Staredit Network

there isn't any good reason to believe he lied, and we've had congressional panels look into that

uh ya... lets see.
1: Went to Iraq because of WMD's, did we find any?
2: Says even though there aren't any, Saddam was trying to aquire them. Reports show that his nuclear program died a decade ago and he was too indebt to do so. He could barely keep his miltary supplied.
3: He has the NSA tap americans phones, emails, the books they check out, etc. This clearly violates our 9th amendment right. It also shows we cannot trust this man.

Just the first 2 points alone shows we went to war based on lies. Now he says since there are no WMD's we are there to "preserve freedom"

being wrong does not being you're lying

considering that many members of congress (democrats included) saw the same intelligence he did, and voted for the war, it's safe to say he wasn't lying

second, most every president has wiretapped without court approval

plus, if you want to count breaking the ammendments as treason, then any anti-gun officials should be shot as well

i'm sure you'll be consistent, right?

Actually, the 4th amendment protects us from the Government just coming in and searching you. Not Privacy.

You must be thinking the 9th amendment.

Basically, all the rights not outlined in the constitution. Privacy, the freedom to walk around naken inside your own house, the freedom to pick your nose.. Various other ones.



Uh.. he ASSURED the American public that there were WMDs... I sure don't see any

Uh... You do realize that he invaded Iraq BEFORE approval of Congress, don't you? That is against the Executive Powers' laws.

Prove this assumption. The only president I know of, was Nixon. Watergate anyone?

Actually, no where in the Constitution does it state we have the right to bare arms in our own privacy. Read the bold.

And i'm sure that your last comment was an Ad Hominem Abusive, yes? Totally irrelevant to the argument.

Actually since he showed them the intel as a reason to war, its safe to say he's lying
Can you prove they did? Only one anyone can prove is bush since he did admit it.
Also I did not count amendment breaking as treason, I said leading 2000+ men to their death in a useless war based on lies. Its all about american interests. Don't even say terrorism, if your going that route, see my siggy.
Also you neglected to answer about his reason for seeing the books we check out and such.

BTW, does doing something bad because someone in the past did it make it right? didn't think so.

Are you going to be consistant?

1. yes, and so did congress by approving the war (and in the case of kerry, speaking out on tv in support of it). you need to calm down, because they weren't lying

2. we didn't invade before the approval of congress... that's pretty creative to make that up, tho

3. every other amendment that conerns the people's general rights mentions the word "people". what makes you so sure this is any different? were you around back then? obviously not, because then you would have known that one of the complaints we had against brittain was that they outlawed private firearm ownership. this amendment was made to ensure that wouldn't happen

ADDITION:
o, also, why did you not quote the actual 2nd amendment?

ADDITION:
if you had read the entire wikipeida article, you would have come across this:

"The Second Amendment itself was debated and modified during sessions of the House on August 17th and August 20th. These debates revolved primarily around the "religiously scrupulous" clause. Some representatives feared that the government could declare people to be religiously scrupulous, and thereby disarm them against their will. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24th the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:"

the reason they changed the wording of the second amendment would make no sense if they only gave militia's the right to bear arms

sorry!

Irrelevant. You don't need to try starting a flame war like he has tried.

You may not have counted breaking an amendment as treason, but it is.




If the American Populus was not full of ignorant retards, they would see how dishonest Bush is, and would claim treason.

1. if " 2. A betrayal of trust or confidence." is treason, then clinton was a traitor for lying about his sexual relations. didn't see that one coming, did ya? think before you give such of a meaningless definition to words

2. like i said, if you want to count breaking amendments as treason, then any anti-gun-rights person is a traitor as well

His personal life is irrelevent, and in fact he was impeached because of it. Thereby making your argument invald being that they DID something about it. didn't see that one coming did ya? schmuck.

He meant something that had to do with the country, not with his personal life and you full-well knew what he meant.

Why don't donkeys go to school? Because no one likes a smart-ass.

he used an incredibly vague definition of treason to include bush in it, and that was my point

bush is no more a traitor than is kerry or any of the other democrats who went on tv in support of the war, k?

Personal life should not matter to a Nation. His life as a PRESIDENT should, not as the individual, William Clinton.

And like I said to you since you seemed to ignore it:

Must I spell it out to you?

We have the right to bare arms. Not as individuals though. Only as "a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country"

*Sighs* Arrogence and pride are a horrible mix.



Quit flaming. It makes you look unintelligent.

ADDITION:


Bush is no more of a traitor, when he creates: The Patriot Act???

Um... Okay... If you want your Bill of Rights destroyed, keep up the good work.

I TOTALLY agree with you.

Editing his post to make you win in arguement is childish. I thought you had more integrity.

kellimus, you aren't making any sense! i'll try to make this easy for you to understand, k?

if you had read the entire wikipeida article that you quoted, you would have come across this:

"The Second Amendment itself was debated and modified during sessions of the House on August 17th and August 20th. These debates revolved primarily around the "religiously scrupulous" clause. Some representatives feared that the government could declare people to be religiously scrupulous, and thereby disarm them against their will. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24th the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:"

does that make ANY sense if they only wanted to give militias the right to bear arms? nope!

also, does it not mean anything to you that the rebels hated the fact that brittain took away their firearms, and that they wanted to insure that it would never happen again? i guess not, and my guess is that you'll ignore this!


you seem like you aren't too smart, so i wouldn't be suprised if some day you get caught doing something stupid, like trying to arrange a date with little kids online or something

Ok that last comment made you like like a twelve year old, which I'm assuming you are since you did not put a birth date on your profile.

2nd of all your not getting what Kellimus is TRYING to say, so obviously you aren't the smart one. He understands what the admendment means as do I, you obviously don't.

It wasn't made because they hated it, it was made so that no matter what a totalarian government cannot take over with force, thats why it says well regulated militias are the best defense of the country. facist leaders agree, Gun control works!

Hmmm. Well, I was wrong. I admit it. But good job at leaving the main argument out.

And you have no right to personally attack me. Ad Hominem Abusive. Against the rules of the forum: Your dimise.

you attacked me too, man

it's worse to be a hypocrite than it is to be a jerk

Proof? I see no attack.

Oh! You mean your ARGUEMENT! Ooooohhhhh... I'm sorry that I was doing what i'm supposed to, i'll stop that now

Yes I see no attack to you except to your argument, WHICH IS ALLOWED AND HAS TO HAPPEN FOR A DEBATE/DISCUSSION TO HAPPEN! (Not yelling just making sure you read this, as you tend to overlook things)

Wheres the hipocrisy? I see none.

no, you called me arrogant and unintelligent

I called you 12, Never said arrogent.
Also, I just repeated what you said with kelli not being very smart. Also that "comeback" with you attacked me too man, is a lame excuse and i used that when i was 12 too.

what?

i wasn't even talking to you, so calm down

Yet you provide a link to where I am commiting this "hanus crime"

you really need to calm down, k?

it's on the previous page, and i only brought it up because you keep making a big deal out of insults

by the way, are you and euro the same person? you both always respond when i'm quoting the other guy, and you both used the same "you are 12" insult