• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Can this idiot get more dispicable?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Originally posted by: Lemon law
While GWB checks out Crawford, Texas on Google Earth as his retirement destination, he may well be advised to check out the Hague as alternate destination.

It may be a safer place for him when we find out all the crapola he has been up to. At least the Hague has no death penalty for war crimes.
You've got no idea what kind of "crapola he has been up to" and yet you already assume guilt of some unnamed (war) crime.........because, you know, he just has to be guilty. Every time you repeat this ghoulish fantasy of yours I have to laugh.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Lemon law
While GWB checks out Crawford, Texas on Google Earth as his retirement destination, he may well be advised to check out the Hague as alternate destination.

It may be a safer place for him when we find out all the crapola he has been up to. At least the Hague has no death penalty for war crimes.
You've got no idea what kind of "crapola he has been up to" and yet you already assume guilt of some unnamed (war) crime.........because, you know, he just has to be guilty. Every time you repeat this ghoulish fantasy of yours I have to laugh.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point being Corn, what we know about what GWB&co has been up to is damning enough as it is, what we may find out later when another administration digs into leftover files in the executive branch is likely to be far far worse. We found out in the Gonzales matter that GWB&co. is not even competent enough to run a one layer deep cover up without everything unraveling.

We will indeed see who has the last laugh although it will be with a deep sense of national shame in my case. The mere fact that our President can have even semi creditable case made against him regarding international war crimes should alarm us all.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,604
17
81
Originally posted by: Robor
No, he's not. The whole premise of INVADING Iraq was WMD's - not democracy. It's years later and there's billions down the drain with nearly 4K US soldiers killed and who knows how many civilians dead. And for what?
Thankfully, Bush won't run on a platform of nation building.
"But I'm gonna be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious."

:laugh:
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Originally posted by: Lemon law


The point being Corn, what we know about what GWB&co has been up to is damning enough as it is, what we may find out later when another administration digs into leftover files in the executive branch is likely to be far far worse. We found out in the Gonzales matter that GWB&co. is not even competent enough to run a one layer deep cover up without everything unraveling.

We will indeed see who has the last laugh although it will be with a deep sense of national shame in my case. The mere fact that our President can have even semi creditable case made against him regarding international war crimes should alarm us all.

Never gonna happen, no President is stupid enough to go after an ex-President lest he set a precedent that may be followed by his own successor. There is no valid case against Bush to be made for international war crimes or one would have already been executed. There will be no last laugh Mr. "Bush Will Face The Death Penalty Psycho Dreamer", instead there only be your own bitter disappointment.
 

Linux23

Lifer
Apr 9, 2000
11,099
485
126
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Lemon law


The point being Corn, what we know about what GWB&co has been up to is damning enough as it is, what we may find out later when another administration digs into leftover files in the executive branch is likely to be far far worse. We found out in the Gonzales matter that GWB&co. is not even competent enough to run a one layer deep cover up without everything unraveling.

We will indeed see who has the last laugh although it will be with a deep sense of national shame in my case. The mere fact that our President can have even semi creditable case made against him regarding international war crimes should alarm us all.

Never gonna happen, no President is stupid enough to go after an ex-President lest he set a precedent that may be followed by his own successor. There is no valid case against Bush to be made for international war crimes or one would have already been executed. There will be no last laugh Mr. "Bush Will Face The Death Penalty Psycho Dreamer", instead there only be your own bitter disappointment.
Agreed.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
I am sure that GWB&co will find it reassuring that at least three people in the entire world do not think he is a war criminal. But in terms of the use of torture, he quite clearly is despite all the denial he has made. The fact is, that under international law, as the guy in charge, GWB is responsible for stopping such practices when it comes to his attention.
And instead he seems to be the chief cheerleader and those torture policies are probably clearly approved by GWB himself. This is what I was referring to in making a premia facia case that the gang of three are in denial of. We could also talk of kidnapping the citizens of other countries and a host of other possible charges.

Oh ya, I know, all those technicalities questions such as are terrorists included in the Geneva convention and all that. We have been there and done that with other national leaders, and the long and short of it seems to be that all these little clever arguments last only milliseconds in a real court. And the only persons fooled by these clever argument is the war criminal themselves.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Let's see....when he WAS a younger man and SHOULD have gone off to fight on the front lines, he acted like White Goodman. Now, he is talking tough and only going anywhere near the ME on unannounced photo shoots and leaves within the hour.

Source

WASHINGTON: US President George Bush got an earful on Thursday about problems and progress in Afghanistan. In a videoconference, Bush heard from US personnel about the challenges ranging from fighting corruption to persuading farmers to abandon a lucrative poppy drug trade for other crops. Bush heard tales of all-night tea drinking sessions to coax local residents into cooperating.

"I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed." "In some ways romantic, in some ways... confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," he said.
Yes yes, Bush should have simply told the troops he was addressing that they are cannon fodder fighting an unwinnable war so this his cronies could enrich themselves. Then he wouldn't be dispicable, right? :roll:
He'd be honest if he did that in regards to Iraq.

Afghanistan won't be a democracy though ever. The tribal way of life and it's tradition would take ions of time to over come. The best we can do is go after and take down top Al Qiada leaders as we should of continued doing rather then wasting our time in Iraq.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I am sure that GWB&co will find it reassuring that at least three people in the entire world do not think he is a war criminal. But in terms of the use of torture, he quite clearly is despite all the denial he has made. The fact is, that under international law, as the guy in charge, GWB is responsible for stopping such practices when it comes to his attention.
And instead he seems to be the chief cheerleader and those torture policies are probably clearly approved by GWB himself. This is what I was referring to in making a premia facia case that the gang of three are in denial of. We could also talk of kidnapping the citizens of other countries and a host of other possible charges.

Oh ya, I know, all those technicalities questions such as are terrorists included in the Geneva convention and all that. We have been there and done that with other national leaders, and the long and short of it seems to be that all these little clever arguments last only milliseconds in a real court. And the only persons fooled by these clever argument is the war criminal themselves.
I'm sorry, I must have been not paying attention on the day that Bush was charged with "international war crimes", becuase obviously based on your comments, Bush's guilt is all but assured and simply waiting for the gavel to fall. Where was I when the trial was going on?
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,991
0
0
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I am sure that GWB&co will find it reassuring that at least three people in the entire world do not think he is a war criminal. But in terms of the use of torture, he quite clearly is despite all the denial he has made. The fact is, that under international law, as the guy in charge, GWB is responsible for stopping such practices when it comes to his attention.
And instead he seems to be the chief cheerleader and those torture policies are probably clearly approved by GWB himself. This is what I was referring to in making a premia facia case that the gang of three are in denial of. We could also talk of kidnapping the citizens of other countries and a host of other possible charges.

Oh ya, I know, all those technicalities questions such as are terrorists included in the Geneva convention and all that. We have been there and done that with other national leaders, and the long and short of it seems to be that all these little clever arguments last only milliseconds in a real court. And the only persons fooled by these clever argument is the war criminal themselves.
I'm sorry, I must have been not paying attention on the day that Bush was charged with "international war crimes", becuase obviously based on your comments, Bush's guilt is all but assured and simply waiting for the gavel to fall. Where was I when the trial was going on?
Just because it didn't happen doesn't make him/them innocent. OJ was found 'not guilty' in criminal court. ;)

GWB and crew will have their legacy recorded in history books.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I am sure that GWB&co will find it reassuring that at least three people in the entire world do not think he is a war criminal. But in terms of the use of torture, he quite clearly is despite all the denial he has made. The fact is, that under international law, as the guy in charge, GWB is responsible for stopping such practices when it comes to his attention.
And instead he seems to be the chief cheerleader and those torture policies are probably clearly approved by GWB himself. This is what I was referring to in making a premia facia case that the gang of three are in denial of. We could also talk of kidnapping the citizens of other countries and a host of other possible charges.

Oh ya, I know, all those technicalities questions such as are terrorists included in the Geneva convention and all that. We have been there and done that with other national leaders, and the long and short of it seems to be that all these little clever arguments last only milliseconds in a real court. And the only persons fooled by these clever argument is the war criminal themselves.
I'm sorry, I must have been not paying attention on the day that Bush was charged with "international war crimes", becuase obviously based on your comments, Bush's guilt is all but assured and simply waiting for the gavel to fall. Where was I when the trial was going on?
Just because it didn't happen doesn't make him/them innocent. OJ was found 'not guilty' in criminal court. ;)

GWB and crew will have their legacy recorded in history books.
To be perfectly honest, the opinion wasn't really meant to be a proclamation of Bush's innocence..........I'll leave that to a jury to decide. [/irony] No, it was more or less simply an exercise in deflating the hopes and dreams of the deranged.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,991
0
0
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I am sure that GWB&co will find it reassuring that at least three people in the entire world do not think he is a war criminal. But in terms of the use of torture, he quite clearly is despite all the denial he has made. The fact is, that under international law, as the guy in charge, GWB is responsible for stopping such practices when it comes to his attention.
And instead he seems to be the chief cheerleader and those torture policies are probably clearly approved by GWB himself. This is what I was referring to in making a premia facia case that the gang of three are in denial of. We could also talk of kidnapping the citizens of other countries and a host of other possible charges.

Oh ya, I know, all those technicalities questions such as are terrorists included in the Geneva convention and all that. We have been there and done that with other national leaders, and the long and short of it seems to be that all these little clever arguments last only milliseconds in a real court. And the only persons fooled by these clever argument is the war criminal themselves.
I'm sorry, I must have been not paying attention on the day that Bush was charged with "international war crimes", becuase obviously based on your comments, Bush's guilt is all but assured and simply waiting for the gavel to fall. Where was I when the trial was going on?
Just because it didn't happen doesn't make him/them innocent. OJ was found 'not guilty' in criminal court. ;)

GWB and crew will have their legacy recorded in history books.
To be perfectly honest, the opinion wasn't really meant to be a proclamation of Bush's innocence..........I'll leave that to a jury to decide. [/irony] No, it was more or less simply an exercise in deflating the hopes and dreams of the deranged.
No problem. I agree that justice will probably fail again but in the 'court of public opinion' most have already made their verdict. :)
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
11,999
3,253
136
the only way bush and his henchmen could cram their agenda down the throats of mr.- average-voter-USA was/is to rule our nation as an quasi-oligarchy. in this, the plan that was hatched by those that make up bush's cabinet of conspirators succeeded, in the sense that they got things going all their way for what seemed to be an interminable six year run. in that historically short amount of time, the damage these guys have done to our nation is unprecedented, especially so as the consequences of their actions will far outlive their tenure at the helm.

all of this, in part to excersize the corporate mantra of producing maximim profits in the shortest amount of time (8 yr. projection) while leaving barren the back end of the projection whereby those that profited will not suffer any loss as they will have exited the deal (as planned) before the bottom fell out, leaving us, the average joe taxpayer to pay for decades the bills these guys ran up during their 8 yr. long orgy at the US treasury.

the little raiding party these crooks have pulled off at our expense will of course, be forgotten and will be executed time and time again to varying degree, as history has shown.

when will we ever learn.

bush will get what jugement he deserves, and he will be laughing his ass off as he showers himself with the riches he has gleaned off of the backs of the hapless taxpayers.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
How quickly Corn changes his position and loses sight of the original argument when he says---To be perfectly honest, the opinion wasn't really meant to be a proclamation of Bush's innocence..........I'll leave that to a jury to decide. [/irony] No, it was more or less simply an exercise in deflating the hopes and dreams of the deranged.

What was raised as a possibility is no longer denied by Corn whose former position was---Never gonna happen, no President is stupid enough to go after an ex-President lest he set a precedent that may be followed by his own successor. There is no valid case against Bush to be made for international war crimes or one would have already been executed

And now Corn seems to imply that those who think GWB&co are probably guilty said it as a certainty that GWB would of a certainty stand trial. When in fact, what was originally said is that he MIGHT end up standing trail in the Hague. And I later pointed out that the mere fact that a prema facia case can be made that he should end up in the Hague should alarm us all. And that a clearer position of the truth will likely only emerge when he is out of office.

Corn, you could not possibly deflate my hopes more than GWB&co. already has. But you do need to work on your revisionist history.

 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,064
0
0
So, what's exactly wrong with instilling a tiny bit of mob rule on these peoples asses? You know, make a weekend out of it, it'd be super-fun!
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Originally posted by: Lemon law
How quickly Corn changes his position and loses sight of the original argument when he says---To be perfectly honest, the opinion wasn't really meant to be a proclamation of Bush's innocence..........I'll leave that to a jury to decide. [/irony] No, it was more or less simply an exercise in deflating the hopes and dreams of the deranged.

What was raised as a possibility is no longer denied by Corn whose former position was---Never gonna happen, no President is stupid enough to go after an ex-President lest he set a precedent that may be followed by his own successor. There is no valid case against Bush to be made for international war crimes or one would have already been executed

And now Corn seems to imply that those who think GWB&co are probably guilty said it as a certainty that GWB would of a certainty stand trial. When in fact, what was originally said is that he MIGHT end up standing trail in the Hague. And I later pointed out that the mere fact that a prema facia case can be made that he should end up in the Hague should alarm us all. And that a clearer position of the truth will likely only emerge when he is out of office.

Corn, you could not possibly deflate my hopes more than GWB&co. already has. But you do need to work on your revisionist history.
I see you are functionally illiterate. I never acquiesced a forthcoming war crimes trial was a possiblility, quite the contrary. I merely stated my responses were not an opinion of Bush's guilt or innocence. Stating I would leave that decision up to a jury does not mean I believe a jury will ever see the light of day.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY