Modicum of Respect

[wihosa]

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.

 

[Glori.B]

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.

what do you hope to accomplish by calling the president of the united states a "war criminal"? have you heard of a thing called "perspective"? you are free to present your "evidence" because of the freedoms provided in the constitution of the united states of america...yes? you are not being forced to do anything, are you? be honest.

 

[Annie]

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.

Considering the admin mentioned both candidates, well. As for censoring you, that's what happens on a private board. Now you can go bash whomever on other sites, that tend to 'favor the candidate you like' or just like to be an angry board. Lots of choices out there.

Gunny seems to have made his point pretty clear.

 

[wihosa]

What I hope to accomplish is to help in a small way to bring America back to the defender of truth and justice.

If Bush is not punished for his crimes, then criminal behavior will continue. Republicans must denounce such obviously criminal behavior as they did when Nixon was caught breaking the law.

Are you suggesting that using freedoms shows a lack of repect for said freedoms?

 

[Moon]

What I hope to accomplish is to help in a small way to bring America back to the defender of truth and justice.

If Bush is not punished for his crimes, then criminal behavior will continue. Republicans must denounce such obviously criminal behavior as they did when Nixon was caught breaking the law.

Are you suggesting that using freedoms shows a lack of repect for said freedoms?

Mighty full of yourself, aren't you?

 

[wihosa]

Considering the admin mentioned both candidates, well. As for censoring you, that's what happens on a private board. Now you can go bash whomever on other sites, that tend to 'favor the candidate you like' or just like to be an angry board. Lots of choices out there.

Gunny seems to have made his point pretty clear.

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.

 

[wihosa]

Mighty full of yourself, aren't you?

Hmm... Uppity?

 

[Moon]

Hmm... Uppity?

Your word, not mine. I'm just curious why you think Republicans should do something just on your say-so, especially considering you've presented nothing to support your allegations..

 

[Moon]

Censorship is Un-American.

No, it's not. It's a very American thing when one considers that you are speaking of a private enterprise, and not an arm of the government.

 

[wihosa]

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.

 

[Glori.B]

If Bush is not punished for his crimes, then criminal behavior will continue.

punish? certainly you realize, bush is a sitting duck president. why do you want to rationalize criminal behavior?

Are you suggesting that using freedoms shows a lack of respect for said freedoms?

just because you are inherently free to do something, doesn't make you more respectful for doing it.

 

[Moon]

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.

You've posted nothing in this thread worthy of debating. It seems to me that as the person who started this thread, you hold at least some responsibility for the debate, or lack thereof.

 

[wihosa]

You've posted nothing in this thread worthy of debating. It seems to me that as the person who started this thread, you hold at least some responsibility for the debate, or lack thereof.

Alright, I'll make my point first, see if you can put together a rational response.

If a person takes an action which results in another's death, that person can be found guilty of manslaughter, even if that person believed that their actions would cause no harm. Example "Your honor I thought that I could drive my car past the bicyclist without hitting him but I made a mistake"

Even if you give Bush the benifit of many doubts as to his "reasons" for invading another country and think that he truly believed that the America was in such dire danger of attack from Hussein, it is obvious that we were not in danger of attack and many thousands of people have paid the ultimate price for Bush's "mistake".

Basically stated, You can't be wrong about your reasons when starting a war, and especially when the evidence shows a willful disregard for anything to the contrary.

Bush at the very least is guilty of mass manslaughter, definitely a war crime.

 

[Moon]

Alright, I'll make my point first, see if you can put together a rational response.

If a person takes an action which results in another's death, that person can be found guilty of manslaughter, even if that person believed that their actions would cause no harm. Example "Your honor I thought that I could drive my car past the bicyclist without hitting him but I made a mistake"

Even if you give Bush the benifit of many doubts as to his "reasons" for invading another country and think that he truly believed that the America was in such dire danger of attack from Hussein, it is obvious that we were not in danger of attack and many thousands of people have paid the ultimate price for Bush's "mistake".

Basically stated, You can't be wrong about your reasons when starting a war, and especially when the evidence shows a willful disregard for anything to the contrary.

Bush at the very least is guilty of mass manslaughter, definitely a war crime.

You're equating the US criminal code with actions taken by the leader of a nation when commanding the military of said nation? That's silly.

There are specific measures that can be taken by our government to stop us from going to war. Not voting to authorize it in the first place would have been one way. Voting to halt the funding of it is another. If you insist on stating that Bush is guilty of "mass manslaughter", then all the people who have served in Congress since 1998, plus Bill Clinton, would have to be indicted as conspirators, as their actions directly led to what you claim is a "war crime". And of course, there's always impeachment.

Basically, you're trying to extrapolate local criminal laws to cover a war with which you disagree. Our Constitution declares that the President is in charge of the military, and presidents in the past have exercised that power quite broadly at times. The sad fact is that people die whenever we bring our military might to bear, whether it's in Iraq, Kosovo, Somalia, or Germany. Your argument that Bush has committed a war crime just doesn't pass muster.

 

[wihosa]

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.

 

[Moon]

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.

"Willful disregard"? Again, that's just your opinion, not substantiated by fact. The determination of necessity of deploying troops into combat rests solely with the President. The Constitution says so:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Your contention that Bush didn't do "due diligence" isn't provable at all. What constitutes sufficient due diligence? Who gets to decide? The President believed he had sufficient cause to enter Iraq, and did so with the approval of Congress. I find it funny you don't hold them accountable for their actions and inactions.

 

[DiveCon]

ah, another prime example of full on ABDS

 

[Ravi]

Wihosa, it will never happen. No American president will be charged with war crimes, else all of them will be. You can only get them on stupid charges, like breaking into the opposing party's headquarters or blowjobs.

 

[DiveCon]

Wihosa, it will never happen. No American president will be charged with war crimes, else all of them will be. You can only get them on stupid charges, like breaking into the opposing party's headquarters or blowjobs.

that post was lacking facts

what got Nixon wasnt the break in, it was the coverup
and with Clinton it wasnt the blowjob, but the perjury


it does make a difference

 

[greenpartyaz]

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!