cheney a president?!!!

[!Xoible]

Originally Posted by ganeil

His understanding is flawed, yours is simply bizarre.

We are neither a democracy nor a dictatorship.

yah it does sound bizarre because i wanna try to make it sound like a joke, but is it really a joke?

we're pretty close to dictatorships tho. we are almost identical to pakistan and egypt. this is where we have our democratic institutions like the congress but the president does what he wants to do regardless.

the other type of dictatorships is when the "democratic" institutions established only say what the president wants. that's like Saddam, or Russia.

i dont wanna get philosophical, but i really do not believe democracy exists anywhere in the world now.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by mantisG35

yah it does sound bizarre because i wanna try to make it sound like a joke, but is it really a joke?

we're pretty close to dictatorships tho. we are almost identical to pakistan and egypt. this is where we have our democratic institutions like the congress but the president does what he wants to do regardless.

the other type of dictatorships is when the "democratic" institutions established only say what the president wants. that's like Saddam, or Russia.

i dont wanna get philosophical, but i really do not believe democracy exists anywhere in the world now.

Yes, it is a joke.

The President is subject to the same checks on his power today as ever, a amazing amount more than previous wartime presidents actually. There is nothing about our current situation that is similar to Pakistan or Egypt.

We were not designed to be, nor have we ever been a democracy.

[!Xoible]

Originally Posted by ganeil

Yes, it is a joke.

The President is subject to the same checks on his power today as ever, a amazing amount more than previous wartime presidents actually. There is nothing about our current situation that is similar to Pakistan or Egypt.

We were not designed to be, nor have we ever been a democracy.

im only talking about the current administration that has less than 30% approval rate yet is so stubborn and is opposed to the will of the american people who want out of Iraq.
the current admin is a perfect example of how arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by mantisG35

im only talking about the current administration that has less than 30% approval rate yet is so stubborn and is opposed to the will of the american people who want out of Iraq.
the current admin is a perfect example of how arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand

Presidents do not (and should not) govern by public opinion polls. If they did Lincoln would have "gotten us out" of the Civil War and Truman would have left the South Koreans to fend for themselves.

Presidents are expected to do what is best for the nation regardless of its popularity. There is nothing arrogant or ignorant to the belief that we should win the wars we fight rather than surrender to our enemies.

[DFW_M]

Originally Posted by ganeil

Presidents do not (and should not) govern by public opinion polls. If they did Lincoln would have "gotten us out" of the Civil War and Truman would have left the South Koreans to fend for themselves.

Presidents are expected to do what is best for the nation regardless of its popularity. There is nothing arrogant or ignorant to the belief that we should win the wars we fight rather than surrender to our enemies.

SO, we're told of the beauty of our democracy, that we're based on it...now you tell us it is a lie.

What is flawed with my reasonong up there, please explain. Stop with your BULL SHIT smart ass comments as I can probably start running circles around you on different, and probably similar topics...

What is wrong with Bush being elected by the people, Senat the same, and Bush playing a cowboy thretening to vito everything that people that elected him try to change???

It is turnoing into the dictatorship and he should (as I said MANY times) be responsible in the court of law for all that!

[DFW_M]

Originally Posted by ganeil

Presidents do not (and should not) govern by public opinion polls. If they did Lincoln would have "gotten us out" of the Civil War and Truman would have left the South Koreans to fend for themselves.

Presidents are expected to do what is best for the nation regardless of its popularity. There is nothing arrogant or ignorant to the belief that we should win the wars we fight rather than surrender to our enemies.

And he's doing what is in the best interest for our nation -- but clearly HAD nothing to do with our nation before the mess started...

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by dr325i

SO, we're told of the beauty of our democracy, that we're based on it...now you tell us it is a lie.

What is flawed with my reasonong up there, please explain. Stop with your BULL SHIT smart ass comments as I can probably start running circles around you on different, and probably similar topics...

What is wrong with Bush being elected by the people, Senat the same, and Bush playing a cowboy thretening to vito everything that people that elected him try to change???

It is turnoing into the dictatorship and he should (as I said MANY times) be responsible in the court of law for all that!

We are not a democracy. The beauty of our representative republic is that it tempers the democratic aspects within it with checks and balances on the ebb and flow of the mob.

Your reasoning is flawed on multiple levels. First it assumes that election of 33 senators is somehow a national plebiscite on a single issue. It is not and was never meant to be.

Second, it assumes that the 2006 elections resulted in a clear mandate for withdrawal from Iraq. In fact, there were only a couple of seats where the candidate was elected on a platform of either pulling out troops immediately or setting a timetable for withdrawal. In Connecticut, Joe Lieberman was re-elected as an independent against the Democrat who defeated him in the primary as the anti-war candidate. Many of the Democrats who won were on the record as opposing a timeline for withdrawal, such as Bob Casey in PA and Jeff Bingaman in NM.

Third, it presumes to the Congress powers given by the Constitution to the President alone. The President is Commander in Chief regardless of his approval ratings or the party balance in the Senate. The Congress has no constitutional role in the fighting of a war less funding it. They have no authority to determine troop flows or war fighting strategies. Those are exclusively executive powers.

As for your rhetorical skills, they are amateurish at best. You arguments are littered with logical fallacies and are more often than not based on emotion rather than facts. Such as your statement that we are turning into a dictatorship. You cannot substantiate that argument because nothing of the sort is occurring. Your oft-stated comment that the President should answer to a court of law is equally flawed. You have repeatedly failed to cite the law he would be charged with violating.

[shragon]

[!Xoible]

Originally Posted by ganeil

Presidents do not (and should not) govern by public opinion polls. If they did Lincoln would have "gotten us out" of the Civil War and Truman would have left the South Koreans to fend for themselves.

Presidents are expected to do what is best for the nation regardless of its popularity. There is nothing arrogant or ignorant to the belief that we should win the wars we fight rather than surrender to our enemies.

the ignorance is you dont know why you're fighting or who your enemy is, arrogance is you STILL insist you do!
result is failure

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by mantisG35

the ignorance is you dont know why you're fighting or who your enemy is, arrogance is you STILL insist you do!
result is failure

Are you claiming that we do not know who we are fighting or why?

I speak to soldiers and Marines both in theater and recently returned on a daily basis and never have I encountered one who had any question as to those issues.

[DFW_M]

Originally Posted by ganeil

We are not a democracy. The beauty of our representative republic is that it tempers the democratic aspects within it with checks and balances on the ebb and flow of the mob.

Your reasoning is flawed on multiple levels. First it assumes that election of 33 senators is somehow a national plebiscite on a single issue. It is not and was never meant to be.

Second, it assumes that the 2006 elections resulted in a clear mandate for withdrawal from Iraq. In fact, there were only a couple of seats where the candidate was elected on a platform of either pulling out troops immediately or setting a timetable for withdrawal. In Connecticut, Joe Lieberman was re-elected as an independent against the Democrat who defeated him in the primary as the anti-war candidate. Many of the Democrats who won were on the record as opposing a timeline for withdrawal, such as Bob Casey in PA and Jeff Bingaman in NM.

Third, it presumes to the Congress powers given by the Constitution to the President alone. The President is Commander in Chief regardless of his approval ratings or the party balance in the Senate. The Congress has no constitutional role in the fighting of a war less funding it. They have no authority to determine troop flows or war fighting strategies. Those are exclusively executive powers.

As for your rhetorical skills, they are amateurish at best. You arguments are littered with logical fallacies and are more often than not based on emotion rather than facts. Such as your statement that we are turning into a dictatorship. You cannot substantiate that argument because nothing of the sort is occurring. Your oft-stated comment that the President should answer to a court of law is equally flawed. You have repeatedly failed to cite the law he would be charged with violating.

Here is one -- the WMD. He said we know they have them and we have to stop SH.
Later, when it was EASILY proven to be a lie -- he blamed the wrong intel and washed his hands. No, it cannot be done like that. He should be fully responsible for his orders and what he stood behind. Simple as that. If Clinton was brought to the court for saying that he had no sexual relationship with...in public, and later it was proven the other way, I really don't see much of a difference here. They both (KNOWLINGLY) lied int he public. The only difference is that a few people got hurt in Clinton's case and hundreds of thousands were killed in this case.

Next -- the campaign -- he PUBLICALLY promised many things of which most have not even been touched -- he lied.

What else do you really need???

Simply -- if Clinton went through all that mess with ML, this is a simple and straight case...

Next, there are a few dems opposing the withdrawal timeline -- but many more Republicans (lately) that start to support it. It is obvious to any intelligent person that Bush wants to drag it as long as possible so that Dems can be blamed and again...this admin can wash their hands...

And finally, admit it to yourself or not, we do live in the democratic society. Obviously, you have not experienced other societies (except a few glorious trips to Pakistan, Kashmir and whatever you said) to claim such an uneducated thing...

I'm still waiting for the list of positive things in last 6 years...

[DFW_M]

Originally Posted by ganeil

Are you claiming that we do not know who we are fighting or why?

I speak to soldiers and Marines both in theater and recently returned on a daily basis and never have I encountered one who had any question as to those issues.

answer with a question...
Are you ever going to back up your STRONG position that is getting weaker with every post...

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by dr325i

Here is one -- the WMD. He said we know they have them and we have to stop SH.
Later, when it was EASILY proven to be a lie -- he blamed the wrong intel and washed his hands. No, it cannot be done like that. He should be fully responsible for his orders and what he stood behind. Simple as that. If Clinton was brought to the court for saying that he had no sexual relationship with...in public, and later it was proven the other way, I really don't see much of a difference here. They both (KNOWLINGLY) lied int he public. The only difference is that a few people got hurt in Clinton's case and hundreds of thousands were killed in this case.

Next -- the campaign -- he PUBLICALLY promised many things of which most have not even been touched -- he lied.

What else do you really need???

Simply -- if Clinton went through all that mess with ML, this is a simple and straight case...

Next, there are a few dems opposing the withdrawal timeline -- but many more Republicans (lately) that start to support it. It is obvious to any intelligent person that Bush wants to drag it as long as possible so that Dems can be blamed and again...this admin can wash their hands...

And finally, admit it to yourself or not, we do live in the democratic society. Obviously, you have not experienced other societies (except a few glorious trips to Pakistan, Kashmir and whatever you said) to claim such an uneducated thing...

I'm still waiting for the list of positive things in last 6 years...

I cannot believe you need this explained to you again. I will do it this last time then I am through with you because you are irrational on the subject.

No one lied about the WMD. That Iraq had WMD was accepted by every intelligence agency in the world, the UN Security Council, as well as the Clinton Administration.

Here is a quiz, who said, "Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the middle east and around the world"? Answer, Bill Clinton (1998)

Who was urging the President to ``take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program.''? Answer, John Kerry (1998)

How about, “Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security"? Answer, that would be every member of the UNSC in 2002.

If George W. Bush lied about the WMD then so did Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Tony Blair, Kofi Annan, and just about everyone else who dealt with the issue.

If you do not see the difference between a President making a statement completely in line with the latest assessment by his intelligence agencies and a President telling federal grand jury that he did not have a sexual relationship with a woman that he did, then you are beyond hope.

Would you like to list for us the alleged lies the President told during the campaign?

What is obvious is that the President is intent on doing whatever he can to see that we win the war we are engaged in while the Democrats prefer to surrender to our enemies.

I am sorry you are upset to learn that the US is not a democracy but a federal representative republic but I would suggest you peruse this document to confirm.

I have given you the list of positive things of the past 6 years repeatedly. If you really need it again:

Tax Cuts
Roberts and Alito
Fall of Taliban
Fall of Saddam Hussein
End of Libyan WMD
Low unemployment
Low inflation
Good economic growth

[DFW_M]

Originally Posted by ganeil

I cannot believe you need this explained to you again. I will do it this last time then I am through with you because you are irrational on the subject.

No one lied about the WMD. That Iraq had WMD was accepted by every intelligence agency in the world, the UN Security Council, as well as the Clinton Administration.

Here is a quiz, who said, "Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the middle east and around the world"? Answer, Bill Clinton (1998)

Who was urging the President to ``take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program.''? Answer, John Kerry (1998)

How about, “Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security"? Answer, that would be every member of the UNSC in 2002.

If George W. Bush lied about the WMD then so did Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Tony Blair, Kofi Annan, and just about everyone else who dealt with the issue.

If you do not see the difference between a President making a statement completely in line with the latest assessment by his intelligence agencies and a President telling federal grand jury that he did not have a sexual relationship with a woman that he did, then you are beyond hope.

Would you like to list for us the alleged lies the President told during the campaign?

What is obvious is that the President is intent on doing whatever he can to see that we win the war we are engaged in while the Democrats prefer to surrender to our enemies.

I am sorry you are upset to learn that the US is not a democracy but a federal representative republic but I would suggest you peruse this document to confirm.

I have given you the list of positive things of the past 6 years repeatedly. If you really need it again:

Tax Cuts
Roberts and Alito
Fall of Taliban
Fall of Saddam Hussein
End of Libyan WMD
Low unemployment
Low inflation
Good economic growth

FIRST:
As I said before -- they will blame it on someone else...and you just confirm it with the stupid quotes. Maybe they (Clinton, Kerry...) said it, but they were not idiots to do it!!! That is the WHOLE point!

Second, again -- the whole world. If the whole world really believed in it and accepted it, the war would have been over by now with China, Russia, France...with us marching in Baghdad...not the sorry ass Romanian BOTH troops...

Intent...hahaha...you're better than Tony Snow!

And my favorite:
Tax Cuts
Roberts and Alito
Fall of Taliban
Fall of Saddam Hussein
End of Libyan WMD
Low unemployment
Low inflation
Good economic growth
#1, 6, 7, 8 is the same pretty much ,and has NOTHING (except #1) to do with Bush or Clinton or... CYCLICAL!!! #1 -- tax cut = ANOTHER LIE. You may buy it, I don't. Or maybe I am not making enough to really get his tax cut...

Yep -- end of Lybian WMD -- begin NK + Iran. Kill one, create TWO. Kind of like Al Qaeda deal -- kill some of them, but create many more.

Taliban -- temporary fall of them. They are still very much alive instead of -- FINISHED...like, for example Clinton did with Milosevic (although I may not be fully supporting those events). But I can only imagine if Clinton did what he did in 1999 and then packed his shit and let Milosevic back in -- what is slowly but VERY surely happening in Afghanistan.

SH -- fall of Saddam -- bif f'n deal -- definitely showed as not worth 3500+ US soldier lives...

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by dr325i

FIRST:
As I said before -- they will blame it on someone else...and you just confirm it with the stupid quotes. Maybe they (Clinton, Kerry...) said it, but they were not idiots to do it!!! That is the WHOLE point!

Second, again -- the whole world. If the whole world really believed in it and accepted it, the war would have been over by now with China, Russia, France...with us marching in Baghdad...not the sorry ass Romanian BOTH troops...

Intent...hahaha...you're better than Tony Snow!

And my favorite:
Tax Cuts
Roberts and Alito
Fall of Taliban
Fall of Saddam Hussein
End of Libyan WMD
Low unemployment
Low inflation
Good economic growth
#1, 6, 7, 8 is the same pretty much ,and has NOTHING (except #1) to do with Bush or Clinton or... CYCLICAL!!! #1 -- tax cut = ANOTHER LIE. You may buy it, I don't. Or maybe I am not making enough to really get his tax cut...

Yep -- end of Lybian WMD -- begin NK + Iran. Kill one, create TWO. Kind of like Al Qaeda deal -- kill some of them, but create many more.

Taliban -- temporary fall of them. They are still very much alive instead of -- FINISHED...like, for example Clinton did with Milosevic (although I may not be fully supporting those events). But I can only imagine if Clinton did what he did in 1999 and then packed his shit and let Milosevic back in -- what is slowly but VERY surely happening in Afghanistan.

SH -- fall of Saddam -- bif f'n deal -- definitely showed as not worth 3500+ US soldier lives...

I am through with you. Please do not respond to any of my future posts and I will not respond to yours.

You are irrational if you believe that despite all the evidence to the contrary, President Bush knew something about Iraq's WMD programs that the CIA, DIA, President Clinton, the Brits, the French, the Russians, and the UN did not. Everyone believed the Iraq had WMD because Iraq admitted to having them and then refused to dispose of them in the way the UN ordered them to. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend? We know he had them, he used them, he admitted to having them, and then he repeatedly refused to comply with the UN in disposing of them. You are clearly unable to accept this because you have a deep seated hatred for the President that blinds you to reality.

Have a good life.

[DFW_M]

Originally Posted by ganeil

I am through with you. Please do not respond to any of my future posts and I will not respond to yours.

You are irrational if you believe that despite all the evidence to the contrary, President Bush knew something about Iraq's WMD programs that the CIA, DIA, President Clinton, the Brits, the French, the Russians, and the UN did not. Everyone believed the Iraq had WMD because Iraq admitted to having them and then refused to dispose of them in the way the UN ordered them to. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend? We know he had them, he used them, he admitted to having them, and then he repeatedly refused to comply with the UN in disposing of them. You are clearly unable to accept this because you have a deep seated hatred for the President that blinds you to reality.

Have a good life.

I must agree -- I do have a deep hatred toward the man that pushed this country far back, that it will take many presidents to recover...

Again, you never answered to me -- IF all of our ALIES before 2003 had and believed in the information we had -- why would they turn back on us??? They used to be our alies? Why??? Why not contribute at least 1000 troops to help? Why?

If we had such a CLEAR evidence, why did Powell come in front of the UN with the PPT presentation, not clear pictures??? Do you really believe that NAYONE in their right mind would attack/support the attack on the sovereign country just because Bush said something and his Secretary came out with the PPT slides (as evidence)???

I am irrational in your mind -- but I assume the French, Russians, Canadians, Germans, Belgian, Dutch, Greek, Chinese...Spanish, Italian...99% of the world that avoided or later pulled out is irrational, too? Everyone that criticizes Bush (again the majority in the World) is irrational???

[325 Baller]

ganeil you finally realized why i stopped posting in this thread.

[DFW_M]

Originally Posted by 325 Baller

ganeil you finally realized why i stopped posting in this thread.

you should also stop watching the news and reading newspaper and stuff like that because the "irrational" thinking is all over it every day -- nothing else, just how he screwed up the country...

[ATG]

Originally Posted by mantisG35

yah it does sound bizarre because i wanna try to make it sound like a joke, but is it really a joke?

we're pretty close to dictatorships tho. we are almost identical to pakistan and egypt. this is where we have our democratic institutions like the congress but the president does what he wants to do regardless.

the other type of dictatorships is when the "democratic" institutions established only say what the president wants. that's like Saddam, or Russia.

i dont wanna get philosophical, but i really do not believe democracy exists anywhere in the world now.

What do you know about Russia? the bullshit that the Fox channel is feeding you? Russia with Putin is finally rising from the bog of corruption, crime, and anarchy. And there is no political repressions or curtailing of freedom of speech, no matter what the U.S. mass media wants you to believe. But, if you think that, for example, prohibition of porn movies on public channels empedes the free speech, then yes, there is no absolute freedom in Russia. Absolute freedom = anarchy, that in fact, existed during the Yeltsin time.

[DFW_M]

Originally Posted by ATG

What do you know about Russia? the bullshit that the Fox channel is feeding you? Russia with Putin is finally rising from the bog of corruption, crime, and anarchy. And there is no political repressions or curtailing of freedom of speech, no matter what the U.S. mass media wants you to believe. But, if you think that, for example, prohibition of porn movies on public channels empedes the free speech, then yes, there is no absolute freedom in Russia. Absolute freedom = anarchy, that in fact, existed during the Yeltsin time.

True about Putin and current Russia.
I don't think Mantis meant it in a such a bad way though...

[Zirenz2006]

Originally Posted by dr325i

I must agree -- I do have a deep hatred toward the man that pushed this country far back, that it will take many presidents to recover...

Again, you never answered to me -- IF all of our ALIES before 2003 had and believed in the information we had -- why would they turn back on us??? They used to be our alies? Why??? Why not contribute at least 1000 troops to help? Why?

If we had such a CLEAR evidence, why did Powell come in front of the UN with the PPT presentation, not clear pictures??? Do you really believe that NAYONE in their right mind would attack/support the attack on the sovereign country just because Bush said something and his Secretary came out with the PPT slides (as evidence)???

I am irrational in your mind -- but I assume the French, Russians, Canadians, Germans, Belgian, Dutch, Greek, Chinese...Spanish, Italian...99% of the world that avoided or later pulled out is irrational, too? Everyone that criticizes Bush (again the majority in the World) is irrational???

You truly are a political genius dr325i!

[!Xoible]

Originally Posted by ATG

What do you know about Russia? the bullshit that the Fox channel is feeding you? Russia with Putin is finally rising from the bog of corruption, crime, and anarchy. And there is no political repressions or curtailing of freedom of speech, no matter what the U.S. mass media wants you to believe. But, if you think that, for example, prohibition of porn movies on public channels empedes the free speech, then yes, there is no absolute freedom in Russia. Absolute freedom = anarchy, that in fact, existed during the Yeltsin time.

you're missing my point. I am talking about the democratic practices. You can claim a lot of advancements russia encountered after Putin and I will agree with you, but we both cannot claim it has real opposition that has power OVER the president. Russian president has power over everyone, and every institution.

and no, i do not watch Fox. Hearing the word "Fox News" drops my IQ like 30 points, just by hearing the name!