Staredit Network

Ok well i just joined this topic so ima give some of my thoughts on this retard.

Bush is not a good president i know alot of people that dont like him and im one of them personally if i was republican i would go democrat because of this idiot, he totally freaked out on katrina and in this war he is just losing more troops because he has no idea what he is doing...and last well you know i really dont got anything to say but that bush is a farking peice of shiz. and if people start to disagree with me or w\e i dont care fark bush and fark whatever he is doing, it aint going to help anything

Kellimoose, I really don't care anymore, the Patriot is and does protect us. Our intelligence is doing an exellent job for being so crappy/worthless.

Bush is not an idiot, he is not a great man either. He is just a President who feels he is doing the right thing, which he is in fact is not doing a very good job.

Oh and I have already proved Atreyu) that it was clearly not Bush's fault for the aftermath of Kitrina, thank the corrupt local officials for that mess.

Iraq = pointless war, I frankly don't give a shiz anymore about Iraqis, they are probably going to fark up and go Allah on us and bs.

Read below:



Apperantly, you didn't see that. Your little "protective Patriot Act" is exactly what he says.

And what intelligence? If you're willing to sacrifice your Bill Of Rights for temperary security, you don't deserve to live in this country, as the glorious Benjamin Franklin has clearly stated.

#1: So you're telling us that the Patriot Act is helping us by spying on "suspected" terrorists, using phone calls trackers, and other devices like that for espionage.

#2: You call "supportive intelligence of WMD's in Iraq" not idiocy? I'd like to see something that proves that we even had the right to go to war.

#3: The local officials don't matter in a disaster like that, it was the federal response and FEMA's reponse to it that made it worse than it should have been. Also, spell Katrina right if you're going to argue.

#4: I agree with the first part, but putting religion in the factor is nothing that is against us. It's the "Holy Jihad" that says to put war against us, and only extremists follow those codes in the Qur'an. So it is "religion" but not all Islamic peoples follow those codes. As said above.

1. The patriot act has lead to many arrests, and has lead US officials to traces in other countries, as so then we can make arrests there and here. Read "They just don't get it"(Not a liberal bashing book, it talks about the government not getting it) it explains what Im talking about.

2. My last post never talked about going into iraq being good.

3. Yes they do, Amendment 10 of the consitution, it would be against the consitution of our government to barge into helping out Katrina victems with out personal request of assistance from local officials, such as the governer (Which took days)

4. I was being sarcastic about the allah part. -_-

ADDITION:
Kellimoose, Franklin also never met a sleeper cell or terrorist bomber before, times were different then, wars were more "gentalmen" like.

You don't know your Amendments, do you?

"Look at me, i'm conservative! You're always wrong, and i'm always right!'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_Amendmen...es_Constitution

Nice try at trying to BS your way through another thread, Chris.

Yes, and its interpreted that the government had no RIGHTS to move in.

Im right about this one.

And you are:

"Hey if you disagree with me, you are obviously blind!"

actually no, we are:
"If you can't see the truth then your are obviously blind" Get it right. Also I saw nowhere on that wiki page that it said about going into states to help them out that its not allowed.

So now you're claiming that Wikipedia, is full of lies? No where on there, or the original constitution, does it state that the federal government cannot help out in a NATIONAL CRISIS. It states, that the government may not go in and make STATE LAWS. How can you percieve that the government is not "allowed" to go into a state during a national crisis?

With your logic, you're saying that during the 50's, or 60's (I don't remember) when the Federal Government stepped in and sent the army into the south to help the African American's reach their school safely, that it's "illegal" for them to do so...? And you're saying that they can't go in, and stop riots without the "states consent"?

Oh how funny you think, Mr. conservative.

Again I state that no where within' the 10th amendment, does it say it is illegal for the Federal Government to step in when they deem it necesary.

But it DOES SAY, that it is illegal for the Federal Government, to create "state laws"

Did you not read the example that Wikipedia gave?



That proves what the 10th amendment is, right there.

It is basically saying, "Congress shall pass no law for the states."

The example states, that if Congress wants a certain law passed within' a state, they will reduce funding. Entirely legal, but manipulative.

How do you believe you are right, when I have just explained what the 10th amendment is??

*cough* *cough* OWNED *cough* *cough*

Didn't they say it was the 10th amendment on the FOX news channel? So it must be right!!!! What say you now almighty (sarcasm) Chris!

I AM STUDYING THIS RIGHT NOW IN CLASS.

Its intrepreted that for the national government, if the constitution doesn't say it, you can't do, and if you can't do it, the state can. Which is a vague interpretation. But thats just how it is and is not coming from me.

THINK OF THE CHAOS, a state tells the national government that it can handle somehting, Bush ignores and barges in, mixes in with the state services, the two sides aren't working together, know one knows what the other is doing, more people become trapped/etc...

And there is another little thing called federalizing the state troops. A general cannot tell a state troop what to do, he has to be federalized and then he is given command. Its the transistion between state control and national.

Things aren't that simple, you can't just run into something guns blazing (like we did with crappy Iraq).

Just really quick note, the Constitution doesn't say anything about the government keeping dogs. Therefore, they cannot keep dogs.

the constitution doesn't say we can't shoot down air planes, so lets go do it!

Exactly. The Constitution does not forbid the federal government from helping a crisis, therefore, they should.

Tricked you didn't I.

LOL nice cheeze nice.... your my idol now!

OFFTOPIC: After reading the link in nuclearrabbits profile, I have converted to libertarian socialist.

Why did you have to dull it down? That's basically what I explained in my post.. Maybe you did it for the unintelligent.

so you took my fallacious statement... changed the words... and now claim you're claiming that it has become valid

good one buddy



are you seriously that misguided? damn how much cocaine did your mom do during her pregnancy?



THE GOVERNMENT RELEASED AIDS INTO THE BLACK COMMUNITY IN ORDER TO DECIMATE THE AFRICAN PROLETARIAT

BUSH BOMBED THE TWIN TOWERS AND THE PENTAGON I SAW IT ON THE INTERNET IT HAS TO BE TRUE GUYS I SAW A FLASH MOVIE

Wow Chris. You're acting your age [/sarcasm]

Just because Cheeze pointed out that your arguement is flawed, doesn't give you the right to make up false assumptions.

Don't attack Euro, hypocrite ("I won't Ad Hominem Abuseive anymore")

The CIA created the AIDS virus to kill off the homosexuals. When did it come to be? The 80's. Who was the head of the CIA in the 80's? Bush Sr. What is Bush Sr.? Full fledged Christian. What do Christians hate? Homosexuals.

Wow Chris, wow.. Some intelligence you have by completely ignoring everything everyone has said, and you believe some teacher in a classroom, against an Encylopedia.

Good job at being an arrogent conservative.

HAHAHAHAHA DO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT? do you know what a 'source' is?

wait bush sr. was never the head of the CIA, he was the president
the two are completely different

i would like to see you cite something - anything - in support of your arguments (please don't hand my a shizty geocities website with a flashvid comparing bush to hitler)



here, bud

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pe...e_evidence.html

full
scientific
logical
rebuttal

of your stupid theory

Wow Chris.. "Bush Sr. wasn't head of the CIA"



Hmm.... Again, I have proven you wrong. I may not have been correct on the date ("The official date for the beginning of the AIDS epidemic is marked as June 18, 1981"), but I was correct about him being in charge of the CIA.

And yes. It wasn't around when he was in charge of the CIA. But ever heard of storage facilities for chemical weapons/diseases (There is hundreds located in central Utah, about 30-2 hours away from Delta, Utah)?

But of course, you're blind pride will still make you "Right" and all of us "Wrong"

http://www.staredit.net/index.php?showtopic=23949

READ

I'm going to lock this and read through it.

Ok, I'll let it go. A warning to this topic, if it doesn't get cleaned up, I will have to lock.

Everyone needs to look at rule 2. Espcially this part:

i posted this on chris's acount, btw

anyway: your argument was that bush sr, as head of the CIA, released AIDS into the homosexual community. so you're telling me that, 4 years before he was presidency (and during his one year term at the CIA) he devised the plan to release AIDS into the community.

uh
uhhh
that doesn't make very much sense
notice the fact that this was prior to his presideny, and his [CIA] term was only for 1 year.

furthermore, the head of the CIA is SUBORDINATE to several other officials, including director of national intelligence, etc.

to go on, why would the CIA be responsible for the creation of a virus such as HIV? wouldn't the CDC be the gov't instituion far more suited to something like this?

@chemical weapon storages: so are you saying that a country should not have any of these types of weapons? when the modern trends of warfar are moving towards the usage of chemical and biological weapons, a nation needs to be properly protected against that. how does one do that? with continued research on the compounds in order to counteract any of the above types of attacks. secondly, the fact that a country has weapons is not a bad thing - the US also has the largest stockpile of nukes - and it's exactly that, a stockpile. this chemical weapon storage bin is also a stockpile - it's not to be used, it's to store.

to end my post: there seems to be an enormous doublt standard here - you're all reporting my posts for 'flaming' (stuff like "you're wrong"), while all of you are spewing hatred towards me (such as "YOU'RE FULL OF BLIND PRIDE, YOU IGNORANT CONERSVATIVE ARROGANT ASS IRRELEVENCE BLAH"). i find the latter much more offensive than the former.

This is beyond retarded.

The AIDS virus was not "created" by the CIA. No human agency has ever engineered a virus with the sole intent of the destruction of a particular group. Harnessed one, yes, but surely not created.

Bush was the head of the CIA for a brief period in the 70's. In 1981 he was recovering from his failed Presidential bid.

The Pentagon/WTC theory can and will be debated until the destruction of the Earth, so there's no use wasting brain cells on that.