http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070726/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/congress_gonzales
Don't you get the feeling that they have running by their own rules (or lack thereof) from the very beginning and they've basically said fvck the rule of law and the constitution in this country? Don't you get the impression that this Bush adminstration doesn't give a rats behind about the country or it's laws and is just using the position to have power over our country's military to carry out it's own personal business agenda? If you don't please back it up with a real argument and show ample amount of proof. Because the proof that what I'm saying is far greater I can tell you that right now.
2007-07-25
17:25:43
·
16 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Mike..... I can see Bush, Cheney and Rove's propaganda campaign has worked on you very well. There were no terrorists in Iraq before our invasion. Your answer has no logic behind it.
2007-07-25
17:32:19 ·
update #1
sd.... that's your argument. That's weak.
2007-07-25
17:32:49 ·
update #2
none of your business..... you didn't read the article did you? tsk tsk tsk. You're not allowed to wag your finger like some idiot father figure if you don't do the homework yourself.
2007-07-25
17:37:35 ·
update #3
Diamantez... You're right, that is the better question if you already know better. But most of the cons on these boards have their heads buried in the sand to the truth so they have to be talked down to for them to get the message. You have to remember that they have been nursed on FOX and they are used to being talked to like 7th graders.
2007-07-25
17:39:10 ·
update #4
truth seeker... I totally agree with you on that one. that truly is baffling.
2007-07-25
17:46:08 ·
update #5
ThomasS.... Very insightful and observant response. Thanks.
2007-07-25
17:47:09 ·
update #6
If Bush would not have had sent troops to iraq what would have happend? America would not be as safe as we are right now. Terrorist would be attacking America left and right. I
2007-07-25 17:31:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by mikesdaman71 4
·
2⤊
6⤋
"Always tell the truth. That way you don't have to remember what you said."--Mark Twain
God, if there is only one thing you can do for me, make my enemies stupid."--Voltaire
"Le Etat, ce moi."--Louis XIV
Well aren't you just Captain Obvious? When a President actually says, as Bush did in 2002 that, "The Constitution is just a piece of paper," You have to figure that he thinks he is above the law. I can't recall a single White House action that contradicts this proposition. And when John Ashcroft covered up the statues of Justice and The Majesty of the Law in the foyer of the Justice Department. it wasn't because he was offended by the nudity. He just didn't want them watching.
I don't so much mind the lying, they wouldn't be politicians if they didn't. But the brazen way in which they keep changing their stories is an insult to everyone with 3 functioning brain cells and the ability to remember things for more than a month. Even the Republitrolls are starting to get ticked off, because they can't keep up with what the current line is and get chided for defending things, "The President never said."
Whenever a choice had to be made between the National Interest and the Corporate interest, Bush and Company have chosen the Corporations every time. Whenever there has been a Conflict between Human Rights and Dominionist ambitions, Bush has sided with the Fundies every time. Whenever there is a Foreign Policy decision to be made, Bush has done the bidding of the Saudis every time. Despite evidence of theft of intellectual property, dumping, currency manipulation, government obstruction of sales of US goods and a rapid Military buildup, Bush has sided with the Red Chinese and the "Free Traders" every time.
By his own admission, Bush backed Amnesty for the Illegal aliens, not as a human rights issue--but as a means of keeping wages low.
And how many times has he lied by announcing bold new programs to alleviate the Energy crisis, Education, Military pay, etc., and then lobbied against the enabling legislation or failed to provide funding? More than I can count.
That's why Fox News is suing Youtube. Not because the News is private property, but because having an archive like that makes it easy to track the changes in people's stories.
So. You finally caught on. Better late than never, I guess.
2007-07-25 19:05:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
I believe the neocons are planning another 9/11.
The first one worked so well they figure it will work again.Fear works.
This time it will be just before the election and they will bring Osama Bin Laden's dead body out of the deep freeze so the republican can say they have a victory in the war on terror.
That's the only way the republicans have a chance against the dems.
Fear works.
They have already started.
About a month ago one of the Bush aids mentioned that he had a feeling there was going to be another terrorist attack in the United States.
Now I hear they have found packages with cell phone batteries taped to blocks of cheese in airport security checks.
And,get this,the people with the packages haven't got a "reasonable answer" as to why they are carrying a block of cheese with a cell phone battery attached.!
("Oh that! I use it to make grill cheese sandwiches on the fly!")
(Supposedly the cheese is the same consistency as some plastic explosives.)
So my question is,how stupid are we suppose to think these people are?
Who,in their right mind is going to try and carry a package like that through security unless they wanted attention on themselves or the package.
Watch for this story to develop as the election draws near.
May heaven help us all.
2007-07-25 17:53:52
·
answer #3
·
answered by robert2011@sbcglobal.net 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
I believe this is what happens when the President is not in full control of the White House , people do as they please willy nilly . Anyway I look at Mr. Bush as a Manchurian candidate except he wasn't brainwashed , think about it - from the election until now its been nothing but corruption and lies and worst of all the death of innocence . The man had to be hand picked by the corporate elite and placed in power . After all they are the ones who are benefiting .
2007-07-25 17:38:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
I find these questions Funny. You are afraid of your Goverment. When BUSH won the 1st time we speculated corruption.Gore asked for a recount but that was it you as a citizen did nothing. You are afraid of the Goverment. Then even thou BUSH screwed US the first 4 Years we relected him again, to up it to us again. You are AFRAID of the Goverment. You hate him and guess what next term your gonna elect another white guy the way it always has been. Its time for CHANGE CLINTON OBAMA somebody..
Meanwhile your at home typing away that you hate the bush administration WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT You wont March because you have to pick up the kids or you have to go to work.. So WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO.
I ONCE SEEN A MONK Sitting Indian STYLE poured gas on himelf and set hisself a fire "WE HAVE ALL SEEN THAT IMAGE" Its drastic but it happen before I was BORN AND I RECALL THE PICTURE SO IT MADE A STAtEMENT...
What are you going to do remember your afraid of the Goverment even thou they work for you.
You'll do nOTHING THAST WHAT YOU'LL DOOO!
GO AHEAD PROVE ME WRONG I DARE YOU!!!!
i BET YOU DONT EVEN VOTE NON OF YOU PEOPLE DO WHY BECAUSE YOUR HOPELESS AND YOUR SCARED
2007-07-25 17:39:02
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
exactly the same as in the UK
exactly the same type of thing
under Blair and his performing chimpanzees
better known as new labour
people say Blair was bush's pet poodle
I'm not sure i agree,Blair was a calculating often
slippery pm who could roll bull off his tongue fluently
and be persuasive and charming,on the other hand bush is none of these things,hes completely clueless hes driven by a war machine operating in the shadows,and was elected as president by that same machine,its not easy to rig votes,but the world wanted to shout FIXED at the TV,it was a very dodgy victory that just did not have any air of sincerity about it ,bush knows 0 and is likely to authorize anything that people such as tony Blair wanted him to authorize,because Blair and others are very crafty liars and all ready had their war intentions in mind now all they need to get it in motion is a president just like bush
bush is stupid,he knows he is stupid,but doesn't want to appear as president of USA looking stupid
so he is open to suggestion from anyone he knows
and feels he can trust to avoid looking too stupid
who offered bush junior up as a candidate for being pres USA who talked him into it,find who that is and you are on a road to finding out who really runs the show,its not bush he cant run anything without it first being choreographed
2007-07-25 17:52:28
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Well, actually it seems that there are two sides to the story. I read the story. I take it you're not fond of the judicial system and would rather rely on Democrats to try cases on anything relating to Bush. I am not crazy about Bush myself, but can't agree with a one-sided argument.
2007-07-25 17:38:48
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Ha ha ha ha. it relatively is reliable. traditionally, the main depended on guy in united statesa. for over 30 years became Walter Cronkite. everyone reported so. Republicans, Democrats, the ny Yankees, The Ford commencing place. everyone. Then! The neo-cons have been given a replica of Mein Kampf and began calling the clicking liberal. They began Fox information which so comical that Jon Stewart expenses them verbatim and gets great laughs! Your element is particularly made!
2016-12-14 18:13:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The difference is, Clinton (who I didn't like), fired the 93 except for Chertoff, AT THE BEGINNING of his term, just like any new party president does. Bush/Gonzales did it midterm, with ancillary changes in the Patriot Act. Doesn't sound like much of a difference to the insta-pundits, but it's a huge difference if you actually take the time to learn about the CONTEXT of an action.
2007-07-25 17:45:42
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
I am having a very hard time trying to understand how Clinton can be impeached for lying about an affair that was brought up in a trial about a real estate venture, yet Bush gets a free pass to do what ever he wants , when ever he wants, and to ever he wants.
2007-07-25 17:40:09
·
answer #10
·
answered by truth seeker 7
·
5⤊
1⤋
I read the article.
I believe in "Innocent until proved guilty".
You seem to have abandoned one of the basic principles of justice in this country.
If they have the inquiry, if they decide to have it, and he is found guilty, then post this. Until then you simply show your contempt for our laws compared to your political bigotry.
That doesn't help.
Especially since I'm a democrat. I'm not surprised that most of the Republicans didn't catch this. That's not their focus. I am upset that more Democrats didn't.
You don't speak for me.
2007-07-25 17:40:01
·
answer #11
·
answered by mckenziecalhoun 7
·
1⤊
1⤋