Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Bush speech discussion thread. Please keep hands and feet inside ride at all times. LGT a very important piece of paper   (law.emory.edu ) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

10145 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Dec 2005 at 8:32 PM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1232 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2005-12-18 11:26:28 PM  
madcat033

Uhh, explain to me what parts of Iraq are holy? Mecca is in Saudi Arabia, and Jerusalem is in Israel... And Mohammed pretty much lived in Saudi Arabia the whole time. Care to explain?


You are aware, of course, that not all Muslims are Sunni, right?

Tell me, can you name all the holy spots that Catholics revere? I sure as hell can't, there's a lot of them, and they can be sore spots. Many Spaniards are STILL pissed about Napoleon razing the Montserrat Monastary in 1811.

1) You are an idiot.

All else fails, resort to baseless attack.

2) Iraq is becoming an islamic state? You mean, it wasn't before? Do you usually spout nonsense?


Actually, it wasn't, and even many of the pro-war crowd will admit that Saddam Hussein actually kept the fundamentalist elements in his country in check. Granted, he did it with great brutality, but he did it none the less. Hussein was from a school of leadership akin to the Young Turks movement in post-WWI Turkey (the guys who built the modern nation of Turkey from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire). That is, he was a secularist. A Muslim? Sure, for the sake of convenience. It was relatively safe for Christians (who existed there for CENTURIES) in his country, however, although many have now been driven out.

3) First of all, that would be GOOD if all the Al Qaeda went to Iraq, because that's where we are and we could get them, moran. Second of all, do you think it would be easier for Al Qaeda to hide in Iraq with Saddam Hussein there, or us there?

No, we don't draw "all the terrorists" into Iraq, we create new ones. I hope you've taken notice that almost the entirety of the resistance we're facing, most of the terrorists we're killing and capturing, are Iraqis.

4) No WMD? You've got to be kidding yourself if you think Saddam would have moral objections to obtaining and using weapons of mass destruction. Or helping Al Qaeda. Even if he wasn't directly involved in 9/11, do you think he would have opposed? Do you think he's never helped terrorists?

Saddam Hussein supported nationalist movements (ie Palestinian nationalist movements), although most of their tactics were terrorism-related. Saddam Hussein didn't support fundamentalists, as was shown by the Iran-Iraq War, the brutal suppressing of fundamentalist movements in his own country, and a complete lack of concrete connections to Al Qaeda.

I'll say it for you again: Saddam Hussein was NOT an "Islamofascist". He was a secularist. He was also a brutal asshole of a dictator, but I'm simply pointing out the flaws in your argument.

5) Osama is still loose, and Iraq is one less place for him to hide.

Really? Other terrorists seem to be doing a pretty good job at hiding out there, as demonstrated by the DAILY attacks upon US/UK troops and Iraqi citizens.

I think you should just tuck your tail between your legs, and quietly leave. You're obviously out of your league.
 
2005-12-18 11:26:30 PM  
This cracks me up.

Punk ass liberals posting photoshops of Bush with new kids on the block to try to prove something...i guess.

A few republicans trying to convince liberals that Bush is great.
 
2005-12-18 11:26:59 PM  
2005-12-18 10:55:54 PM UberNeuman [TotalFark]
\just tryin' to be a better person, my name is Earl

WELL. I was reading all the vitriolic shenanigans going on here, wondering how people can be so angry and hateful just almost a week before christmas. We should all be looking deep inside to find the true spirit. But I was very sad to see the season had really gone to the dogs. A real dog's breakfast, so to speak.

AND THEN I read Earl's post and I found what I was looking for. Someone who is just trying to be a better person during the christmastime. He will read Weaver95's books and try to understand him. We can all learn a valuable less and be better people.

I would like everyone to come forward and introduce themselve and read each other's books.

/my name is fred and I'm just trying too!!
 
2005-12-18 11:29:16 PM  
2005-12-18 11:25:31 PM jayday


faethe
So - if you are pissed about Bush and the Republicans for this shiat, you best be pissed at the Democrats and everyone else who sits in Congress as well, because fark if they didn't help it right along.


My GOD I THINK I LUV U!
Can we go somewhere and have kids now?

Seriously tho, your right, blind following in both parties is the idiocy thats destroying this nation.


But letting it happen and doing it are not the same thing. Bush and the republicans are worse, period.
 
2005-12-18 11:30:11 PM  
KazamaSmokers

In Boston? Absolutely.


I'm thinking of California, actually. Californians dig Europeans, except the French. I figure I'll run for governer, then seize power of the entire western coast of the continent once I've been elected.

Then you'll be able to address me as "Your Majesty" or "Your Holiness".

Then, I suppose, I'll have to work out some manner of trade deal with the Empire of Jesusland.
 
2005-12-18 11:30:21 PM  
Piss off Fred you farker.

/don't mean that all.
/ Merry Christmas and let's hope common sense has a comeback in 2006.
 
2005-12-18 11:30:53 PM  
KazamaSmokers: Shari Lewis was a socialist?


Shari Lewis was a sheeple. :D
 
2005-12-18 11:31:18 PM  
ZipBeep: madcat033: 1) You are an idiot.

Nice. I guess we know all your arguments will be trash when you start out with the name calling.

2) Iraq is becoming an islamic state? You mean, it wasn't before? Do you usually spout nonsense?

Maybe you had better look it up. Iraq was the most secular country in the Middle East under Saddam.

3) First of all, that would be GOOD if all the Al Qaeda went to Iraq, because that's where we are and we could get them, moran. Second of all, do you think it would be easier for Al Qaeda to hide in Iraq with Saddam Hussein there, or us there?

More name calling and no facts. There wasn't any Al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war because Osama hates Saddam.

4) No WMD? You've got to be kidding yourself if you think Saddam would have moral objections to obtaining and using weapons of mass destruction. Or helping Al Qaeda. Even if he wasn't directly involved in 9/11, do you think he would have opposed? Do you think he's never helped terrorists?

But there aren't any WMD. You can't get around that.

Do you have any information about Saddam helping Al-Qaeda?? Because if you do, you should tell Bush and Cheney - they need your help.

Isn't Saddam considered a terrorist? And didn't Bush I and St. Reagan help him?

Bush doesn't have any qualms about using WMD - he wants to develop tactical nukes!!! Here's a hint for you: tactical nukes aren't a preventative weapon.

5) Osama is still loose, and Iraq is one less place for him to hide.

But he IS still loose and he was NEVER in Iraq in the first place. That's like invading Lichtenstein and then saying "That's one less place for Osama to hide" WTF?



My God madcat033, my four-year-old son possesses better forensic skills than you. You wouldn't even get a cookie for your effort around my house.

madcat033 = pwned
 
2005-12-18 11:31:47 PM  
Bush has repeatedly claimed that as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. Tonight he said:

At this time last year, there were only a handful of Iraqi army and police battalions ready for combat. Now, there are more than 125 Iraqi combat battalions fighting the enemy more than 50 are taking the lead and we have transferred more than a dozen military bases to Iraqi control.

If thats true, why are there still 153,000 American troops in Iraq, as many as there have ever been? Why cant 125 battalions replace a single American soldier?
 
2005-12-18 11:32:20 PM  
[image from cuttingpaper.com too old to be available]
 
2005-12-18 11:32:22 PM  
KazamaSmokers: b) since GA's gone, what else are people supposed to do?

Wha? Where'd he go?
 
2005-12-18 11:32:32 PM  
WTF? When I first looked at the front page of Fark, this thread had "[Square root sign]-1" as its comment count./

Now it says (1059)

/will not be drawn into the flamewar
//wants his money back
 
2005-12-18 11:32:46 PM  
spamdog: Hey consdubya, go watch this documentary. I think you'll like it.

Yeah, I have seen it before. Very well made.

It was on free to air TV here in Australia, on a PBS-like channel, over 3 nights. The next week, they showed the "rebuttal" documentary, which was meant to refute the "controversial" claims in Power of Nightmares. The "rebuttal" consisted of stating that Terrorism does exist and that they can communicate using the internets and attack using technology.

Terrorism is not as much of a threat as people giving up their freedoms and liberties.

Why is there not one journalist in the US that could ask Bush the following reasonable question:

"Mr President, after the horrific attacks of 9/11, you told the nation to continue with their lives and not to give in to fear. You told the nation that if we changed our way of life, the terrorists win. Are you still of this view?"
 
2005-12-18 11:33:58 PM  
vossiewulf: Weaver, which quantum reality is this? You're saying things that I agree with, and it's freaking me out.


Maybe it's his wife posting???
 
2005-12-18 11:34:51 PM  
 
2005-12-18 11:36:10 PM  
jayday: Can we go somewhere and have kids now?


Someone already gots me :) This stuff has been feeding my paranoia for the past few days. I remember I was in the Patriot thread (when it got stalled in congress) and some farker posted a link to when this first broke on ABC news. Booyah. This is some major crappage.

Abagadro: Well, I have problems with the FISA/72 hour requirement because it is so small of a procedural safeguard, but Bush is accused of not even doing that and simply doing surveillance on US citizens for a long time under an asserted "plenary power of the president" well beyond what was authorized under the Patriot Act's amendments to FISA.

Biden, who usually sticks up for da Prez - said he wasn't sure. I mean - HE didn't know what the fark was going on, and said as much. He said on Pretty Boys show (George - he is really cute - not that any of you male type likes think so but he IS) that he believed that what the President did was not sanctioned by any law that he was aware of. However, he said that there may be some law he is not aware of, and that Bush may have acted legally. Mind you - this is after he went to congress with this shiat, and they went along with it. So either they didn't check, no one cared, or something else.

I personally believe that each and every one of those bastards on the Hill figured out that they ALL farked up so badly after 9/11, that they were willing to do anything at all to avoid a repeat. And I think they farked up.

However, That was what Biden said. McCain looked like he was trying to grunt back a fart, he was so tight. He wouldn't say that Bush did something illegal - BUT he also said he would not leave that out of the realm of possibility. He also said 'Well you know - my bill is up for a vote soon' - so we know he is playing end against the middle until that anti-torture bill can get through before the next break.

He also said some farking scumbag tacked an Alaska oil drilling proposal onto the back of his torture bill, and there was nothing he could do to get rid of it. So kiddies - we might not get any torture, but we will get drilling in alaska, if this bill passes (much like the national ID legislation which rode in on the back of another bill earlier this year).

The consensus was that Lincoln pulled something simular to this during the civil war. HOWEVER - the legality of what Lincoln did was also in doubt.

So I don;t know - but I do know Bush did not do this all by himself.
 
2005-12-18 11:36:50 PM  
jayday: That you know of.

Bush admitted, in the context of the NY Time article he was biatching about on national TV, that these wiretaps were performed without seeking FISA warrants. The article itself quotes numerous officials expressing concern over the fact that warrants weren't sought. It's the whole reason this was a big deal.

He's saying that he doesn't need warrants, and can spy on anyone he wants on his own authority, but neither he nor any of his handlers can cite anything that gives him said authority, and they have been VERY careful not to explicitly say what he did was legal. That's right, Condoleeza Rice won't state for sure whether it's legal or not, for fear of it coming back to haunt her, but Weaver is just so SURE because, well, it's what he wants to think.

We've already established that the Patriot Act only allows for the delay of notice of a warrant issued, not a delay of seeking or even issuance of a warrant itself.

Some people have attempted to cite Executive order 12333, issued in 1981 by President Reagan, saying it authorizes this activity, but according to the NSA itself (available on nsa.gov):

"There are certain restrictions imposed by E.O. 12333 upon all intelligence collection activities engaged in by the Executive Branch agencies. Intelligence collection must be conducted in a manner consistent with the Constitution and applicable law and respectful of the principles upon which the United States was founded. (Sec. 2.1). These include the Fourth Amendments prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Intelligence collection must not be undertaken to acquire information concerning the domestic activities of U.S. persons. (Sec. 2.3(b)). The least intrusive collection techniques feasible must be used in the United States or against U.S. persons located abroad. (Sec. 2.4). Finally, agencies in the Intelligence Community are prohibited from having other parties engage in activities forbidden by the Executive Order on their behalf. (Sec. 2.12) This means that NSA can not ask another country to illegally spy on U.S. persons on our behalf, and we do not.

So that's blown out of the water.

Now, Bush can (and probably did) issue any number of executive orders and/or national security directives (a form of executive order that requires advice and consent from the NSC) allowing him to perform this type of activity, but just because the President says he can do something doesn't make it legal or Constitutional.

Not one administration official, media pundit, Farker, or anyone else has cited any law passed by Congress that allows this type of activity. NOT...ONE.

But even if a law WERE passed allowing this, it would STILL be unconstitutional (in my mind) and the Supreme Court could strike it down.

Wow, it took me all of 5 minutes to look that crap up and post it here. It's SUCH a burden to provide evidence backing up your statements.

/rolls eyes
 
2005-12-18 11:37:13 PM  
Great speech. When do we get to lift concurrent receipt?

Didn't think so.

Always piss on the veterans. No one cares and it's good for the budget.
 
2005-12-18 11:37:25 PM  
I can't believe it. I can't believe there are still believers. It's a nation of god damned masochists.

/even Mao probably maintained a double digit approval rating.
 
2005-12-18 11:38:41 PM  
I am so motherfarking tired of Americans getting in Bush's way.
 
2005-12-18 11:39:03 PM  
MightyTribble
No, it doesn't. There's a big difference between:
a) Delaying notification that a Warrant was served to the recipient (which is in PATRIOT) and
b) Not getting a Warrant in the first place (which isn't in
PATRIOT) and
c) Waiting an indefinite period of time after starting a search before applying for a Warrant (which isn't in PATRIOT or FISA).

PATRIOT allows a). It does not allow b) or c). I don't know how much more clear I can be about this. :-)



Completely understand this.
My point is this.
Those people that were "illegally searched" may have actual real warrants out there right now. However because of some or another "reason" the divulging of the existence of these warrants may not be allowed to happen. For example it may disrupt an ongoing investigation (Or some other hypothetical).

And yes C. can happen, just not indefinite.
But 5 yrs, 10 yrs......I have little doubt there are those in judical positions that would allow such a thing to happen.

The problem is the Patriot Act is VERY open to interpretation, and in no way does it consistently hemn in what the government is allowed to legally do.
 
2005-12-18 11:40:14 PM  
MiKelly: I'd love to know how many of you made up your minds about this speech before you knew what he was going to say.

/Raises hand.

I'll admit it. After years of unadulterated BUllshiat, I expect only more of the same from this man and his adminstration. He had me fooled for the first two years, then I slowly began to wise up. If he says that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, I'm not going to believe it until I see it for myself. He has absolutely no credibility with me.
 
2005-12-18 11:40:40 PM  
Weaver95: And for those who are wondering, I take my name from this:
(WTA book)
Not from ruby ridge.

NERD!

/wait, I know that book, that means...
//oh no...
 
2005-12-18 11:41:35 PM  
yeah Muta!

/libs dont get it
 
2005-12-18 11:42:33 PM  
jayday: The problem is the Patriot Act is VERY open to interpretation, and in no way does it consistently hemn in what the government is allowed to legally do.

Fortunately we have the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings, both of which say in pretty unambiguous language that you need a warrant to search US citizens on US soil.

...which Bush ignored, by searching without warrants.

Remember, if it boil down to: "Statute says this" and "Constitution says that", Constitution wins.
 
2005-12-18 11:42:46 PM  
pontechango: You just reminded me of the most bizarre thing I read all weekend. Check this article out.

That really is fricken' bizarre. If true, someone in the CIA either has a very well-developed sense of humor or places way too much faith in subliminal messaging.

Creepy and funny at the same time.
 
2005-12-18 11:42:48 PM  
Wake 'n Bake: But letting it happen and doing it are not the same thing. Bush and the republicans are worse, period.


Drink that Koolaid baby. The longer you think this is a one side or the other issue, the longer the assqipes who let this shiat go on stay in power. They ALL did it together. Bush had to go before congress every few months to continue to recieve authorisation to do this shiat. That's ALL of congress. He is pissed as a monkey right now because someone narked this shiat out to the press, which right there is a serious badness. This was not for public consumption - as it was a 'secret' (whatever the hell that means - I am assuming it means it pertains to National Security) so someones ass, Democrat or Republic or other, is in deep shiat for narking out Bush to begin with.

So at this point, you have to ask yourself - well why now? They have been doing this for four years. Why let everyone know what is going on now? THAT we have yet to see. Mabye everyone gave the democrats a smiley face for fillibustering the Patriot Act, so they figured they would go for the gold star and the brownie button. Irregardless, someone gave protected intelligence to the press and here we are.
 
2005-12-18 11:43:35 PM  
trad16: Piss off Fred you farker.


That's not quite "Shut up, barjockey, you cock", but it'll do for the holidays.

:D
 
2005-12-18 11:43:47 PM  
Can someone point me to a site that might have a logical discussion on this speach? It's seems only the people who know they have the only right opinion post here. I need a more open discussion. Fark used to have that.
 
2005-12-18 11:43:49 PM  
LGT?

Do really need an acronym for every phrase in the english language?
 
2005-12-18 11:44:22 PM  
Prospero424: That's right, Condoleeza Rice won't state for sure whether it's legal or not, for fear of it coming back to haunt her, but Weaver is just so SURE because, well, it's what he wants to think.


And Joe Biden who is all security council hooked up. He was council for the airforce?? for ten years? He would know you'd think.
 
2005-12-18 11:45:52 PM  
MightyTribble
Remember, if it boil down to: "Statute says this" and "Constitution says that", Constitution wins.



AbsoFREAKINlutely

Which is exactly the reason why the Patriot Act gets me all crazy-looney-like.

Its like.
"LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA"
"I Cant here you"
"No Constitution"
"LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA"

Like that.
 
2005-12-18 11:47:21 PM  
I work for George W.

Oh nevermind....
 
2005-12-18 11:49:12 PM  
Pouring a little gas on the fire...

Why exactly do we give a shiat what the rest of the world thinks of us?
 
2005-12-18 11:49:57 PM  
So, Soy-bomb... you were about to enlighten us with your vast expertise in methodologies... please continue.
 
2005-12-18 11:50:46 PM  
Sweaty Jerry: I can't believe it. I can't believe there are still believers. It's a nation of god damned masochists.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543024/posts?q=1&&page=1 (pops)

And I'm not talking about the band.

I love how a site called Free Republic bans anyone who speaks against them, no matter how polite one is. Not sure if it's still available but there's a link in my profile to a tread on Freep, where I got banned so quick it made my head spin. I just checked it's still there. Here's my original FREEP post. I think I laid it on a bit too thick.

" I'm sorry my fellow Freeper. It's just that I'm getting these nagging doubts about our presidents honesty. I want to bring it up at my church but I'm not sure how to. I was surfing bible scriptures the other day and I came across a link that said GHB God bless his soul, was meeting with a Bin Laden brother on 9-11. This is a lie right?

God Bless GWB and America
23 posted on 02/10/2004 2:26:56 PM PST by trad16 "
 
2005-12-18 11:51:57 PM  
All right. That's it. Now I am getting really farking worried. The only people disagreeing with Weaver95 are neocons.

The fact that so many people have a problem with limiting powers available to the executive branch is shocking.

He might be right. He may well be one of the last true conservatives - you know - limited government spending, limited interference of federal government in state affairs, anti big-brother. The rest of you at some stage appear to have traded red, white and blue for red, white and black.

And that REALLY does concern me.
 
2005-12-18 11:52:10 PM  
faethe

I don't dispute that there may be some byzantine interpretation of current law that allows this, but from what I have been reading this was all done under an assertion of "plenary wartime powers." The only reason you would rely on that basis for doing something is if there wasn't already existing statutory/constitutional authority. Otherwise you would rely on that authority. It is the same crap they tried to pull in the Padilla case until the SCOTUS slapped them down.
 
2005-12-18 11:52:37 PM  
Weaver95: And for those who are wondering, I take my name from this:
[rpg image deleted]
Not from ruby ridge.

To be honest, I always did assume it was Ruby Ridge...

But now the thought of a right-wing Werewolf:TA player makes my head asplode.
 
2005-12-18 11:52:37 PM  
faethe: omeone gave protected intelligence to the press and here we are

I hear what you're saying, but I don't necessarily agree. If this program was illegal, then stamping it "confidential" as many times as you want doesn't make it protected from disclosure.

From the NYT article Bush cited, it sounds like there are a LOT of very concerned former and current intelligence officials who have been brewing about this. Any one of them could have leaked this.

Just wanted to make that minor point.

Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that some very high up members of the oversight apparatus (from both parties) were kept out of the loop on this deliberately. I also have a feeling they are going to be seeking some serious vengeance for this very reason. We'll see, I guess.
 
2005-12-18 11:52:51 PM  
I hear many people saying they are loosing their "civil liberties," can anyone give me an example? I enjoy the same liberties I've had all of my life. I don't see a difference.
 
2005-12-18 11:52:55 PM  
ZipBeep: That's not quite "Shut up, barjockey, you cock", but it'll do for the holidays.

I haven't seen that for awhile. I should have ended it with a fa-la-la.
 
2005-12-18 11:53:20 PM  
Bush broke the law and he has gone against the Constitution that he swore to uphold. Bush is anti-America. Al-Quada is not destroying America, Bush is.

Al-Quada didn't kill New Orleans, cutting fundings for the levees and putting Drownie in place did.

/So much more
//drunk, hard time typing
 
2005-12-18 11:53:44 PM  
After the bombs drop the real fun begins.

/judgement of the sun kings commencing
 
2005-12-18 11:53:58 PM  
caguru:

LGT?

Do really need an acronym for every phrase in the english language?


don't feel bad. i have nothing to say either.
 
2005-12-18 11:54:19 PM  
faethe
So at this point, you have to ask yourself - well why now? They have been doing this for four years. Why let everyone know what is going on now? THAT we have yet to see.



OR.....as I was thinking maybe Mr Bush just decided to take the hit and not mention any link to the Patriot Act, because if he did there would be no way in hell it would ever go through.

Maybe someone against it knew as much.
Saw this as a win-win scenario.


But no one in government on either side would do something like this.
They is all very nice, honest people.
 
2005-12-18 11:55:09 PM  
Does anyone miss the second term of Pres. Gore as much as I do? Best president we never had. No, realy. Yup. Realy.
 
2005-12-18 11:55:19 PM  
trad16: And I'm not talking about the band.


That's a big clusterfark for very strange people who like to mastubate to politics. They happen to be Republican, or conservative** (this is what they consider themselves. Now whether other conservatives or Republicans think freepers are either is another issue). In reality they are (as has been proven on Fark by ex-Freeps dragging info over here with them) a bunch of racist, angry farktards.

Fark is more Egalitarian. Total Fark is better because its smaller. Life is too short to play pissing match with angry children.
 
2005-12-18 11:55:21 PM  
Prospero424: That really is fricken' bizarre. If true, someone in the CIA either has a very well-developed sense of humor or places way too much faith in subliminal messaging.


It would be interesting to find out what publishing house printed those text books. I know Viacom at one time owned a company that developed educational software, I wouldn't be surprised if they owned a text book company as well.
 
2005-12-18 11:55:38 PM  
enjoy the same liberties I've had all of my life. I don't see a difference.

I have to have government permission every time I fly on an airplane. I also have no idea why this is the case.
 
Displayed 50 of 1232 comments


Oldest | « | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report