Is President Bush a traitor?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Julius Shark

I wish this forum had an ignore function. Julius Shark has only been here a few days and nearly all of his postings are either trollish or baiting or both. There is a vast difference between an honest debate and arguing merely for the "sport" of arguing. - Thump553

Why not take a stab at answering the question? I'd like your input.

You've already made that a useless option. Others and I have already answered your question and addressed all of your "points" directly with hard facts and credible links, and all you could do was attempt to divert attention away from those posts with irrelevant, unsupported statements about Obama. Even when you attempted to link to a source, it was mis-stated, selected and edited quotes from a fringoid tin foil beany site World Net Daily.

YOU also asked if Obama should be held to the same standard. We replied to address that question, pointing out that Obama wasn't yet President and, in any case, YOU couldn't name one thing he has done that would come close to qualifying as treason.

I'll throw it back at you. Why not take a stab at refuting the reasons we've posted that George W. Bush and his cronies are traitors? It was your question, and the only one who hasn't answered it with any credibility is YOU. :shocked:

When you've failed at that, you can move on to your own irrelevant attempts to divert attention from the crimes committed by your Traitor In Chief by claiming Obama is a traitor. You made the claim. Prove it, or STFU. :thumbsdown:
 

Julius Shark

Banned
Dec 28, 2008
76
0
0
Others and I have already answered your question and addressed all of your "points" directly with hard facts - Harvey

In fact, you have admitted that characterizing a President as a ?traitor? is ?conjecture?. You?ve spent the rest of the thread backpedalling, dissembling and trying to remove your own standard setting.

Your President Elect is a traitor using your standards.

World Net Daily is a source just as CNN is a source. I don?t see the terms of service flagging WND as an unacceptable source.

You?re the Moderator, why not suggest the above poster contribute to my thread or butt out? He entered this thread with a purely gratuitous slam at me in my own thread.

Using a double standard Harvey would indicate that you are just another slimy partisan without the balls to admit you?ve been had.

Stop calling President Bush a traitor and STFU.
 

Soundmanred

Lifer
Oct 26, 2006
10,780
6
81
I don't normally venture into P&N, but I heard there was a troll like no other beating dead horses and it didn't take long to figure out who it was.
Look son, we've seen your kind before and when you're done trolling, you'll leave and another just like you will take your place, champ.
At least it's entertaining bro!
I think I'd rather have a conversation with FBB or Trident, at least they admit they aren't all there, kiddo.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Julius Shark

Others and I have already answered your question and addressed all of your "points" directly with hard facts - Harvey

In fact, you have admitted that characterizing a President as a ?traitor? is ?conjecture?. You?ve spent the rest of the thread backpedalling, dissembling and trying to remove your own standard setting.

Damn! You already posted that dumbass lie, and I already refuted it in this very thread, yesterday, 12/28/2008 at 09:52 PM EST.

Originally posted by: Julius Shark

Harvey,

We have admitted into evidence your stipulation that your whole case is based on conjecture.

You then go on to throw in a bunch of macroed documentation to create the illusion of a well thought out case.

Conjecture won?t cut it (neither will voluminous documentation that won?t be let in) in my court room. My ruling is final.

Is that arbitrary? You betcha. It?s my thread.

The critical sentences in my reply were:

My "case" is most definitely NOT based on conjecture. I specifically named the acts committed by your Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang that I believe constitute grounds for charging them with treason. The only thing I said was "conjectural" was whether they would be convicted of the crime in a U.S. court of law.

You who are the one who is backpedaling and dissembling. In fact, that's ALL you've done. You haven't addresses ANY facts posted by ANYONE, and you haven't posted even one credible link to one credible source to support your bullshit.

Your President Elect is a traitor using your standards.

PROVE IT!

World Net Daily is a source just as CNN is a source. I don?t see the terms of service flagging WND as an unacceptable source.

Yeah. Uh-huh! :roll: More dissembling bullshit. But hey! Don't take my word for it. You're welcome to continue shattering your own credibility with your choice of sources. :laugh:

You?re the Moderator, why not suggest the above poster contribute to my thread or butt out? He entered this thread with a purely gratuitous slam at me in my own thread.

I'm not moderating in this thread. I'm posting as a member. If you want a moderator's assistance, PM the Mod account. Someone other than me will deal with you.

Using a double standard Harvey would indicate that you are just another slimy partisan without the balls to admit you?ve been had.

Thanks for the gratuitous name calling. I can feel the love. :p

Stop calling President Bush a traitor and STFU.

Suppose you try to stop me. While you're trying...

GEORGE W. BUSH IS A TRAITOR! :laugh:
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Criminally irresponsible, probably, but I don't think you can call him a traitor.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Julius Shark
I wish this forum had an ignore function. Julius Shark has only been here a few days and nearly all of his postings are either trollish or baiting or both. There is a vast difference between an honest debate and arguing merely for the "sport" of arguing. - Thump553

Why not take a stab at answering the question? I'd like your input.

noone cares
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
With all the mistakes and trouble this administration has caused who cares what he is labeled with!?

He was simply the worst person, and the worst President for the tasks that were set before him. From Iraq to Katrina to Harriet Meirs (just to name a few)...the buck stops with the POTUS. Mind you, that won't stop his faithful from taking a bullet for him.

call it being a traitor, failing to perform his duty and uphold his oath, call it plain brainlessness and dumbfvckery...whatever.

If he has any single success I would be happy to give him credit for it. The wildlife preserve in Hawaii being one thing I can think of off the top of my head.

Otherwise, imho he is a failure and I don't give a shit if people recognize that failure as traitorous or not.

 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
Originally posted by: OrByte
He was simply the worst person, and the worst President for the tasks that were set before him. From Iraq to Katrina to Harriet Meirs (just to name a few)...the buck stops with the POTUS. Mind you, that won't stop his faithful from taking a bullet for him.

Dude Harriet Meirs was the smartest thing he ever did. He knew he had to appoint a female since one was leaving so he picked the most retarded choice knowing full well the entire country would be like wtf :confused: Then not even a day after she droped out rolls the neocon poster boy. I say well played.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Originally posted by: OrByte
He was simply the worst person, and the worst President for the tasks that were set before him. From Iraq to Katrina to Harriet Meirs (just to name a few)...the buck stops with the POTUS. Mind you, that won't stop his faithful from taking a bullet for him.

Dude Harriet Meirs was the smartest thing he ever did. He knew he had to appoint a female since one was leaving so he picked the most retarded choice knowing full well the entire country would be like wtf :confused: Then not even a day after she droped out rolls the neocon poster boy. I say well played.

HA!! good point!

I guess we can't chalk that one up to bumbling dumbfvckery then can we? :p
 

Julius Shark

Banned
Dec 28, 2008
76
0
0
Harvey,

Let's look at some of the "evidence" your side has submitted:

No, I do not think GWB is a traitor, think more in terms of international war criminal. - Lemon law

Lemon law does not believe the President is a traitor. He offers no proof for his war criminal charge.

add you to the Traitor list. - dmcowen674

This poster offers no proof for this heinous charge against me. He just drops a bomb and goes into hiding.

And considering he betrayed America's trust countless times and has also failed to uphold the Constitution several times (which is his obligation and duty), yes, I'd say he's a traitor by your definition. - Eeezee

This poster offers no proof that the President has betrayed Americas trust.

Harvey has a macro that insets "TRAITOR IN CHIEF every time he types "GWB". It's just hyperbole from the left. - CallMeJoe

This poster reveals an interesting posting technique you use to obscure the truth and provide the appearance of a well thought out case.

Since I suspect but can not prove either of these allegations, I can not responsibly yet conclude GWB is a traitor, but as more facts come out, the proof may yet arise. - Lemon law

This poster has a change of heart and admits that there is insufficient evidence to support the traitor charge.

I believe George W. Bush and almost his entire administration are traitors, but it's conjectural whether they could be convicted of treason in a U.S. court of law. - Harvey

And here we have, ladies and gentlemen, an admission that it is your belief that the President is a traitor. You go on to offer several reams of macroed crap about US law with regard to treason as if this President had been found guilty of that law.

I do believe that GWB is a traitor. He has sold this country out and has attempted to destroy it. - RabidMongoose

Here is another of your witnesses, Harv. Where is all this "evidence"? The President has attempted to destroy the Country?

No just an incompetent Administrator that was ill suited for the Presidency - Red Dawn

Now here is an honest poster who gives and honest answer. He knows the President is not a traitor. There is a big difference between being incompetent and being a traitor.

I believe the most common definition of traitor would be someone who has committed treason. - Stiganator

This poster does not believe the President should be characterized as a traitor.

No, Bush is not a traitor. Those who say he is is using a very loose interpretation of the definition. Welcome to the internet, where a loud voice & stupidity are king. - cubby1223

Another poster who says you?re wrong.

George Bush is not a traitor....George Bush is the ultimate silver spoon child. - BMW540I6speed

And another.

Criminally irresponsible, probably, but I don't think you can call him a traitor. - yllus

And yet, another.




You act like the whole damn thread has risen up to support you with great reams of evidence. The above puts the lie to that.

If Bush is a traitor then Obama is a traitor.

You?re out of your league here, son. STFU.

 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: Julius Shark
-snip-
Obama indicates that the Constitution is not sufficient. Traitorous, in my view.

I'm a conservative. I do not with agree Obama's position as stated in the link you provide. I don't think GWB is a traitor, nor a war criminal. I do admit that he's screwed some things up, e.g. bad appointments like Alberto Gonzales.

But I wouldn't go so far as to call people traitors for wanting the Constitution changed. We've changed it many times before, and there are those on both the right and left who would like to see changes now.

The Constitution provides the means for change and as long as those are pursued in good faith nothing is improper IMO. To circumvent the Constitution through other means is a different matter and one that just might rise to the level of traitorous behavior.

Will the same standards be applied to Obama as GWB? I doubt it, and would no matter which two names were mentioned. First, I think people tend to judge things through their prism of beliefs/political leanings; secondly Obama will come into office under a much different atmosphere than GWB did. GWB started off with the whole *Florida recount* thingy and a lot of animosity, while Obama comes in under a much different feeling.

Fern
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Julius Shark

Harvey,

Let's look at some of the "evidence" your side has submitted:
.
.

Nothing you post about what "my side" has posted means squat. If you want to challenge me, reply to what I posted. Since you're obviously too reading or memory challenged to recall, I'll repost your OP and my direct, on point, replies to both parts of your troll post:

Originally posted by: Julius Shark

Is President Bush a traitor?

I believe George W. Bush and almost his entire administration are traitors, but it's conjectural whether they could be convicted of treason in a U.S. court of law.

TREASON

In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.

Here's another definition:

trea·son
(tre'z?n)
n.
  1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
  2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.
If you don't consider offering only a continuous string of ever changing lies as justification for taking the nation into a war that has squandered thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars in current and future debt, or illegal, unconstitutional unwarranted spying against American citizens to be a betrayal of trust or confidence, please tell us what it is. :shocked:

Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution provides that each president shall recite the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The Vice President also swears of affirms a similar oath. Since the day Bush and Cheney took office, they and their henchmen have waged an aggressive war against the rights guaranteed to all American citizens under the U.S. Constitution.

Instead of upholding and defending the Constitution, and well before the FISA law was rewritten, your Traitor In Chief and his gang were shredding the rights guaranteed to every American citizen by that document with illegal domestic spying.

AT&T Whistle-Blower's Evidence
05.17.06

Former AT&T technician Mark Klein is the key witness in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's class-action lawsuit against the company, which alleges that AT&T illegally cooperated in an illegal National Security Agency domestic-surveillance program.

In this recently surfaced statement, Klein details his discovery of an alleged surveillance operation in an AT&T office in San Francisco, and offers his interpretation of company documents that he believes support his case.

In 2003 AT&T built "secret rooms" hidden deep in the bowels of its central offices in various cities, housing computer gear for a government spy operation which taps into the company's popular WorldNet service and the entire internet. These installations enable the government to look at every individual message on the internet and analyze exactly what people are doing. Documents showing the hardwire installation in San Francisco suggest that there are similar locations being installed in numerous other cities.

The physical arrangement, the timing of its construction, the government-imposed secrecy surrounding it, and other factors all strongly suggest that its origins are rooted in the Defense Department's Total Information Awareness (TIA) program which brought forth vigorous protests from defenders of constitutionally protected civil liberties last year:

"As the director of the effort, Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, has described the system in Pentagon documents and in speeches, it will provide intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials with instant access to information from internet mail and calling records to credit card and banking transactions and travel documents, without a search warrant." The New York Times, 9 November 2002

To mollify critics, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) spokesmen have repeatedly asserted that they are only conducting "research" using "artificial synthetic data" or information from "normal DOD intelligence channels" and hence there are "no U.S. citizen privacy implications" (Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General report on TIA, December 12, 2003). They also changed the name of the program to "Terrorism Information Awareness" to make it more politically palatable. But feeling the heat, Congress made a big show of allegedly cutting off funding for TIA in late 2003, and the political fallout resulted in Adm. Poindexter's abrupt resignation last August. However, the fine print reveals that Congress eliminated funding only for "the majority of the TIA components," allowing several "components" to continue (DOD, ibid). The essential hardware elements of a TIA-type spy program are being surreptitiously slipped into "real world" telecommunications offices.

In San Francisco the "secret room" is Room 641A at 611 Folsom Street, the site of a large SBC phone building, three floors of which are occupied by AT&T. High-speed fiber-optic circuits come in on the 8th floor and run down to the 7th floor where they connect to routers for AT&T's WorldNet service, part of the latter's vital "Common Backbone." In order to snoop on these circuits, a special cabinet was installed and cabled to the "secret room" on the 6th floor to monitor the information going through the circuits. (The location code of the cabinet is 070177.04, which denotes the 7th floor, aisle 177 and bay 04.) The "secret room" itself is roughly 24-by-48 feet, containing perhaps a dozen cabinets including such equipment as Sun servers and two Juniper routers, plus an industrial-size air conditioner.

The normal work force of unionized technicians in the office are forbidden to enter the "secret room," which has a special combination lock on the main door. The telltale sign of an illicit government spy operation is the fact that only people with security clearance from the National Security Agency can enter this room. In practice this has meant that only one management-level technician works in there. Ironically, the one who set up the room was laid off in late 2003 in one of the company's endless "downsizings," but he was quickly replaced by another.

Plans for the "secret room" were fully drawn up by December 2002, curiously only four months after Darpa started awarding contracts for TIA. One 60-page document, identified as coming from "AT&T Labs Connectivity & Net Services" and authored by the labs' consultant Mathew F. Casamassima, is titled Study Group 3, LGX/Splitter Wiring, San Francisco and dated 12/10/02. (See sample PDF 1-4.) This document addresses the special problem of trying to spy on fiber-optic circuits. Unlike copper wire circuits which emit electromagnetic fields that can be tapped into without disturbing the circuits, fiber-optic circuits do not "leak" their light signals. In order to monitor such communications, one has to physically cut into the fiber somehow and divert a portion of the light signal to see the information.

How is that not a violation of their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? How is that not a violation of allegiance toward one's country or the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies? Even if you don't believe that in so doing, they have committed treason, they have most definitely violated their oaths of office. :|

I further believe they are guilty of murder, torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity, as well as lesser felonies including lying to Congress and obstruction of justice.

MURDER

The Bush administration should be charged with murder under two different theories of the crime:

1. Callous, Reckless or Wanton Disregard or Depraved Indifference

Under Federal and most state statutes, one definition of murder is committing an act in callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others that, in fact, causes the death of another. One foreseeable consequence of war is death... in fact, many deaths. For example, under New York State Law:

MURDER SECOND DEGREE
(A-I Felony)
(Depraved Indifference Murder)
PENAL LAW 125.25(2)
(Committed on or after Sept. 1, 1967)
(Revised December 12, 2006)
Under our law, a person is guilty of Murder in the Second Degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he or she recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of that person [or of a third person.

The deaths of every American in Iraq are direct, foreseeable consequences of the Bushwhackos' felonious LIES to Congress. In his published statement, George McGovern said:

All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law. This reckless disregard for life and property, as well as constitutional law, has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

All of those American casualties did not occur in one cataclysmic event. They happened over the years we since the Bushwhackos started their illegal war. If you question whether their actions constitute callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others, it begs the question of how many times, and over what period, can one consider excusing those ongoing, repeated acts that continue to raise the number of dead and wounded Americans on a daily basis. At what point does it shock the conscience sufficiently to cross the threshold from being 4,218 cases of mere negligent homicide, which is another criminal offense? :shocked:

2. The Felony-Murder Rule

A RULE OF LAW that holds that if a killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony (a major crime), the person or persons responsible for the felony can be charged with murder.

Generally an intent to kill is not necessary for felony-murder. The rule becomes operative when there is a killing during or a death soon after the felony, and there is some causal connection between the felony and the killing.

The felony-murder rule originated in England under the COMMON LAW. Initially it was strictly applied, encompassing any death that occurred during the course of a felony, regardless of who caused it. Therefore, if a police officer attempting to stop a ROBBERY accidentally shot and killed an innocent passerby, the robber could be charged with murder.

Today most jurisdictions have limited the rule by requiring that the felony must be a dangerous one or that the killing is foreseeable, or both. Statutes that restrict the application of the rule to dangerous felonies usually enumerate the crimes. BURGLARY, KIDNAPPING, rape, and robbery are typical felonies that invoke the rule. Under a number of statutes, the felony must be a proximate cause of the death. In other words, the killing must have been a natural and direct consequence of the felony.

Another of their crimes, lying to Congress, is a felony regardless of whether such lies are told under oath that directly supports charging them with murder under Felony Murder statutes. The Bush administration lied to Congress to pimp their war. Starting any war is obviously dangerous, and as stated, death is a foreseeable consequence of war. The deaths of every American in Iraq were direct, foreseeable consequences of the administration's felonious lies to Congress.

I hope you don't dispute that the Bushies lied to Congress. If you do, I can cite lots of them, including names and dates.

WAR CRIMES

George W. Bush, Dickwad Cheney, Alberto Gonzales and others authorized and encouraged American intelligence agencies to commit gross violations of human rights, including torture, in violation of international laws and obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which Berto the Clown Gonzales derided as "quaint."

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

The Bushwhackos have continually withheld evidence from Congress regarding Whitehouse involvement with anything and everything from Alberto Gonzales' communications to their involvement with outing covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame, to their direct involvement with the CIA's use of torture and the subsequent destruction of the tapes showing them in the act of committing that torture.

Originally posted by: Julius Shark

If he is, will we use the same standard to determine if President Elect Obama is a traitor?

I would hope so, but first, Obama would have to commit any of those crimes. George W. Bush and his criminal cabal already have done so, and they should be held to account for them.
[/quote]

You're just embarrassing your self by trying to make some point about what I said by referring to what others posted, but if you want to continue jerking your schlong, go for it. :shocked:

Originally posted by: Julius Shark

You act like the whole damn thread has risen up to support you with great reams of evidence. The above puts the lie to that.

On what planet? I posted definitions, links and legal code citations. I haven't seen you address, let alone refute, any of that material.

If Bush is a traitor then Obama is a traitor.

I said I believe your Traitor In Chief is a not only a traitor (your question), but also a murderer, a torturer and a war criminal. You've got my very long, very factual statement supporting those assertions just a few lines above this sentence. Try addressing what I posted... IF you can.

Once you've done that, you can try to prove your assertion that Obama is a traitor. I expect credible citations, including direct, accurate, confirmed reports of any acts you believe constitute torture and citations of actual statutes supporting your claims.

You?re out of your league here, son. STFU.

Because an incompetent pissant jackoff like you says so? :confused:

BUAHAHAHahahahahahaha!!!!! :laugh:
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Excuse me, Julius Shark, you are totally distorting the truth here regarding my posts in your previous post.

Lets us look at the post Julius cited cited posts side.

1. Let's look at some of the "evidence" your side has submitted:

No, I do not think GWB is a traitor, think more in terms of international war criminal. - Lemon law


Lemon law does not believe the President is a traitor. He offers no proof for his war criminal charge.

2. This poster reveals an interesting posting technique you use to obscure the truth and provide the appearance of a well thought out case.

Since I suspect but can not prove either of these allegations, This poster reveals an interesting posting technique you use to obscure the truth and provide the appearance of a well thought out case. This poster reveals an interesting posting technique you use to obscure the truth and provide the appearance of a well thought out case. , but as more facts come out, the proof may yet arise. - Lemon law


This poster has a change of heart and admits that there is insufficient evidence to support the traitor charge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said, I do not think the case can be made for GWB as a traitor, and so answered in quote #1.

Then you pointed out an inconsistency that simply does not exist in post #2, saying " This poster ( Lemon Law ) reveals an interesting posting technique you use to obscure the truth and provide the appearance of a well thought out case." When, if you examine my second quote I merely say that new evidence may come out that cause me to change my mind about the traitor allegation, but until then, I said, " I can not responsibly yet conclude GWB is a traitor.

In short Julius Shark, there is no inconsistency there at all.

Now you may have a minor point regarding the fact that I consider it more of a slam dunk case for making the GWB case as a international war criminal case without offering you personal proof. The problem with that Julius Shark, is your newbie vanity, if you want that proof, I suggest you review the back posts, something every responsible new member of any forum should do. There threads numbering in the high hundreds or low thousands making exactly that case for GWB as a international war criminal, not just posted by me, but by many many others, and if you think I am going to respost what I have written just for your damn benefit, you are the most arrogant MF I have ever seen. Do your research on back posts and come back when you are up to speed.

And then just when Julius can't seem any more outrageous, he makes the following statement proving he is a true idiot when he says, " If Bush is a traitor then Obama is a traitor. "

You are right about the " You?re out of your league here, son." The problem for you Julius, is that you are the one out of your league.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
Originally posted by: OrByte
HA!! good point!

I guess we can't chalk that one up to bumbling dumbfvckery then can we? :p

The sad thing is the whole thing went down so smoothly I doubt it was his idea :)
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Regardless of whether Bush is a traitor (which has a narrow legal meaning for our purposes), he completely FUCKED UP almost everything, except perhaps for the AIDS relief in Africa. I cannot remember a President who made so many bone-headed policy decisions, though I don't clearly remember Hoover, so it might be a close call. He's certainly worse than James A. Garfield and that took some real talent.

-Robert
 

Julius Shark

Banned
Dec 28, 2008
76
0
0
Lemon law,

I believe that your conclusion that President Bush is not a traitor is correct. It is beyond the scope of this thread to delve into the ?war criminal? charge. In my view, it is never going to happen that President Bush will be convicted as a ?war criminal?.



Harv,

Try to bring yourself back into focus for a moment. The topic asks two questions.

Is President Bush a traitor?

You say, yes. Under the link I posted to Merriam Webster the definition of a traitor is: ?one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty?

That?s a pretty low standard to have to maintain, little guy. Calling someone a traitor under this standard is tantamount to calling them any other gratuitous name.

If he is, will we use the same standard to determine if President Elect Obama is a traitor?

There seems to be differing opinion on this. I will interpret the result of the forum to say that we would use the same standard for Obama. In other words, if any forum member believes that Obama has betrayed even the slightest obscure duty, he would be correct in using the traitor label.

I will in the future refer to your man Obama as a traitor, ass hole, idiot or any other gratuitous name as I see fit. The standard is that low.

I will not refer to him as an impeached felon because that is not true, yet.

See if you can figure that out. If not STFU.


Edit to add gratuitous insult:
This one?s for you Harv. Obama is an incompetent buffoon who is a traitor for not proving his citizenship and Constitutional fitness to become President.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Julius Shark

If he is, will we use the same standard to determine if President Elect Obama is a traitor?

There seems to be differing opinion on this.

Yep. There's a large discrepancy between reality and your unsupported rants with absolutely no examples of any acts, whatsoever, that could possibly be construed as treason.

I will interpret the result of the forum to say that we would use the same standard for Obama. In other words, if any forum member believes that Obama has betrayed even the slightest obscure duty, he would be correct in using the traitor label.

You can use ANYONE's example or standard, AS LONG AS you can prove it with documented examples of acts he has committed that conform with an accepted definition of treason. So far, you have not. Even the one fluff reference you posted in your link to WND was an invalid, inaccurate snippet of Obama's words taken out of context and completely irrelevant to the meaning of what he actually said.

I will in the future refer to your man Obama as a traitor, ass hole, idiot or any other gratuitous name as I see fit. The standard is that low.

Sure. Just make sure you can prove what you say. So far, you're a total failure.

I will not refer to him as an impeached felon because that is not true, yet.

Sadly, the same is true of your Traitor In Chief, who has already committed plenty of high crimes and misdemeanors to support it.

See if you can figure that out. If not STFU.

See if you can figure this out:

:lips: my (_!_).

Edit to add gratuitous insult:
This one?s for you Harv. Obama is an incompetent buffoon who is a traitor for not proving his citizenship and Constitutional fitness to become President.

There you go, LYING again. Seems that's all you've done since you got here. Here... Suck on these:

Obama's birth certificate 1

Obama's birth certificate 2

Obama's birth certificate 3

Obama's birth certificate 4

Obama's birth certificate 5

Obama's birth certificate 6

Obama's birth certificate 7

Obama's birth certificate 8

Obama's birth certificate 9


If you want more, you can actually familiarize yourself with the discussion we had on this forum started and pursued ad nauseum by another member of the AT right wing tin foil beany brigade, including a lot more links to relevant source material.

Please waste a few days reading all of it. You'll arrive at the same conclusion. Obama was born in Hawaii, which, unfortunately for your pathetic attempts at distraction and diversion, happened to have been a state in the United States of America at the time.

And you could only wish you were as "incompetent" as Barack Obama. :roll:
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Maybe as a way to put this thread to bed, its time to point out Julius Sharl, knowingly or unwittingly asked a troll question, Is GWB a traitor?

I can only conclude that Julius Shark asked that question as a springboard hoping most of us "Liberals" would bite, and say yes, and found instead, that most of us Liberals did not bite on a troll question.

And thus frustrated with more real alternate responses, ole Jilius is lashing back with a series of shotgun bullshit totally off the scope and topic of his original thread.

As a personal opinion, be it resolved, GWB is a international war criminal by all standards, the more real question is will GWB or any of his cronies see the inside of a domestic or international court of law to answer those charges.

Julius Shark, I can respect your opinion that the final end answer to that is may be no, but as more information comes out, its also entirely possible that it will happen.

In short, we do not know yet. Be patient, its not a done deal either way yet.

In terms of your charges that Obama is not an American citizen, SCOTUS has already decided to not enter the issue, so its now a dead and decided issue.

Obama is an American citizen so deal with it as a fact. "Conservatives fundies are going to have to come up with better evidence, which is not likely to happen. And any future filed lawsuit are likely to get the filers fined for filing frivolous lawsuits.

 

Julius Shark

Banned
Dec 28, 2008
76
0
0
Very good, Harv.

You have produced Obama?s original birth certificate. Or is it a reproduction?

Be careful, son.


Obama is a buffoon who has hoodwinked his followers and betrayed our trust. He is a traitor. And if you think every time I make a statement I?m going to spend hours researching it, you are suffering from extreme delusion.

Now answer my question or STFU.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Hahahaaha...... Troll meltdown in progress...

Question is, is it winar or corbett?


I still lkie turtles....

 

Julius Shark

Banned
Dec 28, 2008
76
0
0
Lemon law,

You and others seem to like to throw the troll accusation around. Is any subject you disagree with considered a troll subject? Thanks for you well reasoned input. You have played a key role in exposing the extreme hypocrisy by some members throwing the ?traitor? label around on this forum.

As far as putting this thread to bed, that was done the minute it was proven that calling President Bush a traitor is nothing more than a bitter blowhard still chewing on sour grapes even after his incompetent amateur candidate has been elected.

Mission accomplished.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Julius Shark
Very good, Harv.

You have produced Obama?s original birth certificate. Or is it a reproduction?

Still reading challenged, are you? :Q

The text at the bottom of Obama's birth certificate 6 says:

This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]

That means, unless and until you have concrete evidence to the contrary, the matter is resolved. Got any? :confused:
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
:clock:
.
.
< crickets >

Didn't think so. :laugh:

Be careful, son.

If I had the misfortune of being your son, I'd deny it. :p

Obama is a buffoon who has hoodwinked his followers and betrayed our trust. He is a traitor.

You keep saying that, but you still haven't produced shred one of evidence of any act Obama has committed that would conform to any recognized legal definition of treason. Can you do it?
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
:clock:
.
.
< crickets >

Didn't think so. :laugh:

And if you think every time I make a statement I?m going to spend hours researching it, you are suffering from extreme delusion.

In other words, your blowing smoke out of your ass, you CAN'T prove a word you post, and you're stupid enough to think that the majority of our relatively well informed members are going to accept the unsubstantiated word of a bullshitter like you. Pathetic! :roll:

Now answer my question or STFU.

I've answered your questions, which is more than you've done for anyone else's. If you want me to STFU, come on by and try to make me, but make sure you have your affairs in order before you do. :)
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
There Julius goes again, with " Obama is a buffoon who has hoodwinked his followers and betrayed our trust. He is a traitor. And if you think every time I make a statement I?m going to spend hours researching it, you are suffering from extreme delusion. "

So lets get this right, you Julius, as new resident genius, expect everyone to meticulously prove everything to your satisfaction, but you expect us to accept your every delusion without an iota of reasoning?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Julius Shark

Lemon law,

You and others seem to like to throw the troll accusation around. Is any subject you disagree with considered a troll subject?

I'll answer that for you. There are two basic kinds of a "trolls" on forums:

1. In fishing, "trolling" is dragging an appealing (to fish) hooked lure on a fishing line, usual from a moving boat, hoping to attract fish and get them to bite. In the sense of a forum, that's what did with your thread title and OP. Traitor is a charged word, and to make it more appealing, your OP was almost neutral. You said:

Is President Bush a traitor? If he is, will we use the same standard to determine if President Elect Obama is a traitor?

Once anyone took the bait, you went into mad frenzy attack and denial mode, ignoring any real factual input and spewing unsubstantiated charges against Obama and insulting others who actually showed you how wrong you are. That's all you've managed since then.

2. On our trading forums, we get assholes who try to lure others into deals by offering desirable goods at attractive prices or offering attractive prices for members' goods and then fail to keep their end of the bargain.

The bad news is, sometimes they succeed. The good news is, our mods have a decent history of catching some of those trolls, and we're proud of being at least part of the reason some of them are currently in the gray bar hotel.

If you decide to graduate from being a pathetic troll on political topics to attempting to steal goods or money from our members, we'll be glad to show you how that works. :cool:
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Hahahaaha...... Troll meltdown in progress...

Question is, is it winar or corbett?


I still lkie turtles....

Tru I forgot about corbett lmao. i'm still going with winnar. It's my gut.