White House Readying Plans To Keep Party In Power; "The Republicans Are Praying For Another 9/11"

[Fern]

The article the OP posted above reminds me of a revised version of Hitler's and the Nazi Party's tactic in gaining control of Germany back in the day.

Won't happen for so many obvious reasons, not the least of which Bush absolutely isn't a "mesmorizing" speaker, there is a strong opposition party and a functioning judicial system.

This is an extremely "far out" theory/claim. IMO, you don't need to lack distrust of government to see that.

Fern

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Fern
The article the OP posted above reminds me of a revised version of Hitler's and the Nazi Party's tactic in gaining control of Germany back in the day.

Won't happen for so many obvious reasons, not the least of which Bush absolutely isn't a "mesmorizing" speaker, there is a strong opposition party and a functioning judicial system.

This is an extremely "far out" theory/claim. IMO, you don't need to lack distrust of government to see that.

Fern

Remember when Bush used to be popular and everyone loved him because of his down to earth charm (a euphemism for stupidity to be sure)? Also, have you been paying attention to the fact that Bush has been destroying the checks and balances of this government and grabbing all the power for the executive branch? It doesn't have to be Bush, Bush has set the precedence for future presidents that the executive branch can do whatever the hell they want with almost no legal recourse. "Impeachment" has been weakened so badly that one's ability to use it is only viable if there's enough political will to do so, even when it's obvious the executive is willfully breaking laws, destroying the constitution and the balance of powers there is not yet enough support .

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: PimpJuice
I dont get how this is pwnage. dmcowen never said "kill rich corporate thugs" so why do you have it quoted.

He was talking about corrupt corporations. I think many would agree with him.

not pwnage, but good try.

You are as either as stupid or as amoral (or both) as Dave.

I guess blowing up corrupt corporation buildings will only kill the corrupt executives administering them and the innocent janitors and secretaries and so forth will have magical fairy shields that protect them from harm.

Or perhaps he merely recognizes it is dishonest to attribute a quotation to someone who didn't say the words. Much as you might not want to hear it, pointing out your factual mistake doesn't make one either "stupid" or "amoral". Pedantic perhaps, but if you're going to attack others, better have your facts straight if you want your point to stick. I agree Dave's original comment was wrong, and your claim would have been fine had you not placed those words in quotation marks. They matter.

If you want to play with semantics to excuse someone else's vile, hateful comments, more power to you.

He did not try to excuse Dave's remarks (bold), his contention was the inaccurate misquote (italics). If you want to attack a poster without sufficently reading and comprehending his actual comments feel free, but you come across looking trollish and foolish.

OK whiz kid, when Dave said the following:

"If it's a corrupt Corp (which is the majority these days) they'd be doing us a favor. If there is a Haliburton Office in NY, please target then first."

What exactly did he mean? Did he want al-qaida to tickle them with a feather? Give them zirbles?


While the exact verbiage was not correct, only a jackass would note a difference. Dave wanted corporate thugs/corrupt corporations targeted and killed.


1EZduzit is a jackass too.

Me a Jackass? I think your mind reading skills are slipping.

So, Mr. Mindreader, what did Dave's :thumbsup: mean in reply to

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Todd33
Naw, don't hurt the innocent peons, the top brass are the currupt ones. Maybe bomb the golf courses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wait anxiously for your reading.

He made two statements in that thread. One he supported terrorist attacks against corrupt corporations (preferably haliburton). Apparently offered the choice, he'd prefer terrorist attacks against only the leaders of those corporations.

Either way, it's a vile and hateful thing. It was disgusting then, it's disgusting now, and it's disgusting how you lefties stumble each over to defend him on it.

Apparently all this talk about due process and habeus corpus you folks talk about is bullshit, really you're just fine with terrorism and murder if it suits your political agenda.

Uh oh, what do you republicans call this... A Flip-flop?

So would you consider attacks on other corrupt leaders/big-wigs to be bad? Say, a "terrorist" attack on Osama or Saddam?

Since when is hating bad and hateful people... A bad thing...?

Would you call me vile and evil if I loaded up a car full of explosives and detonated it as Adolf Hitler walked past it with his guards and such?

You seem to be mistaking simple (and pathetic) authority figures with actual moral or "worthy-of-life" people, and that's disturbing.

Another point for war loving republitards/democraps; Since when is killing innocent Iraqis a necessary loss for the mission of securing and establishing peace in Iraq? Wouldn't innocent people be in the way of the higher goal of bringing down a corrupt corporation that has it's fat stinky fingers in our governments pockets? /devil's advocate

All joking (flaming) aside, I don't believe in any kind of "collateral damage" regardless of the goal, short of saving the entire human race. However, I don't find anything wrong with killing evil disgusting people barely worthy of the title "human". That goes for genocidal assholes, vicious dictators, racial supremacists, true crooks (see: Haliburton CEO), and "leaders" who start wars based on lies.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: manowar821
However, I don't find anything wrong with killing evil disgusting people barely worthy of the title "human". That goes for genocidal assholes, vicious dictators, racial supremacists, true crooks (see: Haliburton CEO), and "leaders" who start wars based on lies.

Yes, let's equate running a logistics and petroleum business to terrorists or genocidal dictatorships. Lumping the Haliburton CEO into that group just shows the crackpots that you are. You've got zero evidence that David Lesar (did you even know his name?) is a "true crook", yet here you are calling for his death. And I'm assuming by leaders you mean death to the Bush administration as well.

Another leftist scumbag, longing for murder and terrorism as long it fits his political agenda.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit


Your just too quick to jump on something. I know Dave likes to go over the top to make his points. Everybody here knows it and I don't think anybody, even you think he was 100% serious, or do you?

Why should I assume otherwise? He doesn't deny it. There are plenty of leftist posters that wish terrorism on us, some even showing up in this thread. Just recently, PrinceofWands said he would cheer for the death of "millions of American soldiers" (you'll have to excuse me if the quote isn't 100% exact but it's the gist) to be rid of the Bush Admin. Why shouldn't he be taken seriously?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Fern
The article the OP posted above reminds me of a revised version of Hitler's and the Nazi Party's tactic in gaining control of Germany back in the day.

Won't happen for so many obvious reasons, not the least of which Bush absolutely isn't a "mesmorizing" speaker, there is a strong opposition party and a functioning judicial system.

This is an extremely "far out" theory/claim. IMO, you don't need to lack distrust of government to see that.

Fern

Remember when Bush used to be popular and everyone loved him because of his down to earth charm (a euphemism for stupidity to be sure)? Also, have you been paying attention to the fact that Bush has been destroying the checks and balances of this government and grabbing all the power for the executive branch? It doesn't have to be Bush, Bush has set the precedence for future presidents that the executive branch can do whatever the hell they want with almost no legal recourse. "Impeachment" has been weakened so badly that one's ability to use it is only viable if there's enough political will to do so, even when it's obvious the executive is willfully breaking laws, destroying the constitution and the balance of powers there is not yet enough support .

There is legal recourse for the congress. If they don?t like a Bush policy or the way Bush enforces laws they can change the law.

But for some reason congress never takes this course of action. It?s all about politics. Better to complain about Bush?s use of the Patriot Act than to try and change the law itself.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Fern
The article the OP posted above reminds me of a revised version of Hitler's and the Nazi Party's tactic in gaining control of Germany back in the day.

Won't happen for so many obvious reasons, not the least of which Bush absolutely isn't a "mesmorizing" speaker, there is a strong opposition party and a functioning judicial system.

This is an extremely "far out" theory/claim. IMO, you don't need to lack distrust of government to see that.

Fern

Remember when Bush used to be popular and everyone loved him because of his down to earth charm (a euphemism for stupidity to be sure)? Also, have you been paying attention to the fact that Bush has been destroying the checks and balances of this government and grabbing all the power for the executive branch? It doesn't have to be Bush, Bush has set the precedence for future presidents that the executive branch can do whatever the hell they want with almost no legal recourse. "Impeachment" has been weakened so badly that one's ability to use it is only viable if there's enough political will to do so, even when it's obvious the executive is willfully breaking laws, destroying the constitution and the balance of powers there is not yet enough support .

There is legal recourse for the congress. If they don?t like a Bush policy or the way Bush enforces laws they can change the law.

But for some reason congress never takes this course of action. It?s all about politics. Better to complain about Bush?s use of the Patriot Act than to try and change the law itself.

ProfJohn, you of all people should know that Congress can't take action because Mitch and his Neo-Con possie are filibustering everything the Democrats try to pass.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Fern
The article the OP posted above reminds me of a revised version of Hitler's and the Nazi Party's tactic in gaining control of Germany back in the day.

Won't happen for so many obvious reasons, not the least of which Bush absolutely isn't a "mesmorizing" speaker, there is a strong opposition party and a functioning judicial system.

This is an extremely "far out" theory/claim. IMO, you don't need to lack distrust of government to see that.

Fern

Remember when Bush used to be popular and everyone loved him because of his down to earth charm (a euphemism for stupidity to be sure)? Also, have you been paying attention to the fact that Bush has been destroying the checks and balances of this government and grabbing all the power for the executive branch? It doesn't have to be Bush, Bush has set the precedence for future presidents that the executive branch can do whatever the hell they want with almost no legal recourse. "Impeachment" has been weakened so badly that one's ability to use it is only viable if there's enough political will to do so, even when it's obvious the executive is willfully breaking laws, destroying the constitution and the balance of powers there is not yet enough support .

There is legal recourse for the congress. If they don?t like a Bush policy or the way Bush enforces laws they can change the law.

But for some reason congress never takes this course of action. It?s all about politics. Better to complain about Bush?s use of the Patriot Act than to try and change the law itself.

1) I meant legal recourse in punishing Bush.

2) That's hilarious. You do know that Bush has basically said he doesn't have to follow any law tha congress passes, right? He uses "Executive Privilege" to do anything he pleases. Congress could issue a law that said no government official is allowed to torture and Bush will either veto it or say, 'ok, sure i'll follow that law' *wink wink* <insert signing statement here where he says he won't>

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit


Your just too quick to jump on something. I know Dave likes to go over the top to make his points. Everybody here knows it and I don't think anybody, even you think he was 100% serious, or do you?

Why should I assume otherwise? He doesn't deny it. There are plenty of leftist posters that wish terrorism on us, some even showing up in this thread. Just recently, PrinceofWands said he would cheer for the death of "millions of American soldiers" (you'll have to excuse me if the quote isn't 100% exact but it's the gist) to be rid of the Bush Admin. Why shouldn't he be taken seriously?

Just because Dave isn't taking your bait doesn't mean he's conceding anything. Besides, you've just admitted that you are "assuming". I don't hear you denying that you REALLY think Dave meant that the way in which you suggest, but I don't think you REALLY mean it.

One thing you should remember is that this happened before the last Presidential election and all the corporate fraud was still fresh in everybodys mind. I think that was sufficient to piss people off enough to exxagerate things.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/corporateabusetax.pdf

I know it frutrates the hell out of me that their seems to be so much corporate fraud out there and very little is done about it.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Fern
The article the OP posted above reminds me of a revised version of Hitler's and the Nazi Party's tactic in gaining control of Germany back in the day.

Won't happen for so many obvious reasons, not the least of which Bush absolutely isn't a "mesmorizing" speaker, there is a strong opposition party and a functioning judicial system.

This is an extremely "far out" theory/claim. IMO, you don't need to lack distrust of government to see that.

Fern

Remember when Bush used to be popular and everyone loved him because of his down to earth charm (a euphemism for stupidity to be sure)? Also, have you been paying attention to the fact that Bush has been destroying the checks and balances of this government and grabbing all the power for the executive branch? It doesn't have to be Bush, Bush has set the precedence for future presidents that the executive branch can do whatever the hell they want with almost no legal recourse. "Impeachment" has been weakened so badly that one's ability to use it is only viable if there's enough political will to do so, even when it's obvious the executive is willfully breaking laws, destroying the constitution and the balance of powers there is not yet enough support .

Well he is a Republican and Republicans are the only party that impeaches, they sure as hell won't do it to their own guy. They only do it on witch hunts anyway, happened twice, neither time for a seriously legitimate reason. Nixon would have been impeached, but he wisely stepped aside.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Alistar7
I still VIVIDLY remember the Iraqis dancing in the streets of Baghdad.

Staged, just like the toppling of Saddam's statue in Baghdad.

I can't wait to tell that to the various members of the military I have spoken with that were THERE and witnessed these spontaneous accounts. It happened all over Iraq actually, sadly very little made it's way to the media.

So did you have a good seat for these staged events? Please share your firsthand knowledge....

I still VIVIDLY remember all your "See? I knew there were WMD there" posts. Remember those mobile labs? PROOF of WMD! Remember those two 30-year-old bombs. PROOF of WMD! I actually started feeling sorry for you, Ali. You were grasping at every straw you could.


And Alchy. Why did you post that link to that old thread. See how much grief it's caused?

 

[heartsurgeon]

Stalin used to say that it didn't matter who people voted for in elections, what mattered was who counted the votes...

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
No, I don't think they would conspire to commit another 9/11, however I do believe that if another attack happens, broad sweeping changes brought by the President will circumvent the courts and Congress via executive order. It will be in "our best interests" of course, but kiss the Bill of Rights as we have come to understand them good bye.

And this is how democracy dies: to thunderous applause.

I don't see the Democrats as being especially righteous either. As the saying goes - they're two sides of the same coin. One face claims to be the side of compassion and reason, the other relies on gut instinct. More likely than not, they're both pursuing the same thing that people in power have pursued for millenia: First to remain in power, and once that's assured, seek more power.

 

[alchemize]

Bump

 

[0marTheZealot]

A bit farfetched, but who knows how the pendulum could have swung. Perhaps GWB had a twang of conscience. Perhaps he lacked the raw ambition that men like Hitler and Stalin possessed. Maybe this was nothing more than a tinfoil op-ed piece.

My guess is that there is a kernel of truth in there somewhere, you just have to shift through a haystack of conjecture to find it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Bump

lol, so many good old threads.

 

[Genx87]

lol

 

[JSt0rm]

lol you guys got me. I was reading through this like wft didn't see the dates!