Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As usual, you have no evidence or proof any of this is true.
Our nation was attacked under Bush's watch, because he chose to ignore the warnings. He lied to take our nation to war and send our children to their death. He subverted the Rule of Law. He repealed environmental laws. He worked--with Cheney behind the scenes--to rewrite the Constitution to give more power to the Executive branch. He broke international law with torture. He ruined the economy.
There is plenty of evidence that the first sentence is true. We've seen it posted time and again. The second sentence is also true. I think there's plenty of evidence for #3. I'd have to do some research on #4. The Constitution has not been rewritten, but Bush did his best to increase the exective branch's power. The jury is still out on the torture, in the legal sense of the word, but there's little doubt that people were tortured under American auspices. A lot of people had a hand in the economy, one of whom was Bush.
Laws And treaties violated by President George W. Bush, Vice-President Richard Cheney, public officials under their authority, and members of the U.S. military under their command
The U. S. Constitution, Art. VI, para. 2, makes treaties adopted by the U.S. part of the “law of the land.” Thus, a violation of the U. N. Charter, Hague IV, Geneva Conventions, etc. is also a violation of U.S. federal law.
U.S. Federal Law 18 U.S.C. § 2441 (War Crimes Act of 1996) makes committing a war crime, defined as: “…a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party…” punishable by fine, imprisonment, or death.
And the following treaties and charters which define: wars of aggression, war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity:
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV)
Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator…of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.
U.N. Gen. Assembly Res. 3314
Defines the crime of aggression as “... the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State…or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations…”
Nuremberg Tribunal Charter
Principle VI: “The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace: Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties;
(b) War crimes: …murder, ill-treatment…of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war,…plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages…
(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination…and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population…when such acts are done…in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.”
That's really funny. I love how you constantly rail against Beck - every time you do it, you prove that you've never watched his show. Hysterical. You're a laughing stock and you're completely clueless to that fact. Keep up the good work!
Point is that the FOX Network went to Court to defend it's right to lie to those dumb enough to believe it AND WON. So if you choose to believe what you hear there, that's fine for you but don't try to convince me that there is any truth in it because there is a Court Ruling otherwise.
Since obama has been in office, we have lost over 2 million jobs. His stimulus (epic fail) was supposed to create jobs, not lose them.
Yes, and economists said that we would continue to lose jobs. They said that before Obama took the oath of office. Your understanding of near-Depression economics is blindingly simplistic. So sorry Obama doesn't have a magic wand to "make it all better" in the blink of an eye.
And where was your concern for millions of lost American jobs during the massive outsourcing during the Bush years?
That was before Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck. The loyal opposition is that large block of Independents who have deserted the GOP by the millions. The Republican Party is now just Glen Beck's Army of Irate Mall Walkers. The same 18-23% who wouldn't approve of Obama passing out gold bars.
Quite so. All the thinking people walked away from the Republican Party years ago. What's left are the hard-core, co-dependent screamers and disconnected, anti-social extremists.
Point to Ponder: When you want to knock down a patch of noxious weeds and grasses and put a nice bed of something or other out there instead, you've got to get the Round-Up on that stuff three times in order to get rid of it for good. 2006, 2008...one more time should do the trick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa
Question is, given that, why can't the Democrats do something. They appear paralyzed by success. I don't think Harry Reid could push through legilation with 80 votes
With Byrd and Kennedy out sick, Reid has rarely had 60 votes on the floor and that's what it takes. And there is also the fact that while you can get a bunch of goose-stepping Republicans to vote as a bloc without so much trouble, the Democrats are not as prone to being all pushed onto the same page. There is actual and legitimate diversity of opinion among Democrats and that has to be taken into account.
Quite so. All the thinking people walked away from the Republican Party years ago. What's left are the hard-core, co-dependent screamers and disconnected, anti-social extremists.
Point to Ponder: When you want to knock down a patch of noxious weeds and grasses and put a nice bed of something or other out there instead, you've got to get the Round-Up on that stuff three times in order to get rid of it for good. 2006, 2008...one more time should do the trick.
With Byrd and Kennedy out sick, Reid has rarely had 60 votes on the floor and that's what it takes. And there is also the fact that while you can get a bunch of goose-stepping Republicans to vote as a bloc without so much trouble, the Democrats are not as prone to being all pushed onto the same page. There is actual and legitimate diversity of opinion among Democrats and that has to be taken into account.
Yes, in addition to the fact that some Democrats are spineless and are as bought as the Republicans.
I was a republican for 35 years but in 2005 the party started eating it's own. The policy became one of no compromise, no bipartisanship, no prisoners, total war. If you varied from the positions of the radical right or the Rush Limbaugh talking point of the day you were considered a RINO and it was made clear they didn't want you. One of the main reasons why McCain lost was he wasn't considered pure enough in right wing conservative ideology. That's why they brought in Sarah Palin, to garner the radical conservative vote. She was the closest politician with the ability to parrot Rush, Beck and Fox. I am now an independent and we will decide future elections.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
