easily learned by watching the movie "The Killing Fields".
2006-09-29 22:05:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by water boy 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
If this were true, you would have been able to find a reliable source. The actual text of the bill would work. The section your link claims make not pledging allegiance to the US a terrorist act, specifically refers to knowingly and intentional aiding the enemy. It also only applys to 'alien unlawful combatants'.
BTW the link you used to support your statement led me to all of the information I copied.
(26) WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY- Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.
`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.
2006-09-29 22:29:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by STEVEN F 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Thats bogus. I am against the war! And I can'r stand Bush or Rice! Both are liars!
No, you aren't a terrorist! George Bush is a Terrorist!
2006-09-29 21:51:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by cantcu 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Patriot Act II does, but it was passed recently under a different bill, yet same mentality. It is funny how they say terrorists hate our freedom, yet Bush has pushed bills that attack our Bill of Rights over and over again. Go figure !
2006-09-29 21:47:21
·
answer #6
·
answered by rc 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
I was not aware of that.
2006-09-29 21:54:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by MEL T 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
awaken!!!!!!!!! from your crack induced dream....ya nimrod
2006-09-29 22:05:44
·
answer #8
·
answered by bushfan88 5
·
0⤊
1⤋