Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 48 of 48
  1.    #41  
    "From refusing to let flag draped coffins be photographed at Dover...
    ...to opposing ANY investigation of 9-11 including the commision...
    Thats why the Expiration of the Assualt Weapons Ban does not effect them..."

    TXDOT
    The administration's actions have brought this on,
    And as far as open minded, I was in 2000 when I voted for GWB!
    I am a registered Republican, and lost a family member in WTC in Cantor Fitz on 101.

    I was behind GWB even after the attack until the truth started to leak out. The only reason people are not more outraged, is the press didn't pursue issues for the fear of looking unpatriotic in time of national crisis.

    I believed in him until they started to duck and cover from the truth.
    Why is it that the more we learn, the worse he looks?

    Tell me, If I/we are ALL wrong, why hasn't anyone attempted to sue Michael Moore for slander/ libel yet???
  2. #42  
    Those of you whom define me to be "anti-bush" are getting the wrong idea. I understand why it appears that way and I accept responsibility for feeding you what you perceive. However, I'd like to make it very clear that I dislike the actions of this current "government" in general. It does not matter who is sitting in any of the hot seats.

    In a sense, I believe electing any figure will still lead this country in the direction it's meant to go in. The reason being that the president is simply an expendable puppet. We are the supposed government. We push this country where we want to push it. That being said, I guess you can call me "anti-you".

    I'd also like to make it clear that I am simply basing my opinions on my own observations. I am not biased in any way. I am not a member of any party. Nor do I care to choose any. Call me what you will, I am my own entity and I have my own corner far, far away from the ring.

    On a side note; I put up my signature because I thought it was hilarious. If it were a picture of Kerry and his last name were Bush and Bush's last name were Kerry I truly don't believe any of you would have rustled your feathers over it. You wouldn't have cried to the mods and called it "offensive".

    Well, none of that matters now. Just refresh your browsers. A much more "inoffensive" version of my signature will be displayed. There are no excuses now... If you somehow find yourself aggrevated with my new signature then YOU have a serious problem with others having opinions and you should keep YOUR problem to yourself.

    Thank you
    .
  3. #43  
    Oh, well and ok.
  4. #44  
    skiiiiiilz, I'm glad you changed your anti-Bush sig.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  5. #45  
    Wow, how well you can edit out text to make your argument at least appear reasonable.
    My statement was "You can never ASSUME that someone INTENDS harm and use it against them. You either have reasonable cause to believe that they intend harm or you do not. And if you act against someone believing they intend harm then you MUST then justify your actions and show that reasonable cause. It is the basis of our law."

    Funny how you chose to leave out the part about reasonable cause and justification. Just as you argue that circumstances such as a knife in hand and acting agressively may constitute reasonable cause. Hey, what do you know? You agree with my original statement.

    If however you condone the violation of personal rights without reasonable cause then you are anti-patriotic and actively working to subvert the principles this country was founded upon.

    Help! Police! We have a subversive here working to destroy our country.

    Quote Originally Posted by TxDot
    I intentionally used the term ruckus because it is a pretty innocuous term.

    To say that "you can never assume that someone intends harm and use it against them" is silly. Tell you what, go grab a knife (or any other weapon) and walk into your local shopping mall and act like you are going to "harm" someone and see if you're aren't swiftly dealt with even you didn't actually harm anyone. I am not trying to imply that this woman did anything like this. I'm only pointing out that your argument doesn't stand.

    There are many people that the authorities would "act first and ask questions later" because of who they are. I would say that the First Lady falls into this category.

    I'll bet that in the end there are no charges filed against this woman or if they have alreaady been filed I bet they are dropped.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by the_nite_owl
    Wow, how well you can edit out text to make your argument at least appear reasonable.
    My statement was "You can never ASSUME that someone INTENDS harm and use it against them. You either have reasonable cause to believe that they intend harm or you do not.
    I thought that we had just gone to war on exactly that basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by the_nite_owl
    And if you act against someone believing they intend harm then you MUST then justify your actions and show that reasonable cause. It is the basis of our law."
    Certainly the burden of proof must be on the one who acts.

    I have not understood why, if he was not prepared to fight, Saddam Hussein did not simply comply with UN resolutions. That said, the inferences that we drew from that non-compliance and the actions that we took seem disproportionate. My problem with the Bush administration is that, from the war to airline security, they seem to have no sense of what used to be celebrated as "proportionate response." "An eye for an eye" is no longer used to limit vengeance but to justify it.
  7. #47  
    Well, you are opening up a whole new series of arguments on that one.
    Why DID we go to war?

    We are at war with Iraq and not the terrorists who commited the crimes of 9/11. There has been so much dancing around this issue that you can get 10 different opinions on it and every one will be backed up with "facts".
    I think Saddam should have been taken out a long time ago and that U.S. involvement may have been needed but also believe that the reasons given and the justifications provided are highly suspect or just outright lies.
    I do not debate that action was necessary, I am just disgusted with the methodologies our government uses to go about doing what it wants to do and how easily confused and misled the people are as a whole.
    This is nothing new to governments but the Bush administration has taken it to whole new levels and made good use of the F.U.D. to pass new laws that have done more to violate the freedom of American's than anything that has come before.

    People want to use the term "anti-American" or "un-patriotic" as a weapon against anyone who believes differently. I used the notion in my message to TxDot to make a point but with further consideration think it was not well spoken. It sounds exactly like I am commiting the same sort of offense as that I personally dislike so much.

    What is truly un-patriotic?
    Remember that this country was not founded as a Democracy, it was founded as a constitutional republic. The original intention was to keep government small enough to help keep a general order and purpose but to keep it out of the everyday lives of the individual. Constitutional freedoms and protections were intended to be a means for the individual to protect himself from government intrusion.
    Many people have died to protect the freedoms established by our founding fathers and to now have a government that is able to take away constitutionally protected freedom and at the same time call anyone who disagress with them as "un-patriotic" is blasphemy of the most heinous sort.

    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    I thought that we had just gone to war on exactly that basis.



    Certainly the burden of proof must be on the one who acts.

    I have not understood why, if he was not prepared to fight, Saddam Hussein did not simply comply with UN resolutions. That said, the inferences that we drew from that non-compliance and the actions that we took seem disproportionate. My problem with the Bush administration is that, from the war to airline security, they seem to have no sense of what used to be celebrated as "proportionate response." "An eye for an eye" is no longer used to limit vengeance but to justify it.
  8.    #48  
    Well said nite owl
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions