Modicum of Respect

[DiveCon]

Ok, I have all the facts to prove that Bush engaged in criminal activity. The Bush family has a history of Un-American behavior. See: http://www.usmessageboard.com/education-and-history/55750-the-bush-crime-family.html There's your proof!

uh, silly conspiracy theories arent proof

 

[Avatar4321]

So a President can act with wilfull disregard to the lives of others, simply because he is President and thus Commander in Chief?

It was at the insistance and urging of Bush's Administration that this invasion took place. The President did not do due diligence in verifying that Hussein was an imminent threat. Bush required our best and bravest to sacrafice their lives when it was not neccessary. Demonstrably not neccessary. It was Bush who forced weapons inspectors to leave Iraq so he could begin the invasion.

The blood of thousand is on his and his supporters hands.

Yes, President Bush is a War Criminal and very possably guilty of treason.

The whole point of Iraq was preemption. Because if we waited till Iraq was an imminent threat it would have been too late.

Also, the burden was on Saddam to show that weapons were dismantled. He refused to do that. He played games with the inspectors. He violated the Gulf War ceasefire agreement. And that means we were within our rights to finish the job started in 91.

And we are talking about the President of the United States. It's a position whether even doing nothing can cost the lives of millions of people. You need leaders who can and will make tough decisions based on what is the best interest for the country and not just worry about reelection and polls. That's his job. And that's why you need someone who can make touch decisions regarding the lives of people in the office rather than vaccilating idiots who cant tie their shoe without looking at a poll.

But you probably have this perception that doing absolutely nothing with keep war from happening. That it's all America's fault that people die. Well, get out of the bubble. In the real world, people die. In the real world, sometimes you have to fight to survive. It sucks. People die. Even innocent people. But it's the world we live in. Deny it all you want, but it's the world we live in.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ok, I have all the facts to prove that Bush engaged in criminal activity. The Bush family has a history of Un-American behavior. See: http://www.usmessageboard.com/education-and-history/55750-the-bush-crime-family.html There's your proof!

Well, that's a low standard for proof...

 

[Gunny]

Please define inflammitory titles.

Any that are opposite to your thinking?

I feel that the evidence shows the President of the United States to be a War Criminal. Shall I not be allowed to state so in a thread title? Am I to be forced to condone the behavior of those who in my opinion refuse to see the obvious facts of Bush's criminal behavior?

If everthing you find inflammitory goes to the flame zone, you are simply lableing opposing views as illegitamet so, you are in fact censoring me.

PS, I never swear at people here and am only interested in an honest debate of the issues.

Pissing me off is infammatory.

I didn't say a damned thing about whether or not I agreed with your delusional, political extremism, did I?

Moving such a thread to the flame zone is in fact NOT censoring you. It's putting inflammatory material where it goes.

This is a privately owned message board. You have no right to free speech so sing that song to someone else.

 

[greenpartyaz]

uh, silly conspiracy theories arent proof

the president's grandfather. According to classified documents from Dutch intelligence and US government archives, President George W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush made considerable profits off Auschwitz slave labor.


George Walker, GW's great-grandfather, set up the takeover of the Hamburg-America Line, a cover for I.G. Farben's Nazi espionage unit in the United States.

Federal regulators determined that, while Silverado was pumping loans to Neil's two associates, Neil was completely dependent on the two men for his income. The failure of Silverado -- its closure delayed until after the 1988 election -- cost taxpayers about $1 billion. After Silverado failed, Neil started a new oil company, Apex Energy. This time, his money came from a $2.35 million loan through a Small Business Administration program. When news of this reached the press in March 1991, the SBA discovered that the companies through which the loan was approved were technically insolvent, and it gave them up to thirty months to "self-liquidate."

Marvin Bush, the president's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.

Jeb Bush, the president's brother. After graduating from The University of Texas, Jeb Bush served a short apprenticeship at the Venezuelan branch of Texas Commerce Bank in Caracas before settling in Miami, in 1980, to work on his father's unsuccessful primary bid against Ronald Reagan.

George W. Bush, second appointed president of the United States.

• 1979-83: Fifty Bush family investors and friends, led by uncle Jonathan, a New York Republican Party official and an investment manager, fork over $4.7 million to set up young Bush in a company called Arbusto. It's a flop, and in 1982 gets a new name: Bush Exploration.

• 1984: Spectrum 7 Corporation, an Ohio oil exploration outfit owned by Dubya's Yalie pal William DeWitt Jr., buys out Bush Exploration, setting up young Bush as CEO at $75,000 a year and giving him 1.1 million shares of the firm's stock. Another flop. The company's fortunes soon sink, with $400,000 in losses and a debt of $3 million.

• 1986: In the nick of time, Bush and partners merge the failing Spectrum with Harken Oil, a Dallas exploration company, with a $2 million stock purchase. Bush puts up about $500,000 and gets a $120,000 annual consulting fee along with $131,250 in stock options. Harken is a small outfit, looking for oil opportunities within the U.S. Then out of the blue comes Harvard Management Corporation, an investment adviser for Harvard University's endowment portfolio. It pumps millions into the venture.

• 1990: Although Harken has no international expertise, it gets the attention of the Bahrain National Oil Company, which unexpectedly appears on the scene and bypasses big oil's Amoco and Chevron to sign a production agreement with the little Texas concern. The contract grants Harken exclusive rights to what seems to be a promising offshore area squeezed between two productive tracts owned by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The Wall Street Journal speculates Bahrain was trying to cozy up to Daddy Bush, who was plotting an assault on Iraq after Saddam Hussein seized Kuwait.

Bass Enterprises Production Company finances the Bahrain drilling with $25 million, and Harvard Management raises its investment. A couple of members of the Fort Worth Bass family have places on Team 100, an elite business group contributing to the Republican National Committee.

In June, Harken drills two dry holes in Bahrain. The future looks bleak. Dubya dumps two-thirds of his Harken holdings (212,140 shares), for $848,560. He uses some of this money to buy into the Texas Rangers baseball club. This is a lot of stock to dump on the market all at once, and brokers say it was purchased by an unnamed institutional investor.

That August, Harken posts a loss of $23 million.

• January 1991: Daddy Bush attacks Iraq.

• February 1991: Dubya, as the official in charge at Harken, reports his big stock sale to the SEC—eight months late.

• April 1991: The SEC begins an investigation into Harken dealings. Chairman Richard Breeden, who had been appointed by the senior Bush and served him as an economic policy adviser, hails from Baker & Botts, a big Texas oil law firm where he was a partner. Inside the SEC, James Doty, general counsel and the official in charge of any litigation that might come out of the Harken investigation, is another alumnus of Baker & Botts. And as a private attorney, before joining the government, Doty represented the younger Bush in matters related to Dubya's ownership of the Rangers.

• 1993: The SEC ends its Harken investigation following perfunctory interviews.

What part of evidence don't you understand?

 

[greenpartyaz]

Pissing me off is infammatory.

I didn't say a damned thing about whether or not I agreed with your delusional, political extremism, did I?

Moving such a thread to the flame zone is in fact NOT censoring you. It's putting inflammatory material where it goes.

This is a privately owned message board. You have no right to free speech so sing that song to someone else.

Come on Gunny, you don't own the site or the bandwith, or the internet, you just own the text posted! Maybe you should change the name of the site to US Message Board... Where your opinions count, except if I don't agree with them.

 

[Avatar4321]

Come on Gunny, you don't own the site or the bandwith, or the internet, you just own the text posted! Maybe you should change the name of the site to US Message Board... Where your opinions count, except if I don't agree with them.

Is there something in the water around here that makes it impossible for people to read what is actually said? I mean the post right before this makes the position completely clear and yet you turn around and mischaracterize it.

Is it so damn hard to be respectful?

 

[greenpartyaz]

Is there something in the water around here that makes it impossible for people to read what is actually said? I mean the post right before this makes the position completely clear and yet you turn around and mischaracterize it.

Is it so damn hard to be respectful?

There is nothing that is taken out of context here. You heard it just as I did. basically he said that this is his site and you don't have any freedom of speech here. What is there not, to understand about that? It is not so much that we disagree politically. It is just that the person posted something the admin didn't like, or didn't mesh with his opinion, so he moved it to another area. That is it.

 

[editec]

The ongoing debate regarding the criminality (or not) of the current administration's actions leading us into the way is hardly a flame, in my opinion.

Shunting the thread into the flame zone (which I was given to understand is a place where players on this board attack one another, but apparently I was incorrect about that) seems unfair to me, since that is not the purpose of such a topic.

This issue is a legitmate Polical or Law and Justice topic, as far as I understand the meanings of those room titles.

But as Gunny points out, this is not board really a public free speech forum, and the owner of this board reserves the right to editorialize and censor this place as he sees fit.

Obviously, when Gunny decides to move any post to another room other the one that its original author placed it, Gunny is making an editorial comment regarding HIS opinion of its purpose and intent.

All we who disagree can do to negate Gunny's authority and opinions is to comment on that thread wherever Gunny puts it, and give that topic the respect WE THINK it deserves.

 

[Gunny]

Mentioning both candidates is simply cover for his apparent intent, silencing those who have come to the conclusion that we have a criminal enterprise in the White House.

Gunny's positions are obvious after only a few post readings.

If I will not be allowed to use language which is still legal on the public airwaves then this site is not worth coming to anyway.

Censorship is Un-American.

Again, for the slow, moving a thread from one public subforum to another public subforum is not censorship. Interfering with your skewed idea that the importance of forums is relative to where they fall in a linear list is not censorship.

Try reading the original post again. Then again if need be. I did not point a finger at you, nor anyone else specifically, nor at anyone's political beliefs. I pointed a finger at behavior.

Your claim that my views are obvious is laughable at best, and irrelevant to the thread I posted. I don't enforce my views. I enforce the rules, and some semblence of good order and discipline.

You do NOT have a right to question in a public forum on this board how I, or any other staff member enforce the rules.

You have NO complaint here.

 

[Gunny]

Is that the intent of this board? To promulgate right wing views? I thought it was a site for debate.

If you are really interested in why I think Bush is a War Criminal I'd be happy to engage on those points.

This board does not promulgate right wing views. That is an unsupportable accusation since which views are "right-or-leftwing" are subjective to where one falls within the political spectrum.

Another baseless accusation.

 

[Gunny]

Come on Gunny, you don't own the site or the bandwith, or the internet, you just own the text posted! Maybe you should change the name of the site to US Message Board... Where your opinions count, except if I don't agree with them.

Maybe you should not spend your time worrying about I run this board. If you want to push conspiracy theories, there is a subforum titled conspiracy theories. If you don't like the fact that I, or most any other rational human being views them as conspiracy theories, tough, huh?

I haven't claimed to own anything. This entire thread is nothing more than pure bullshit. Moving threads to appropriately titled subforums is in no way, shape nor form censorship except in the childlike minds of at least two of you who think if your thread isn't on the top in the first subforum in the linear order then you are being censored.

Every topic cannot appear first in the linear order. Get over it. That's just the way it is.

 

[Gunny]

There is nothing that is taken out of context here. You heard it just as I did. basically he said that this is his site and you don't have any freedom of speech here. What is there not, to understand about that? It is not so much that we disagree politically. It is just that the person posted something the admin didn't like, or didn't mesh with his opinion, so he moved it to another area. That is it.

Yeah, you DID take it out of context. I did not say you do not have any freedom of speech on this site.

I said you have no RIGHT to freedom of speech on a privately owned message board.

Nothing was posted I "didn't like." A conspiracy theory that's you buffs have been trying to sell for the past 7 years was posted in Current Events and I moved it to Conspiracy Theories.

The problem with you two knuckleheads is you keep trying to make this personal and it is not. I put conspiracy theories in the appropriately titled subforum. It has nothing to do with the fact I consider those theories to be completely worthless and those that push them tippling at the kool aid just a bit too often.

Nor has any of this whining got one single thing to do with the intent of the thread I posted.

 

[Gunny]

The ongoing debate regarding the criminality (or not) of the current administration's actions leading us into the way is hardly a flame, in my opinion.

Shunting the thread into the flame zone (which I was given to understand is a place where players on this board attack one another, but apparently I was incorrect about that) seems unfair to me, since that is not the purpose of such a topic.

This issue is a legitmate Polical or Law and Justice topic, as far as I understand the meanings of those room titles.

But as Gunny points out, this is not board really a public free speech forum, and the owner of this board reserves the right to editorialize and censor this place as he sees fit.

Obviously, when Gunny decides to move any post to another room other the one that its original author placed it, Gunny is making an editorial comment regarding HIS opinion of its purpose and intent.

All we who disagree can do to negate Gunny's authority and opinions is to comment on that thread wherever Gunny puts it, and give that topic the respect WE THINK it deserves.

The flame zone is for inflammatory material, not solely one member attacking another. The purpose of that forum is to AVOID censorship. On most other boards I have been a member of, most inflammatory threads, posts have no home, and either deleted or the thread locked. Correct?

We took the extra step here of giving it a place to exist without censoring, and STILL we have members bitching.

It is the responsibility of the staff members of this board to, as you call it "editorialize" in an attempt to maintain some semblence of order. There is not simply a single forum in which all topics go. What the problem is with putting topics in the subforums they fall under is a mystery to me in most cases.

Not in this case. The inherent problem in this case is conspiracy theorists don't see their beliefs as conspiracies and demand legitimacy. So, just as there is a flame zone to preclude most censorship, a conspiracy theories forum was created.

In all actuality, every effort has been made here to do exactly the opposite of what we (I) am being accused of. Conspiracy theorists have their very own subforum to push their beliefs. That as opposed to most boards where they are ridiculed, run off the board, and or their posts pigeonholed, closed or deleted. That they don't like the fact that their beliefs are labelled exactly what they are is too bad. Just another perfect example of seeing the hole instead of the donut.

 

[editec]

Again, for the slow, moving a thread from one public subforum to another public subforum is not censorship. Interfering with your skewed idea that the importance of forums is relative to where they fall in a linear list is not censorship.

No, but it IS editorializing, Gunny.

You have that right, of course, since you own this place.

Hence, this is not really a FREE SPEECH board.

 

[dilloduck]

No, but it IS editorializing, Gunny.

You have that right, of course, since you own this place.

Hence, this is not really a FREE SPEECH board.

Garbage----you can continue to discuss whatever you want to. What difference does the name of the forum it is placed in make ?

 

[Gunny]

No, but it IS editorializing, Gunny.

You have that right, of course, since you own this place.

Hence, this is not really a FREE SPEECH board.

I do not own this board. Manuel is the owner. I am the administrator.

If your statement is a relativist one, complete censorship at one end and total anarchy on the other, then you are correct. Within the context of the nature of the board (political), freedom of expression is maximized and allowed as much as possible.

It is impossible however to cater to everyone's specific desires, so there will always be the squeaky wheels and naysayers; especially, the more extreme those specific beliefs/desires become.

What I do know from experience is when half the threads on the board contain comments by people who are by almost anyone's standards blithering idiots, intelligent debators leave. You have made comment yourself on more than one occasion as to the quality of some of the members here, so you know what I mean.

Is not one member continually posting the same baseless rhetoric, accusations and insults practicing his/her own form of censorship by stifling an intelligent member who wishes to debate a topic on merit? When 2,3 -or-more members of one political group gang up on one member and shout that member down not for being wrong but for not agreeing with the former group, is that not a form of censorship?

I don't really consider putting like threads on a given topic in a forum titled after that given topic as "editorializing." More like filing.

 

[wihosa]

This board does not promulgate right wing views. That is an unsupportable accusation since which views are "right-or-leftwing" are subjective to where one falls within the political spectrum.

Another baseless accusation.

Who's accusing? Those are questions.

 

[wihosa]

Maybe you should not spend your time worrying about I run this board. If you want to push conspiracy theories, there is a subforum titled conspiracy theories. If you don't like the fact that I, or most any other rational human being views them as conspiracy theories, tough, huh?

I haven't claimed to own anything. This entire thread is nothing more than pure bullshit. Moving threads to appropriately titled subforums is in no way, shape nor form censorship except in the childlike minds of at least two of you who think if your thread isn't on the top in the first subforum in the linear order then you are being censored.

Every topic cannot appear first in the linear order. Get over it. That's just the way it is.

Would not the appropriate forum be the one which the poster decided to post in?

 

[wihosa]

Yeah, you DID take it out of context. I did not say you do not have any freedom of speech on this site.

I said you have no RIGHT to freedom of speech on a privately owned message board.

Nothing was posted I "didn't like." A conspiracy theory that's you buffs have been trying to sell for the past 7 years was posted in Current Events and I moved it to Conspiracy Theories.

The problem with you two knuckleheads is you keep trying to make this personal and it is not. I put conspiracy theories in the appropriately titled subforum. It has nothing to do with the fact I consider those theories to be completely worthless and those that push them tippling at the kool aid just a bit too often.

Nor has any of this whining got one single thing to do with the intent of the thread I posted.

Your words ("the fact I consider those theories to be completely worthless") belie your stated objectivness.