PDA

View Full Version : To Clumpy



Nasty55
07-24-2003, 01:05 PM
I know this country is free bc i work hard every day and am on call 24 hours a day to do my part in keeping the freedoms we have and no matter how much i disagree with the president or my commander or my supervisor i will stand behind the decisions they have made and the orders they give. You see it ticks me off to see that comment you have on your posts but its bc of the presidents willingness to ignore such crap that he is able to do what he thinks is right, now personally i think if tomorrow america was to be bombed, and he hadnt of done what he done, then you would still be calling for his job. You people that call yourselfs americans dont know a thing about why you get to state your own opinion, why you get to pick the job you wont. You dont have someone killing your second child bc of population, you dont have someone telling you that you cant post on finheaven and that you cannot touch a computer. I love this country and i will give you freedom of speech, i just ask that you really think of what you post and how others will react

MarinoFan
07-24-2003, 01:22 PM
YO, what did he say and where?

Sofa_King_Drunk
07-24-2003, 01:28 PM
Clumpy's signature talks about Clinton lying about getting a hummer and getting impeached, and GW lying and getting guys killed and NOT getting impeached. I guess 55 took offense to that.

Nasty55
07-24-2003, 01:36 PM
Just wanna know how he lied

MNFINFAN
07-24-2003, 01:56 PM
It is in Clumps signature.

Personally I agree with Clump, Nasty you obviously don't, but as you so eloquently wrote above the great thing about this country is the that we are free and that gives us the right to disagree with the Idiot who is leading this country or the right to agree with the Genius who is running this country.

unpatriotic

adj : showing lack of love for your country

Clumpy doesn't like the president, well half of the population didn't vote for him last time, that does not mean they are unpatriotic and not love their country? I disagree with 99% of the way Bush has handled this Presidency, does that mean I am unpatriotic and not love this country, Hell no. What scares me though is when people blindly follow what their leader does and accepts his reasons for doing it without checking with their personal moral compass, because then you have a leader that has no accountability and you also get people being branded as Unpatriotic for standing up because their Commander in Chief has crossed over their moral compass.

Take a look at the microcosm that is finheaven. We all love the Dolphins to death but we have very diverse opinions on how the team is run and are very vocal on expressing that. America is the same way we all love the country but have very diverse opinions on how it should be run and we should be vocal about it as it would not be as free as you say it is if we all quietly followed along. This is extreme but telling Clumpy that he cannot question GW is akin to how it was in Iraq where people were not allowed to question Saddam.

PhinPhan1227
07-24-2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Nasty55
Just wanna know how he lied

So far there's no proof that he lied, only that he may have. It's almost certain that he exagerated, but if anyone could name me a President who hasn't, I'll but him a lollipop. As for Clump, in answer to the question posed by his sig...Bill lied under oath. One act is against the law, the other isn't.

PhinPhan1227
07-24-2003, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by MNFINFAN
It is in Clumps signature.

Personally I agree with Clump, Nasty you obviously don't, but as you so eloquently wrote above the great thing about this country is the that we are free and that gives us the right to disagree with the Idiot who is leading this country or the right to agree with the Genius who is running this country.

unpatriotic

adj : showing lack of love for your country

Clumpy doesn't like the president, well half of the population didn't vote for him last time, that does not mean they are unpatriotic and not love their country? I disagree with 99% of the way Bush has handled this Presidency, does that mean I am unpatriotic and not love this country, Hell no. What scares me though is when people blindly follow what their leader does and accepts his reasons for doing it without checking with their personal moral compass, because then you have a leader that has no accountability and you also get people being branded as Unpatriotic for standing up because their Commander in Chief has crossed over their moral compass.

Take a look at the microcosm that is finheaven. We all love the Dolphins to death but we have very diverse opinions on how the team is run and are very vocal on expressing that. America is the same way we all love the country but have very diverse opinions on how it should be run and we should be vocal about it as it would not be as free as you say it is if we all quietly followed along. This is extreme but telling Clumpy that he cannot question GW is akin to how it was in Iraq where people were not allowed to question Saddam.

Actually, calling someone a jerk for holding their particular opinion isn't censorship, it's just the other side of the Freedom of Speech. Just because I would fight to the death to defend your right to express an opinion which I despise, doesn't mean that I give up the right to call you a douche-bag for expressing that opinion. :tongue:

MNFINFAN
07-24-2003, 02:03 PM
Read the news, he misled the US and enflamed the public opinion by saying that the IRAQIs had WMD and were a very large threat, when in reality it looks like he knew this was not the case and for reasons known only to him and his bredren decided he needed to have a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, (can I say OIL or retribution for his Daddy??) When there is a more immediate danger in North Korea, they have WMD and also a f**king rocket that can reach the states and a frickin madman who is willing to use it.

got to love the Onion
http://www.theonion.com/onion3928/wdyt_3928.html

MNFINFAN
07-24-2003, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Actually, calling someone a jerk for holding their particular opinion isn't censorship, it's just the other side of the Freedom of Speech. Just because I would fight to the death to defend your right to express an opinion which I despise, doesn't mean that I give up the right to call you a douche-bag for expressing that opinion. :tongue:

Huh?? where did I mention Censorship? Nasty's post in the main forum is calling out Clump for having an opinion contrary to his. That is actually a form of censorship because Nasty thinks Clump shouldn't post his opinions and because the President said it is so, Clump must forget his opinions and beliefs and abide with the President's decisions. What type of logic is that? It is a damn good thing that the founding fathers didn' t say well we don't agree with the King of England, but hey he decreed we must pay more taxes so it must be right and here let me open up my pocketbook or whatever they used. Instead they didn't agree and made that public and that led to the Country we know now.

Nasty has every right to his opinion and he has the right to have a different opinion to me and others, but to start throwing out that a person does not have the right for an opposing opinion is just plain wrong.

plc001
07-24-2003, 02:41 PM
Give me a break.

This Saddam fellow needed to be removed from power, regardles. Housing terrorists, funding them. A mass murderer of his own people. Have you read the atrocities this guy has commited against his own people? How about his two sons? He and his regime are sick. Despite the crap you read in today's newspapers "most" Iraqii are happy to be ride of the terror Saddam imposed on them. The trick here, will be to restore a self-sufficient nation, in a timely fashion before the Iraqii start to feel like a conquered nation.

Now, I don't like being lied to. But I believe saddam had/has WDM, whether they are still in the country (heck no) or sitting at the bottom of the ocean somewhere is a different story.

If we are going to police the world. At least do it at our own timing, our own bidding, and soldiers dying at the hand of our own purposes rather then those of the UN.

-81- McMichael
07-24-2003, 02:58 PM
"You people that call yourselfs americans dont know a thing about why you get to state your own opinion..."

You might rephrase that. It, really, sounds a bit arrogant. Not saying that YOU are arrogant. Rather, saying that this PHRASE sounds arrogant.

Why?

Because to suggest that I know WHY Americans get to state their own opinions assumes a position of authority. Are you that authority?

I, personally, believe that I may opinion on why this is like this or why that is that. But I do not entertain a position of authority on most matters unless I am going to take full responsibility for the consequences of my authoritative actions/policies/opinions and how they may or may not effect those around me.

Because when you take authority... if you end up wrong... guess what? You got people wanting answers (and maybe your head on a platter).

Not to compare recent events with Vietnam... but take note that Vietnam was a conflict supported by the majority of the US pop. for most of its duration (except towards the end). Years later? A complete embaressment. And not because we "lost". But because what we did there, how we did it, and WHY we did it... was seriously questionable. There were motives there, intentions, that were not altogether honorable. Most everyone has come to realize that. And most Vietnam vets I know still feel betrayed by their government for risking their lives and limbs for what has become, clearly, understood as a dishonorable cause.

We did not fight Communism in Vietnam - we sold Huey's. And if you want to argue that, yes, we did fight Communism there... well, then we lost.

Today, what has helped change Vietnam is a gradual influx of social capitalism. People like having nice things and living well. It's human nature. And, so, Communism (as we all know it) does not work. Ask any Cuban refugee... from the last bastian of Communism... it's hell there. And as for China? They've been learning real quickly how to become quite the hungry little capitalists. Give China a few more years and it should be scary how much they start to resemble the states.

So what about Iraq? Well... Getting rid of Saddam was a good move (duh). Killing his sons was even better (sick f***ers).

But what of the people of Iraq and the people of the Middle East, Africa and the all other 3rd world nations???

Very complicated. But one thing remains. People like nice things and they like to live well and long. To have fun, practice their religion and share with their families.

Question is: Are we helping to share with the world what we've learned? ARE WE? Really? How do you know? (I don't - I'm not an authority on it, remember?) Are we really "NATION BUILDING"? If that's the real reason we went into Iraq... I want to see it.

Because THAT is what will end terrorism... when all the world shares in its bounty/blessings. Right now, we Americans... less than 5% of the world's population... control over half of its wealth and resources. If that's sharing... I'd really like to see us learn to share MORE/BETTER.

And, for my part, I agree that freedom of speech is great... and it's terribly IRONIC to hear anyone suggest that I or someone else doesn't understand why we get to enjoy that privilege BECAUSE WE MIGHT NOT TOTALLY AGREE WITH THEM or THEM WITH US. If one celebrates freedom of speech than it figures that they would celebrate someone expressing a view contrary to theirs or even a view that runs contrary to the current administration. You DON'T celebrate the view, itself - you celebrate the FREEDOM to express that view. Point made, I think.

Finally, disent is CONSTITUTIONAL. And our founding fathers appreciated the value of contrasting views. It helped them to shape their own views. That is, they had the humility to admit that their views were not DONE, COMPLETE, FINISHED, FINAL, etc. They recognized that all our lives are a process. And the life of our country is a process. The life of our planet is a process. And to hinder any view, however seemingly distasteful to us, is to eliminate ANY POSSIBILITY of learning something new that might or might not shape and improve our views... our processes... our ways of life.

An old adage to consider, too, is: The moment you think you can speak with complete and total knowledge on a subject is the moment you demonstrate that you, yourself, know nothing on the subject. Humility is the key to new knowledge.

As for Bush and most Republican/right wing/conservative points of views/actions... sometimes they work... sometimes they don't... and sometimes just so-so. And the same is true of Democrats and the left/liberals. To think either side is always right or always wrong on every subject is truly ignorant. There's a time and a position for everything. Few things are ever totally black or white. Some, yes. But few. Very few.

The deal in Iraq has a whole mess of gray areas in it. Time will tell, though.

For our troops, I say, "Bless you and God speed."

I, personally, don't think much of President Bush and all the "explanifications" for the war in Iraq. And I suspect even less of him as a human being. But that's just it... I suspect... because I don't know. I am glad Saddam is out, as I said. And I'm really glad his sons are dead.

I optimisitcally await to see what "we" do to help the people of Iraq now... as that is one of the main reasons we have claimed to go there.

Nasty55
07-24-2003, 03:57 PM
Did i ask him to change his sig, no. i feel very strongly of our president and im sorry if i stated authority or whatever, i just wanted to vent and state my opinion. i know we all love our country. Truth is no one really nows the truth about why, but to call him a murderer, which is basically what clump said has no truth whatsoever

PhinPhan1227
07-24-2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by MNFINFAN


Huh?? where did I mention Censorship? Nasty's post in the main forum is calling out Clump for having an opinion contrary to his. That is actually a form of censorship because Nasty thinks Clump shouldn't post his opinions and because the President said it is so, Clump must forget his opinions and beliefs and abide with the President's decisions. What type of logic is that? It is a damn good thing that the founding fathers didn' t say well we don't agree with the King of England, but hey he decreed we must pay more taxes so it must be right and here let me open up my pocketbook or whatever they used. Instead they didn't agree and made that public and that led to the Country we know now.

Nasty has every right to his opinion and he has the right to have a different opinion to me and others, but to start throwing out that a person does not have the right for an opposing opinion is just plain wrong.


There's a world of difference between the government saying you can't express your opinion, and me calling you a jerk for expressing your opinion. You have the RIGHT to promote the benefits of pedophelia(see NAMBLA), and I have the RIGHT to call you a sick ba$tard for doing so. Freedom of expression ALSO gives people the right to express their distaste at the opinions expressed.

PhinPhan1227
07-24-2003, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by MNFINFAN
Read the news, he misled the US and enflamed the public opinion by saying that the IRAQIs had WMD and were a very large threat, when in reality it looks like he knew this was not the case and for reasons known only to him and his bredren decided he needed to have a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, (can I say OIL or retribution for his Daddy??) When there is a more immediate danger in North Korea, they have WMD and also a f**king rocket that can reach the states and a frickin madman who is willing to use it.

got to love the Onion
http://www.theonion.com/onion3928/wdyt_3928.html

Actually, the error concerned ONLY nukes. There is still massive evidence concerning biological and chemical WMD's. A little accuracy please.

baccarat
07-24-2003, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Actually, the error concerned ONLY nukes. There is still massive evidence concerning biological and chemical WMD's. A little accuracy please.

Isn't it ironic that Clumpedatt's,who is a Clinton fan, sig calls Bush a liar but yesterday Clinton, who previously has been critical of Bush about Iraq, defended Bush? Not surprising Clinton did it seeing how Clinton made the same statemets about Saddam in 98 as Bush is now.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/index.html

You shouldn't call Bush a liar either because you don't know for sure. That's like me calling you the murderer of my uncle without any proof or explanation to back it up.

baccarat
07-24-2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



There's a world of difference between the government saying you can't express your opinion, and me calling you a jerk for expressing your opinion. You have the RIGHT to promote the benefits of pedophelia(see NAMBLA), and I have the RIGHT to call you a sick ba$tard for doing so. Freedom of expression ALSO gives people the right to express their distaste at the opinions expressed.

I disagree. If I were in charge of the FBI, I'd go after groups like NAMBLA. I see them as nothing more than a child molesting mafia.

baccarat
07-24-2003, 04:57 PM
"it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."


-Bill Clinton

-81- McMichael
07-24-2003, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Nasty55
Did i ask him to change his sig, no. i feel very strongly of our president and im sorry if i stated authority or whatever, i just wanted to vent and state my opinion. i know we all love our country. Truth is no one really nows the truth about why, but to call him a murderer, which is basically what clump said has no truth whatsoever

Well put, Nasty55. Indeed, you have every right to vent and state your opinion.

I'm sure Clump would probably agree that it's not fair to outright call the President a murderer (my guess is that he's merely "suggesting" it). You know, perhaps he's just upset about the whole thing like most people are. Perhaps because it seems now that every day we have more and more soldiers being "picked off" in ambush attacks. I don't know. I could see how some people would be upset with Bush about that... looking for someone to blame... wondering if this whole thing's been even worth it. I know that I question it quite a bit.

Actually, what I question most is this (maybe someone will answer this for me):

Most people would agree that if you cut off the head... the monster dies. Right? Ok. So...

How is it possible that with our level of technology, our spy satelites, our intelligence, and our super accurate weapons systems... HOW could we NOT have known exactly where Saddam, his sons, and his generals were and then strategically attacked THOSE TARGETS. At least, first... and then send our troops.

I don't know, but this baffles me. I work with a lot of ex-military people and they have always gone on and on and on about how our satelites can read the numbers off the license plate on your car and how our intelligence has taps on every major political head throughout the world. ##it, I've even seen recon photos of Hitler's freak'n bunker from freak'n WWII. So I know what they say is true. But then, what gives?

Why won't anybody explain this... rationally.

THIS is what disappoints me more than anything. Something feels "fishy" about it. ;)

And, I hate seeing US soldiers die needlessly. Most of my friends in the military hate war... hate killing. Mostly, they enjoy the humanitarian aspect of service.

Dammit, we'd better make a difference with this whole thing. It would be such a tragic shame if in another 10 years the whole thing just repeated itself with another growth (head). Really, that just seems stupid. And sad.

Something(s) just need to be done to really help Iraq and its people... long term.

We've only JUST started. Hope we follow through. Otherwise...

...more of the same.

davster82
07-24-2003, 07:25 PM
Thanks for saying what I have been feeling NASTY.:salute:

I'm with Dubyuh!

baccarat
07-24-2003, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by -81- McMichael


Well put, Nasty55. Indeed, you have every right to vent and state your opinion.

I'm sure Clump would probably agree that it's not fair to outright call the President a murderer (my guess is that he's merely "suggesting" it). You know, perhaps he's just upset about the whole thing like most people are. Perhaps because it seems now that every day we have more and more soldiers being "picked off" in ambush attacks. I don't know. I could see how some people would be upset with Bush about that... looking for someone to blame... wondering if this whole thing's been even worth it. I know that I question it quite a bit.

Actually, what I question most is this (maybe someone will answer this for me):

Most people would agree that if you cut off the head... the monster dies. Right? Ok. So...

How is it possible that with our level of technology, our spy satelites, our intelligence, and our super accurate weapons systems... HOW could we NOT have known exactly where Saddam, his sons, and his generals were and then strategically attacked THOSE TARGETS. At least, first... and then send our troops.

I don't know, but this baffles me. I work with a lot of ex-military people and they have always gone on and on and on about how our satelites can read the numbers off the license plate on your car and how our intelligence has taps on every major political head throughout the world. ##it, I've even seen recon photos of Hitler's freak'n bunker from freak'n WWII. So I know what they say is true. But then, what gives?

Why won't anybody explain this... rationally.

THIS is what disappoints me more than anything. Something feels "fishy" about it. ;)

And, I hate seeing US soldiers die needlessly. Most of my friends in the military hate war... hate killing. Mostly, they enjoy the humanitarian aspect of service.

Dammit, we'd better make a difference with this whole thing. It would be such a tragic shame if in another 10 years the whole thing just repeated itself with another growth (head). Really, that just seems stupid. And sad.

Something(s) just need to be done to really help Iraq and its people... long term.

We've only JUST started. Hope we follow through. Otherwise...

...more of the same.


Well some partisan people(from the left and right) would bash their opponents for the color of their socks. As far as the asassination, correct me if I'm wrong I believe it's against U.S. law, not international law, to assassinate the head of a country during peace time. Killing only Hitler would not have defeated Nazi Germany. They had a strong army that had to be fought on battlefields. All sane people hate war but most realize that sometimes military force is neccessary. Hopefully Saddam and UBL will be killed soon so most of the guirella bands will die down. We also need more troops, both U.S. and international, to blanket the country. I agree on doing our best to stablize Iraq and bettering the lives of Iraqis in the long run. And all of us I'm sure can agree on hoping for the best and may God bless our troops!



:patriot:

Dozerdog
07-25-2003, 02:57 AM
Clump is a veteran of the Gulf war and served this country for nearly 10 years.


He has earned and deserves a forum for his views, and has just as much right to criticize Bush as others have criticized Clinton.


In my book, both are very dirty.

inFINSible
07-25-2003, 07:23 AM
They ALL are dirty!

-81- McMichael
07-25-2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by inFINSible
They ALL are dirty!

:lol:

def. of politician: lying, cheating bastard who'd run his/her own mother down the river if it could win him/her an election. see also: opportunistic s.o.b. seeking political power as a mechanism for the accumilation (sp. ?) of wealth... namely YOURS!

What up, inFIN?!? I'm in Meeyami this weekend. Freak'n beautiful here... and HOT! :eek:

Who dat in the pic? Looks somewhat familiar. ;)

PhinPhan1227
07-25-2003, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by -81- McMichael [/i]
[B]
How is it possible that with our level of technology, our spy satelites, our intelligence, and our super accurate weapons systems... HOW could we NOT have known exactly where Saddam, his sons, and his generals were and then strategically attacked THOSE TARGETS. At least, first... and then send our troops.


WAYYY too much Tom Clancy man. You have to understand that our spy technology was designed to combat the Soviet Union. It was built to track to movements of troops, missiles, and such. Finding a couple of tractor trailers in a country the size of California, not to mention a group of individuals, is WAY beyond the realm of any countries capabilities. The military shares some blame for allowing the media/authors to overplay their capabilities, but the facts are that there's just no way to cover THAT amount of territory 24/7

PhinPhan1227
07-25-2003, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by booyeah_


I disagree. If I were in charge of the FBI, I'd go after groups like NAMBLA. I see them as nothing more than a child molesting mafia.

The FBI monitors them the same way they monitor the Klan and the New Black Panthers. But they can't arrest them for expressing their views, no matter how horrible or disgusting they may be.

Marino1983
07-25-2003, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Nasty55
I know this country is free bc i work hard every day and am on call 24 hours a day to do my part in keeping the freedoms we have and no matter how much i disagree with the president or my commander or my supervisor i will stand behind the decisions they have made and the orders they give. You see it ticks me off to see that comment you have on your posts but its bc of the presidents willingness to ignore such crap that he is able to do what he thinks is right, now personally i think if tomorrow america was to be bombed, and he hadnt of done what he done, then you would still be calling for his job. You people that call yourselfs americans dont know a thing about why you get to state your own opinion, why you get to pick the job you wont. You dont have someone killing your second child bc of population, you dont have someone telling you that you cant post on finheaven and that you cannot touch a computer. I love this country and i will give you freedom of speech, i just ask that you really think of what you post and how others will react






Post's like this just reaffirm my beliefs that comments in clumpys sig are words of wisdom !!! I can't believe that I am agreeing with a goat fan :confused: !! Your football knowledge is limited clumpy but I agree with your politics :yes: :roflmao:

Marino1983

WharfRat
07-25-2003, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by Dozerdog
Clump is a veteran of the Gulf war and served this country for nearly 10 years.


He has earned and deserves a forum for his views, and has just as much right to criticize Bush as others have criticized Clinton.


In my book, both are very dirty.

There are several of us here who are Vets Dozer... and while I don't agree with Clumps politics... I do agree with his right to express his views on them.
Offering a tag line like the one Clump has, is no worse than the one I used at the outset of the war.... (I proudly displayed the patch from my old unit - 4th MI Bn - and the motto)...as a rallying cry to oust that regime.

You're right... they are both dirty.... as inFINS implied, when was the last time we had someone who wasn't dirty in office?

MOULDSROCKS
07-27-2003, 09:06 PM
Isn't stating your distaste in your politicians patriotic?



BTW Bushie f-ed up... you are wrong. If we were bombed tomorrow, by say, Korea.... We're basically doomed. Something like 65-75% of our Troops are in Iraq.

Clumpy
07-28-2003, 12:54 AM
Sorry, just noticed this thread

It was actually 14 yrs Dozer ;) . Just so y'all know, I left the military in 1999 because I got frustrated with how the Army Reserves were being utilized by Clinton.

I will not even begin to attack puppet President Bush's(er....the Conservative Right-Wing extremist) domestic agenda. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0307.confessore.html Anyone read about how the Nazi's came to power in depression era Germany in the late 1920s & early 1930s? Hmmmmm........similarities are startling, but that a different argument and unlikely to go much further(attempt to control mass media reversed by the House this past week)

As many in this thread have already stated, we, as Americans, have a constitutional right to criticize our elected(?) leaders. I find it interesting that anyone who chose to disagree with Bush are protrayed as being un-American or un-Patriotic. That unadulterated BS..........I served in Panama and Persian Gulf #1 during my military career(Bush Sr). Both were necessary actions that had solid legal and moral backing. They also had international backing . Not so this time around. First, let me say, I support the efforts of out troops 110%...I've been there, done that!. What I oppose is having our elected leaders(what ever political party) trump up suspect intelligence reports in order to justify operations in Iraq. We have still been unable to find any concrete evidence (i.e. smoking gun) that WMD still existed as they did prior to the first Persian Gulf War. It's clearly evident to me that Bush was hasty and really should have concentrated on finding Osama bin Laden and further destroying Al Qaeda ability to wage terrorist activity, while at the same time, worked to build a stronger case against Iraq.

Now for those who attack me as a liberal, I'm not a left-wing extremist. I'm a moderate that leans left on most things. But I can agree on some conservative issues.....Examples:

1) I agree that partial-birth abortions should be illegal(right wing), however, provisions should be included to allow for the healtrh of the mother(left wing)

2) I agree in the right to bear arms(right-wing), however, I just don't think that uzi's and armor-piercing ammo is needed for self perservation or to kill Bambi (left-wing)

3) I agree with changing Estate Tax provisions but not the elimination of them

4) I believe the Bills will win the Super Bowl before the Fins win one

(how'd that get in here? ;) )

I'll let y'all aim and fire now!

MOULDSROCKS
07-28-2003, 01:25 AM
You sick bastard!


:D ;)

PhinstiGator
07-28-2003, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by clumpedplatelet

I will not even begin to attack puppet President Bush's(er....the Conservative Right-Wing extremist) domestic agenda. Anyone read about how the Nazi's came to power in depression era Germany in the late 1920s & early 1930s? Hmmmmm........similarities are startling, but that a different argument and unlikely to go much further(attempt to control mass media reversed by the House this past week)


That's nice fiction Clump...you will have to expand on those startling similarities sometime. But, you still haven't explained how Bush lied to drum up congressional support for Iraqi Freedom.

Congress gave their thumbs up for military action months before the state of the union speech. And the 16 words in the speech itself were NOT untrue. ..''the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.''

Where is the lie?

The British government and British intelligence continue to this day to say they have independent evidence of this Niger uranium effort (non-forgery type).

You should at least wait for more proof before you call the man a liar or you could should show evidence that Iraq did NOT have a nuclear program and that it did not pursue uranium from the continent of Africa.

And...the Bills will never win the superbowl. ;)

And...EDTA binds to toxic metals and would have the effect of unclumping your platelets. But I would recommend inositol hexaniacinate for the clumpy platelet problem.

Clumpy
07-28-2003, 02:18 AM
And...EDTA binds to toxic metals and would have the effect of unclumping your platelets. But I would recommend inositol hexaniacinate for the clumpy platelet problem

EDTA chelates Ca(2+). Calcium is a require part of both clotting mechanisms and the effect of chelating calcium is the prevention of blood clotting. EDTA is NOT used in vivo, it's used in vitro. EDTA is an anti-coagulant found in vacutainer blood collection (purple-top) tubes used primarily for cell counts. It is necessary for unclotted blood in order for the instrumentation to aspirate whole blood. The EDTA in the blood collection tubes can adversely affect(i.e. activate) adhesion proteins on the surface of the platelet and cause the phenomenon clumping platelets when viewed on blood smear under oil immersion(100x). Once, "clumping platelets" are observed on the smear, we request a redraw of the patient using the blue-top sodium citrate as the anticoagulant and then multiply the instrument generated platelet count by 1.1 :D

P4E
07-28-2003, 04:16 AM
Screw politics.

Clump,

Do you know anything about new or particularly sensitive tests for systemic lupus erythematosus? Over a year ago two different doctors told me they believed that's what I'm dealing with. I had the symptomology in spades.:( I spent almost $800 on lab tests... and all the results were negative/inconclusive.

I still have the symptoms in spades, with cycles and flares where I can barely crawl out of bed (which is why you see my sorry *** here in FinHeaven so much -- this is frequently all I can really do). I'm considering more testing. Is this an area of clinical analysis you ever deal with?

Clumpy
07-28-2003, 04:30 AM
Sorry, I work in the lab and have limited knowledge about treatment protocols. I would consider contacting a specialist in these types of disorders. There are new tests developed all the time, but I work in what's called a STAT lab and we only see tests that can be done in less than an hour. Maybe try looking into local support chapters for Lupus patients and their families.

Sorry, I can't be of more help!

P4E
07-28-2003, 05:13 AM
You could cheer for the Fins. :)

Seriously, thanks. I know there's some new test out there, I just need to search in the right places for updates. And the support group thing is a good contact point.

Go Fins and George Bush! ;)

Clumpy
07-28-2003, 05:45 AM
Go Bills and vote Hillary in '04! :D

Barbarian
07-28-2003, 07:09 AM
Okay... lets break this sig down shall we?

(PS: I'm a moderate Indipendant that thinks both The Democrats and Republicans are full of it.)



Clinton was impeached because he lied about an adulterous affair.

True... to a point. Lets be honest, he was impeached because he's a democrat and the GOP smelled blood, but the lie was the excuse they needed...


Bush has lied to justify the war in Iraq.

Well... kinda sorta true. It may be accurate, but it might not be. Fact is that it was a falsified report. If you don't think that somebody pointed out that this report was suspicious to say the least, then one should ask why Dubya didn't ask questions about something that was such a lynchpin of the address.

Fact is that when it all goes to hell in an administration the head needs to take responsability, in this case Dubya is dodging that responsability the same way that that he and Clinton dodged a trip to Nam. Liek the old saying goes, "the buck stops here" it'd be nice to see a leader take some responsability for once.


Members of the military have died and continue to die

Another true statement. This one becomes valid because if you think that Clintons Lie was bad, you need to look at the harm that was done. (None outside of his marriage, did Clintons knobshine get anybody killed? Nope) However those that are against the war (I was for the war as many of you might remember, but for humanitarian reasons instead of the WMD excuse that the administration used) can put 2 and 2 together and realise that Bushes speach and the claim about African Uranium helped rally the nation around the cause of the war, and regardless of the good that was done, cost lives.

I think that the lives were lost in a noble pursuit, but those that disagree have a very valid argument as well.


.........tell me,when will Bush get impeached?

Well, in conclusion, all this is saying is that, If what Clinton did (Lie to the Nation about a knobshine) is worthy of getting impeached, then isn't what Dubya did (making a false claim during a state of the union address about national security) not only the same type of crim, but much worse since Dubya's falshood was about something more important than his pecker?


(Oh, and before anybody dares question my patriotism, I'll refernce you to my time served Against Iraq, against Yugoslavia, against Afghanistan, to the 5 inch scar on my leg not to mention the slight limp I will allways have that occured during the former engagement, and to the graves of several friends that I lost during all 3)

Clumpy
07-28-2003, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by Barbarian
Okay... lets break this sig down shall we?

(PS: I'm a moderate Indipendant that thinks both The Democrats and Republicans are full of it.)




True... to a point. Lets be honest, he was impeached because he's a democrat and the GOP smelled blood, but the lie was the excuse they needed...



Well... kinda sorta true. It may be accurate, but it might not be. Fact is that it was a falsified report. If you don't think that somebody pointed out that this report was suspicious to say the least, then one should ask why Dubya didn't ask questions about something that was such a lynchpin of the address.

Fact is that when it all goes to hell in an administration the head needs to take responsability, in this case Dubya is dodging that responsability the same way that that he and Clinton dodged a trip to Nam. Liek the old saying goes, "the buck stops here" it'd be nice to see a leader take some responsability for once.



Another true statement. This one becomes valid because if you think that Clintons Lie was bad, you need to look at the harm that was done. (None outside of his marriage, did Clintons knobshine get anybody killed? Nope) However those that are against the war (I was for the war as many of you might remember, but for humanitarian reasons instead of the WMD excuse that the administration used) can put 2 and 2 together and realise that Bushes speach and the claim about African Uranium helped rally the nation around the cause of the war, and regardless of the good that was done, cost lives.

I think that the lives were lost in a noble pursuit, but those that disagree have a very valid argument as well.



Well, in conclusion, all this is saying is that, If what Clinton did (Lie to the Nation about a knobshine) is worthy of getting impeached, then isn't what Dubya did (making a false claim during a state of the union address about national security) not only the same type of crim, but much worse since Dubya's falshood was about something more important than his pecker?


(Oh, and before anybody dares question my patriotism, I'll refernce you to my time served Against Iraq, against Yugoslavia, against Afghanistan, to the 5 inch scar on my leg not to mention the slight limp I will allways have that occured during the former engagement, and to the graves of several friends that I lost during all 3)


SOLID!!! :patriot:

PhinstiGator
07-28-2003, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by clumpedplatelet


EDTA chelates Ca(2+). Calcium is a require part of both clotting mechanisms and the effect of chelating calcium is the prevention of blood clotting. EDTA is NOT used in vivo, it's used in vitro. EDTA is an anti-coagulant found in vacutainer blood collection (purple-top) tubes used primarily for cell counts. It is necessary for unclotted blood in order for the instrumentation to aspirate whole blood. The EDTA in the blood collection tubes can adversely affect(i.e. activate) adhesion proteins on the surface of the platelet and cause the phenomenon clumping platelets when viewed on blood smear under oil immersion(100x). Once, "clumping platelets" are observed on the smear, we request a redraw of the patient using the blue-top sodium citrate as the anticoagulant and then multiply the instrument generated platelet count by 1.1 :D

Thanks for the clarification Clump...all this time I thought you had high cholesterol. :)

Yes Clump, EDTA is used in vivo . It was first used in the 40's to treat lead poisoning and is still used today as an alternative therapy IV infusion...howbeit, most Docs frown upon it as they tend to do with most alternative therapy's.

But thanks for your in vitro description! All this time I thought that EDTA dependent pseudothrombocytopenia was caused by agglutinating antibodies that recognise cytoadhesive receptors on platelet gpIIb-IIIa.
:D

That's cool. It must be fun counting platelets. It's better than being a bean counter

Clumpy
07-28-2003, 09:46 AM
It's been a while since I took Biochemistry :rofl:

I think I'll dig out my old Hematology books and read up on cytoadhesive receptors on platelet gpIIb-IIIa :D


I'm sure EDTA, in low dose, could be used to decrease an elevated calcium level, depending on the cause of the elevation. I found no reference in Handbook of Critical Care used by many residents in this area

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2003, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by Barbarian
Okay... lets break this sig down shall we?

(PS: I'm a moderate Indipendant that thinks both The Democrats and Republicans are full of it.)




True... to a point. Lets be honest, he was impeached because he's a democrat and the GOP smelled blood, but the lie was the excuse they needed...



Well... kinda sorta true. It may be accurate, but it might not be. Fact is that it was a falsified report. If you don't think that somebody pointed out that this report was suspicious to say the least, then one should ask why Dubya didn't ask questions about something that was such a lynchpin of the address.

Fact is that when it all goes to hell in an administration the head needs to take responsability, in this case Dubya is dodging that responsability the same way that that he and Clinton dodged a trip to Nam. Liek the old saying goes, "the buck stops here" it'd be nice to see a leader take some responsability for once.



Another true statement. This one becomes valid because if you think that Clintons Lie was bad, you need to look at the harm that was done. (None outside of his marriage, did Clintons knobshine get anybody killed? Nope) However those that are against the war (I was for the war as many of you might remember, but for humanitarian reasons instead of the WMD excuse that the administration used) can put 2 and 2 together and realise that Bushes speach and the claim about African Uranium helped rally the nation around the cause of the war, and regardless of the good that was done, cost lives.

I think that the lives were lost in a noble pursuit, but those that disagree have a very valid argument as well.



Well, in conclusion, all this is saying is that, If what Clinton did (Lie to the Nation about a knobshine) is worthy of getting impeached, then isn't what Dubya did (making a false claim during a state of the union address about national security) not only the same type of crim, but much worse since Dubya's falshood was about something more important than his pecker?


(Oh, and before anybody dares question my patriotism, I'll refernce you to my time served Against Iraq, against Yugoslavia, against Afghanistan, to the 5 inch scar on my leg not to mention the slight limp I will allways have that occured during the former engagement, and to the graves of several friends that I lost during all 3)


It's purely a question of legality. Clinton lied during sworn testimony. As such he broke an actual law. Bush was under no LEGAL obligation to tell the truth, even if it is eventually shown that he knowingly lied. In the court of public opinion he'd be open to sanction, but no matter how you spin it, he broke no laws, and Clinton did. As for the rest, WMD's consist of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The evidence for Chemical and Bio weapons in Iraq is still rock solid and accurate. The evidence for nukes alone was actually probably the least of the three threats since Iraq was DECADES away from either a delivery system which could reach the US, or the ability to build a device small enough to smuggle into the country. Heck, even Joe Leiberman was on NBC today talking about the fact that the war was still justified with or without the nuke evidence.

PhinstiGator
07-28-2003, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Barbarian
Okay... lets break this sig down shall we?[

Well... kinda sorta true. It may be accurate, but it might not be. Fact is that it was a falsified report. If you don't think that somebody pointed out that this report was suspicious to say the least, then one should ask why Dubya didn't ask questions about something that was such a lynchpin of the address.

You are asuming that the Brits were relying on the forged document. They claim that they have other intel. Bush's claim is that the Brits have info that Sadaam was RECENTLY seeking uranium. We already know that he did this in the non-recent history. That is not debatable. At some point in time the Iraqi nuclear program would have to be dug up and destroyed. It will be soon...piece by piece.


Fact is that when it all goes to hell in an administration the head needs to take responsability, in this case Dubya is dodging that responsability the same way that that he and Clinton dodged a trip to Nam. Liek the old saying goes, "the buck stops here" it'd be nice to see a leader take some responsability for once.

If it turns out that he lied...and that is far from being proven...he will certainly have to take responsibility. But he is standing by his intel and considers it to be good information.


Another true statement. This one becomes valid because if you think that Clintons Lie was bad, you need to look at the harm that was done. (None outside of his marriage, did Clintons knobshine get anybody killed? Nope) However those that are against the war (I was for the war as many of you might remember, but for humanitarian reasons instead of the WMD excuse that the administration used) can put 2 and 2 together and realise that Bushes speach and the claim about African Uranium helped rally the nation around the cause of the war, and regardless of the good that was done, cost lives.

The fact is that soldiers WERE getting killed as a result of the containment policy. Iraq was not going to come clean. They would Not comply with UN resolutions. Our soldiers were dieing and being killed during the 12 years of non-compliance.

Clinton used the same intelligence to Bomb Iraq with Cruise missiles during the Monica scandal. People did die.

Why are people pretending that the african uranium forgered document was the heart and soul of Bush's call to act? It was NOT. Again, congress had already granted their approval to act months before the State of the Union speech.


I think that the lives were lost in a noble pursuit, but those that disagree have a very valid argument as well.

Would you agree that more lives will be saved as a result of this military action?


Well, in conclusion, all this is saying is that, If what Clinton did (Lie to the Nation about a knobshine) is worthy of getting impeached, then isn't what Dubya did (making a false claim during a state of the union address about national security) not only the same type of crim, but much worse since Dubya's falshood was about something more important than his pecker?

Again...where is the false claim? The claim has NOT been proven to be false. They do have real evidence that Iraq pursued uranium from Africa in the distant past. The Brits still claim that they have evidence of it happening recently. The statement in the speech would only be untrue if the Brits had refuted the intelligence claim and they have NOT.


(Oh, and before anybody dares question my patriotism, I'll refernce you to my time served Against Iraq, against Yugoslavia, against Afghanistan, to the 5 inch scar on my leg not to mention the slight limp I will allways have that occured during the former engagement, and to the graves of several friends that I lost during all 3) [/B]

Thank you for your service to our country! You have my highest respect.

PhinstiGator
07-28-2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by clumpedplatelet
I'm sure EDTA, in low dose, could be used to decrease an elevated calcium level, depending on the cause of the elevation. I found no reference in Handbook of Critical Care used by many residents in this area

LOL! I just thought about that Vampire movie by Weslie Snipes...I can't remember the name of it...but he was using EDTA to kill Vamps.

Like I said...EDTA chelation therapy is in the realm of alternative therapy and most Doctors will look at it with much skeptism.

But, I do find it interesting that a blood thinner actually causes platelets to clump (stinking fibrin)...and for that information...I thank you.

Barbarian
07-28-2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



It's purely a question of legality. Clinton lied during sworn testimony. As such he broke an actual law. Bush was under no LEGAL obligation to tell the truth, even if it is eventually shown that he knowingly lied.

He's not uner legal obligation to tell the truth during the legally required state of the union address?

I beg to differ.

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2003, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Barbarian


He's not uner legal obligation to tell the truth during the legally required state of the union address?

I beg to differ.

If you can find a section of the Constitution, or legal code of the District of Columbia which outlines the legal requirements of the accuracy the State of the Union, I'll happily defer to you. The problem is, you can't. The Constitution states only...

"Section. 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

And DC legal code doesn't mention it at all. Bottom line is that Clinton stood up and swore to tell the truth. GW stood up and gave his opinion on the state of the Union. There's nothing spelled out which states that the information given must be 100% accurate, and as such, there are no grounds for impeachment. The calls for impeachment are being made by people who are ignorant of the law involved.

Barbarian
07-28-2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


You are asuming that the Brits were relying on the forged document. They claim that they have other intel. Bush's claim is that the Brits have info that Sadaam was RECENTLY seeking uranium. We already know that he did this in the non-recent history. That is not debatable. At some point in time the Iraqi nuclear program would have to be dug up and destroyed. It will be soon...piece by piece.

Actually that is what they have admitted that they are relying on, and that is what the CIA chief has stated when he attempted to take the fall for Dubya on this. I'm just going by what the administration has admitted/let slip.



If it turns out that he lied...and that is far from being proven...he will certainly have to take responsibility. But he is standing by his intel and considers it to be good information.

Like I said, I'm not certain that he lied per sey, but he definately didn't do his job in ensuring that what he was saying was the truth, if it was intel that wasn't convienent to him, you can be certain that it would have been looked at much more closely. To think otherwise is pure nievite.



The fact is that soldiers WERE getting killed as a result of the containment policy. Iraq was not going to come clean. They would Not comply with UN resolutions. Our soldiers were dieing and being killed during the 12 years of non-compliance.

Don't try to make it out like I was anti-war... wether your for the war or against it it doesn't change the fact that the president included a false statement as the lynchpin argument for going to war. I supported the war, but for a different reason than the WMD one that Bush was using.

But if I wanted to play devils advotcate for a moment, one could ask if more american soldiers and sailers have died in the region in the past 6 months than in the 12 preceeding years. We all know the answer... thats what I would say if I wanted to play devils advocate, but I supported the overthrow of Saddam, so I won't go there.


Clinton used the same intelligence to Bomb Iraq with Cruise missiles during the Monica scandal. People did die.

Actually, Clinton used the fact that Iraq threw out the UN investigators. I was in the gulf when it happened, I recall it pretty well, it was my ship doing most of the bombing, please don't try to revise history.


Why are people pretending that the african uranium forgered document was the heart and soul of Bush's call to act? It was NOT. Again, congress had already granted their approval to act months before the State of the Union speech.

Why? Well, because THE ADMINISTRATION SAID IT WAS!

seems like a good reason to assume that was why... but then again, considering their difficulties with the truth, perhapse we shouldent assume it was.


Would you agree that more lives will be saved as a result of this military action?

Once again, I will say it yet again, because the other several times obviously werent enough. I supported the war. However, I don't support a president that does the things that Dubya has done.


Again...where is the false claim? The claim has NOT been proven to be false. They do have real evidence that Iraq pursued uranium from Africa in the distant past. The Brits still claim that they have evidence of it happening recently. The statement in the speech would only be untrue if the Brits had refuted the intelligence claim and they have NOT.

The CIA has admitteded the screw up, everybody around Bush is doing their duty and taking the blame for this for the president. The CIA has admitted that the claim was bunk and the Director of the CIA has come out and "claimed responsability" for the false claim being in the State of the Union Address.

At least somebody in Washington was man enough to own up to his mistakes. Too bad he's not in the white house.



Thank you for your service to our country! You have my highest respect.

Thank you. I wasn't trying to brag, but rather just deflecting any calls of pinko-commie-leftist-that-has-no-idea-about-combat before they popped up. ;)

Barbarian
07-28-2003, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


If you can find a section of the Constitution, or legal code of the District of Columbia which outlines the legal requirements of the accuracy the State of the Union, I'll happily defer to you. The problem is, you can't. The Constitution states only...

"Section. 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

And DC legal code doesn't mention it at all. Bottom line is that Clinton stood up and swore to tell the truth. GW stood up and gave his opinion on the state of the Union. There's nothing spelled out which states that the information given must be 100% accurate, and as such, there are no grounds for impeachment. The calls for impeachment are being made by people who are ignorant of the law involved.

Lying to congress is a federal offense. Any adress to congress shall be taken as though the speaker is under oath, sorry to shock you with this bit of info. In fact, when congress has peoiple take the oath before testifying to congress it is a mere formality, even if they didn't and the person lied, they are in violation of federal perjury laws.

nice try to attempt and cover up though, hell, even if it wasn't illegal, your not trying to say that it was okay to lie to congress and the american people are you?

Lying to congress and the American people isn't wrong and worthy of Impeachment?

Clumpy
07-28-2003, 10:57 AM
Impeach Bush!!! :up:

Barbarian
07-28-2003, 11:13 AM
oh, and the President as Commander in Chief of the armed forces is bound by the Uniform Code Of Millitary Justice.

UCMJ Article 107 - False Official Statement

“Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

The state of the union address IS an official statement, and as such and with the president being held to the standards set forth in teh UCMJ, IF (big IF here) IF he knew that the statement that he put in there was born from falsified documents, then he would be guilty of article 107 of the UCMJ, and any violation whose punishment is worthy of a Dishonorable Discharge can be used to Impeach a sitting president.

PhinstiGator
07-28-2003, 11:16 AM
Hey Barbarian, I did not mean to imply that you were against this military action. But, I am not trying to revise history...only to put it in perspective.

Here is what Clinton said after he gave the order to bomb Iraq...

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.
They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors....

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms,
poison gas or biological weapons...

...This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and
the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to
resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years...

...If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have
given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons...

...The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his
people, the peace of his region, the security of the world...

...The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in
harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities,
there will be unintended Iraqi casualties...

...Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam
defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will
strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them,
and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future..."

Link to COMPLETE Clinton Transcript (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html)

Barbarian
07-28-2003, 11:27 AM
Your right about that, but with the clinton attack, the actual act that prompted the attack was the expulsion of the inspectors.

Bush instead used the report about African Uranium to rally the people. Inspectors werent pulled out untill it became obvious what was about to happen.

During Clintons attack, we know for a fact that the inspectors were kicked out, nobody doubts this and theres no debate about it. The attacks were on suspected WMD facilities, and Clinton has even gone on record only a couple of days ago as saying that he suspects that there were WMD in Iraq at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. If this report about African Uranium had proven to be true, Bush wouldn't be having this problem right now.

Personally I think that Iraq still had a WMD program there, but I'm not positive, thats why I didn't support that particular reason for going to war.

If Bush had come out during the State of the Union, not even mentioned WMD, and said that we were going in because Saddam is a brutal dictator that murders millions of his own people and they need to be freed... then I wouldn't be saying anything bad about him now (well, thats not entirely true, I'd still be complaining about his fiscal policy, but I wouldent be saying anything bad about the State of the Union address) . But that isn't what happened. I agree with the results, but this administration seems to want to use the "ends justify the means" approach, and that can lead to some frightening situations.

America is better than that. Our troops and our civillians as well. I just wish I could say the same about our president. :(

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2003, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Barbarian
oh, and the President as Commander in Chief of the armed forces is bound by the Uniform Code Of Millitary Justice.

UCMJ Article 107 - False Official Statement

“Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

The state of the union address IS an official statement, and as such and with the president being held to the standards set forth in teh UCMJ, IF (big IF here) IF he knew that the statement that he put in there was born from falsified documents, then he would be guilty of article 107 of the UCMJ, and any violation whose punishment is worthy of a Dishonorable Discharge can be used to Impeach a sitting president.

Actually, there's never been a ruling that the Pres falls under the UCMJ. If he did, than why wasn't Clinton brought up on charges of violating the UCMJ when he admited to sexual relations with a person under his command AND adultry, both of which are UCMJ violations?

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2003, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Barbarian


Lying to congress is a federal offense. Any adress to congress shall be taken as though the speaker is under oath, sorry to shock you with this bit of info. In fact, when congress has peoiple take the oath before testifying to congress it is a mere formality, even if they didn't and the person lied, they are in violation of federal perjury laws.

nice try to attempt and cover up though, hell, even if it wasn't illegal, your not trying to say that it was okay to lie to congress and the american people are you?

Lying to congress and the American people isn't wrong and worthy of Impeachment?


Perhaps you could show me the article of the Constitution which makes EVERY false statement to Congress a felony whether the person is under owth or not? Bear in mind that if the law actually existed, that would make every Congressman who has been incorrect when declaring the merits/problems inherent with any prospective bill guilty of a high crime.

Barbarian
07-28-2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Actually, there's never been a ruling that the Pres falls under the UCMJ. If he did, than why wasn't Clinton brought up on charges of violating the UCMJ when he admited to sexual relations with a person under his command AND adultry, both of which are UCMJ violations?

The president IS a member of the United States Millitary, he is the Commander and Chief, and as such DOES fall under the UCMJ, the Judge Advocate General that taught us millitary law during boot camp told us this and it actually was a question on the test.

Congressional Impeachment of the president is the presidential equivelant of a courts martial, and in the case of Clinton, the congress ruled on his guilt/innocense, and any punishment deserved.

PhinstiGator
07-28-2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Barbarian
...but with the clinton attack, the actual act that prompted the attack was the expulsion of the inspectors.:(

That is NOT what happened in 1998. It was an evacuation and NOT an expulsion.

The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and--as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning

--Katie Couric, NBC's Today, 12/16/98/

The United Nations once again has ordered its weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Today's evacuation follows a new warning from chief weapons inspector Richard Butler accusing Iraq of once again failing to cooperate with the inspectors. The United States and Britain repeatedly have warned that Iraq's failure to cooperate with the inspectors could lead to air strikes.

--Bob Edwards, NPR, 12/16/98

Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night--at a time when most members of the Security Council had yet to receive his report.

--Washington Post, 12/18/98

FROM THE CLINTON SPEECH...

...As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian


The president IS a member of the United States Millitary, he is the Commander and Chief, and as such DOES fall under the UCMJ, the Judge Advocate General that taught us millitary law during boot camp told us this and it actually was a question on the test.

Congressional Impeachment of the president is the presidential equivelant of a courts martial, and in the case of Clinton, the congress ruled on his guilt/innocense, and any punishment deserved.

Congress never addressed his violations of UCMJ regulations, only his perjury. We're basically arguing dejure vs defacto law. The President may or may not fall under the UCMJ, but despite violations of those regulations, no US President has ever been brought up under those charges. Again, if Clinton wasn't charged under it, I don't see how GW could be. Oh, and I'd still like to see where it states that any false statement to Congress is a crime.

Sniper
07-28-2003, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



Perhaps you could show me the article of the Constitution which makes EVERY false statement to Congress a felony whether the person is under owth or not? Bear in mind that if the law actually existed, that would make every Congressman who has been incorrect when declaring the merits/problems inherent with any prospective bill guilty of a high crime.

I heard former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark speak about this on the radio. Basically, the President does have a Constitutional obligation to give the Congress an accurate SOTU. Article II, section 1, last paragraph of the Constitution, Bush swore to:

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will serve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If the President lied, then he did not act in good faith and violated his Oath of Office. Furthermore, if he lied to Congress during the SOTU, then he obstructed their ability to perform their Constitution duties. This is obstructing the Constitution and also violates the Oath of Office.

Ramsey Clark has drawn up Articles of Impeachment for George W. People can sign it here:

http://www.votetoimpeach.org/

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2003, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Sniper


I heard former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark speak about this on the radio. Basically, the President does have a Constitutional obligation to give the Congress an accurate SOTU. Article II, section 1, last paragraph of the Constitution, Bush swore to:

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will serve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If the President lied, then he did not act in good faith and violated his Oath of Office. Furthermore, if he lied to Congress during the SOTU, then he obstructed their ability to perform their Constitution duties. This is obstructing the Constitution and also violates the Oath of Office.

Ramsey Clark has drawn up Articles of Impeachment for George W. People can sign it here:

http://www.votetoimpeach.org/

I've read it, and that's HIS interpretation of the Constitution. When Clark becomes a Supreme Court Justice or US Congressman, that opinion will matter. Until then, his job WAS to ENFORCE the law, not to interpret it. Again, lets see something which actually SAYS...any statement made to Congress MUST be factual or a crime has been committed.

Marino1983
07-28-2003, 05:14 PM
Hey thanks for the link Sniper ......:up: :hail:


Marino1983

Sniper
07-28-2003, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


I've read it, and that's HIS interpretation of the Constitution. When Clark becomes a Supreme Court Justice or US Congressman, that opinion will matter. Until then, his job WAS to ENFORCE the law, not to interpret it.
I'll take Clark's interpretation over your interpretation. His credentials and expertise are a little more impressive than yours. I'm fairly certain Congress would take his opinion more seriously than yours or mine.


Originally posted by PhinPhan1227

Again, lets see something which actually SAYS...any statement made to Congress MUST be factual or a crime has been committed.


OK.. You asked for it... It is a felony to defraud Congress. Here's one law:

U.S.C., Title 18, Part 1, Chapt. 19, Section 371.

Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.


Realistically speaking, there is no way this Congress will begin impeachment proceedings against Bush. They will not hold him up to the same standard Clinton was held up to.

Sniper
07-28-2003, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Marino1983
Hey thanks for the link Sniper ......:up: :hail:


Marino1983

My pleasure M83!

Barbarian
07-28-2003, 10:49 PM
Good call Sniper,

I finally had to go to sleep so I couldent continue this little funfest (and I find it amusing that they still refuse to answer my question about wether it's okay to lie to congress, leglity be damned) but it's nice to see that somebody else jumped up to finish the job. :)

PhinstiGator
07-29-2003, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by Barbarian
...and I find it amusing that they still refuse to answer my question about wether it's okay to lie to congress

Help me out here Barbarian. I still don't see the lie. Maybe you can walk me through it so I can see the light. :)

Here is what Prez Bush said...

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." (January 2003)

It was not until 7 March 2003 that the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency reported to the UN Security Council the IAEA's conclusion that documents suggesting a uranium procurement deal between Iraq and Niger were not authentic.

The UK intelligence services stand by their assessment that Iraq sought to acquire uranium from Africa. They have made it clear that this assessment was based on intelligence, documentary and non-documentary, which is additional to the forged documents.
(This suggests that they have access to intelligence that our CIA does not have access to).

Tenet (CIA Director) has accepted responsibility for the claim, which he said was technically accurate because it cited British intelligence as its source, and senior administration officials have said Tenet retains their confidence.

"The CIA cleared the speech in its entirety. I can tell you, if the CIA, if the director of Central Intelligence had said, 'Take this out of the speech," then it would have been gone, without question."
Condoleezza Rice

In light of these TRUTHS, where is the Beef? Now, let's everyone pretend that those 16 words are the reason we went to war (use your imagination here). Whose the liar now?

Barbarian
07-29-2003, 12:55 AM
Actually phinstgator, I wasn't refering to you, but rather to PhinPhan1227 who has stated that it is legal to lie to congress.

I allready stated that I'm not sure if he lied or not, what he said was definately not true, the question is wether he knew it at the time or not. But sense PhinPhan said that it's legal to lie to congress, I am trying to get him to tell me wether or not it's right to do it, reagardless of the legality, so my statement wasn't directed twards you, but rather towards him.

PhinPhan1227
07-29-2003, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Barbarian
Actually phinstgator, I wasn't refering to you, but rather to PhinPhan1227 who has stated that it is legal to lie to congress.

I allready stated that I'm not sure if he lied or not, what he said was definately not true, the question is wether he knew it at the time or not. But sense PhinPhan said that it's legal to lie to congress, I am trying to get him to tell me wether or not it's right to do it, reagardless of the legality, so my statement wasn't directed twards you, but rather towards him.


Read back man, I already answered that question. In point of fact, I couldn't really care less about someone lying to Congress when one considers the moral quality of your average Congressman. Lying to the American people however is another matter entirely. If Bush DID lie, knowingly, and didn't just take information on faith, than I'd say it's the American people who should determine his punishment by not voting for him. The LEGAL issue however would be the one decided by Congress. And again, unless someone can provide me with a legal code, or passage from the Constitution which states that any statement before Congress must be accurate, I still don't see any legal grounds for impeachment. Again, if you watch CSPAN, you'll see Congressmen accusing each other of lying all the time. Those suppossed lies were perpetrated in the support of Bills presented TO Congress. As such, the thought that EVERY statement made before Congress, (regardless of whether the person was under oath or not)is sacrosanct and a criminal act if not accurate is laughable. Half of Congress would have to be removed from office.

Sniper
07-29-2003, 01:22 PM
It is illegal to lie to Congress. Call your Congressman's office and ask. Here's another law:

USC, Title 18, Part 1, Chapt 47, Sec. 1001

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the
same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial
proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements,
representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or
counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the
legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to -
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a
matter related to the procurement of property or services,
personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a
document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to
the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative
branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the
authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of
the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or
Senate.

Sniper
07-29-2003, 01:35 PM
Here is an article by John Dean who is a former Counsel to the President:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/#dean

M-REAL
07-29-2003, 02:01 PM
Nasty, I don't agree with most of the President's decisions but as soon as war was declared, I gave all my support to our troops and prayed for em' to be victorious. The truth is that our soldiers are the real defense this country has, and they are the ones that die for it not the politicians in Washingon! I love my freedoms and if called upon, I would defend them and die for them too.

PhinPhan1227
07-29-2003, 02:29 PM
Nifty...answer me this question then. If it's clearly against the law to lie to Congress, then why wasn't Clinton convicted of such?



Originally posted by Sniper
It is illegal to lie to Congress. Call your Congressman's office and ask. Here's another law:

USC, Title 18, Part 1, Chapt 47, Sec. 1001

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the
same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial
proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements,
representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or
counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the
legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to -
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a
matter related to the procurement of property or services,
personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a
document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to
the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative
branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the
authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of
the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or
Senate.

PhinstiGator
07-29-2003, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Here is an article by John Dean who is a former Counsel to the President ("NIXON"):

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/#dean

LOL! Now wasn't that a self-serving article by the man that went to jail for obstruction of justice in the Watergate scandal.

He paints a picture that's suggests that it could be worse than Watergate and then steps away from the fantasy with these words...

"Let us hope that is not the case." (John Dean, former council to president NIXON)

One more time....Where is the false statement? Why do the Brits continue to stand by their intel reports? And why do so many well meaning people believe that Sadaam magically destroyed all of his weapons of mass destruction...but forgot to tell anyone because he loves sanctions?

Sniper
07-29-2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Nifty...answer me this question then. If it's clearly against the law to lie to Congress, then why wasn't Clinton convicted of such?




That's easy. It's called selective enforcement.

PhinPhan1227
07-29-2003, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Sniper


That's easy. It's called selective enforcement.

Lol...so basically you think that Congress will do to GW EXACTLY what they did to Clinton...let him get away with a crime?

Sniper
07-30-2003, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Lol...so basically you think that Congress will do to GW EXACTLY what they did to Clinton...let him get away with a crime?

Honestly, I believe all this talk about impeaching Bush is a moot point...

I don't think Bush knowingly misled to Congress or the American people. The guy is a puppet that has no clue what's going on in "his" administration. I'm sure if his advisors told him something, he will take them at their word. Somebody as lazy and stupid as he is certainly isn't going to exert himself in order to check the facts. In my opinion, Bush plays a ceremonial role in "his" administration. He is almost like a show dog; his handlers prance him out on stage to read off a teleprompter and then herd him back into his kennel when he is done. Judging from his vacuous, far away look as he reads, I truly don't think he understands whatever it is he is reading off the teleprompter. There are kumquats out there with higher IQs.

Clumpy
07-30-2003, 12:24 AM
I agree with Sniper 100%

Bush is a "puppet" President and the real power leading the agenda is NOT in the White House

Sniper
07-30-2003, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by clumpedplatelet
I agree with Sniper 100%

Bush is a "puppet" President and the real power leading the agenda is NOT in the White House

Yep... Clump have you ever checked out The Project for the New American Century (PNAC for short)?

Here's their website: http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Their 1998 Letter to Clinton is especially interesting:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

These NeoCons have always wanted to invade Iraq.

MOULDSROCKS
07-30-2003, 12:38 AM
"God told me to"
-President Bush on why he wanted to get rid of Saddam's regime.

George W. Bush waged war on Iraq because, in his own words, God "instructed me to strike at Saddam."
....more....
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=12005&mode=nested&order=0
and
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y


The dude is whacked. He like seriously thinks he is a biblical figure. A "modern day moses."

Sniper
07-30-2003, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by MOULDSROCKS
"God told me to"
-President Bush on why he wanted to get rid of Saddam's regime.

George W. Bush waged war on Iraq because, in his own words, God "instructed me to strike at Saddam."
....more....
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=12005&mode=nested&order=0
and
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y


The dude is whacked. He like seriously thinks he is a biblical figure. A "modern day moses."

I wouldn't be one bit surprised to find out if he thinks he really did hear voices. I also wouldn't be a surprised to find out that this is the result of Substance-Induced Persisting Dementia. Basically this means he lost a few too many brain cells while imbibing on his chemical substance(s?) of choice. He certainly has the symptoms for it (which I bolded below).


Substance-Induced Persisting Dementia
The patient has developed deficits of thinking as shown by both of:
Impaired memory (can't learn new information or can't recall information previously learned) plus
One or more of:
-Aphasia (problems using language)
-Apraxia (trouble carrying out motor activity, despite intact motor functioning)
-Agnosia (despite intact sensory functioning, the patient fails to recognize or identify objects presented)
-Impaired executive functioning (problems abstracting, organizing, planning or sequencing information)
Each of these symptoms materially impairs work, social or personal functioning.
These symptoms don't occur solely during a delirium.
They last longer than the typical effects of intoxication or withdrawal.
Substance use is evident from history, physical examination or laboratory data, and the clinician believes that this abuse has directly caused the impaired memory.
The following code numbers can be utilized:

291.2 Alcohol

292.82 All remaining, including Inhalant; Sedative, Hypnotic or Anxiolytic; Other [or Unknown] Substance

Also code Substance Dependence as appropriate on Axis I.

Clumpy
07-30-2003, 03:07 AM
:lol:

ICD-9 codes

:rofl:

ohall
07-30-2003, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by WharfRat


There are several of us here who are Vets Dozer... and while I don't agree with Clumps politics... I do agree with his right to express his views on them.
Offering a tag line like the one Clump has, is no worse than the one I used at the outset of the war.... (I proudly displayed the patch from my old unit - 4th MI Bn - and the motto)...as a rallying cry to oust that regime.

You're right... they are both dirty.... as inFINS implied, when was the last time we had someone who wasn't dirty in office?

I understand what you mean here, but showing your pride for soldiers that are going to war is totally dif than saying our President lied when he didn't and implying because the President lied soldiers died for no reason is not the same thing in my book.

I don't want Clump to remove his tag line, but I sure think he is way off base.

I understand where Nasty is coming from, but I'm certain Clump was looking to cause a THREAD just like this. I believe that's why he put that tag line there.

Oliver...

ohall
07-30-2003, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by Barbarian


He's not uner legal obligation to tell the truth during the legally required state of the union address?

I beg to differ.

He didn't lie, the British are standing by what he said. Unless something has changed, that's the last I heard of this. It seems the DEMS are looking for anything they can to get even for Clinton's lies.

Oliver...

Clumpy
07-30-2003, 03:22 AM
I have no agenda........just making a statement!

ohall
07-30-2003, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by clumpedplatelet
I have no agenda........just making a statement!

I don't believe that, do I now have to add that to my TAG area for it to be true?

Oliver...

Clumpy
07-30-2003, 03:26 AM
Believe what you want.....


BTW: Are you named after the kid on Brady Bunch? ;)

ohall
07-30-2003, 03:28 AM
Originally posted by clumpedplatelet
Believe what you want.....


BTW: Are you named after the kid on Brady Bunch? ;)

Never really watched that show, I'm named after my father. And I tend to think what I want, thx for permission though. :D

Oliver...

Clumpy
07-30-2003, 04:20 AM
You are welcome :D

PhinPhan1227
07-30-2003, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by Sniper


I wouldn't be one bit surprised to find out if he thinks he really did hear voices. I also wouldn't be a surprised to find out that this is the result of Substance-Induced Persisting Dementia. Basically this means he lost a few too many brain cells while imbibing on his chemical substance(s?) of choice. He certainly has the symptoms for it (which I bolded below).


Substance-Induced Persisting Dementia
The patient has developed deficits of thinking as shown by both of:
Impaired memory (can't learn new information or can't recall information previously learned) plus
One or more of:
-Aphasia (problems using language)
-Apraxia (trouble carrying out motor activity, despite intact motor functioning)
-Agnosia (despite intact sensory functioning, the patient fails to recognize or identify objects presented)
-Impaired executive functioning (problems abstracting, organizing, planning or sequencing information)
Each of these symptoms materially impairs work, social or personal functioning.
These symptoms don't occur solely during a delirium.
They last longer than the typical effects of intoxication or withdrawal.
Substance use is evident from history, physical examination or laboratory data, and the clinician believes that this abuse has directly caused the impaired memory.
The following code numbers can be utilized:

291.2 Alcohol

292.82 All remaining, including Inhalant; Sedative, Hypnotic or Anxiolytic; Other [or Unknown] Substance

Also code Substance Dependence as appropriate on Axis I.


Lol...and the reasons for your paranoid delusions would be....

Sniper
07-30-2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



Lol...and the reasons for your paranoid delusions would be....

I have none... then again I'm not the one telling others to get more educated in biology and then giving people incorrect information about T-cells. Somebody who actually did something like that would be pretty damn stupid... possibly even mentally retarded...

PhinPhan1227
07-30-2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Sniper


I have none... then again I'm not the one telling others to get more educated in biology and then giving people incorrect information about T-cells. Somebody who actually did something like that would be pretty damn stupid... possibly even mentally retarded...


Jesus dip****, I SAID that I typo'd T-cells when I meant to type stem cells. Are you going to resort to attacking misspelled words next?

PhinstiGator
07-30-2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by MOULDSROCKS
"God told me to"
-President Bush on why he wanted to get rid of Saddam's regime.
George W. Bush waged war on Iraq because, in his own words, God "instructed me to strike at Saddam."
....more....
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=12005&mode=nested&order=0
and
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y


It's in the Moscow Times (an editorial mind you) and it's a second hand quote from the from the Palistinian Prime Minister...and it's on the internet...

Therefore it must be true. Your really reaching deep with this stuff.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." A.L.

PhinstiGator
07-30-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by clumpedplatelet
I have no agenda........just making a statement!

You have no agenda? What's all that Hillary for President stuff? :)

She's all hips. :lol:

Be honest. You have a stated agenda of placing a wide hipped Democrat in the White House.

By claiming that you don't have an agenda you make yourself subject to your own judgement of impeechment. :D

PS...looks like I'll be heading up to Barfalo country this weekend (six flags)...I'll be sure to wear My Dolphin Agenda materials proudly.

Sniper
07-30-2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



Jesus dip****, I SAID that I typo'd T-cells when I meant to type stem cells. Are you going to resort to attacking misspelled words next?

Typing stem cells as flem cells would be a typo. Calling stem cells, T cells is the hallmark of stupidity. You should be the one reading a biology book.

PhinPhan1227
07-30-2003, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Sniper


Typing stem cells as flem cells would be a typo. Calling stem cells, T cells is the hallmark of stupidity. You should be the one reading a biology book.


What a raging wanker you are Snippy. You can read my post and clearly see that I meant Stem cells. That would assume that you had pulled your head out of your rectum long enough to read it however. Either way, it's transparent that you can't attack the substance of my posts so you have to resort to nitpicking. Congrats, you've elevated the level of your forensic skills to that of an annoying 11 year old girl.

Barbarian
07-30-2003, 08:38 PM
Well, Bush came on TV and assumed responsability for the false report.

What he did was wrong, but at least he finally owned up to it, my respect for him has crept up a bit again.

Sniper
07-30-2003, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



What a raging wanker you are Snippy. You can read my post and clearly see that I meant Stem cells. That would assume that you had pulled your head out of your rectum long enough to read it however. Either way, it's transparent that you can't attack the substance of my posts so you have to resort to nitpicking. Congrats, you've elevated the level of your forensic skills to that of an annoying 11 year old girl.

Blah... blah... blah...

This is a real classic dimwit1227. You make a mistake and then blame somebody else because you think they should know what you meant. :lol:

Only a total retard would mistakenly use T Cell when he meant stem cell. It's too bad your parents didn't have you tested for M.R. when you were a baby. With early intervention you probably could have lived a semi-normal life.

Now go read a biology book and feel free to comment when you understand the subject material.

WharfRat
07-30-2003, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



What a raging wanker you are Snippy. You can read my post and clearly see that I meant Stem cells. That would assume that you had pulled your head out of your rectum long enough to read it however. Either way, it's transparent that you can't attack the substance of my posts so you have to resort to nitpicking. Congrats, you've elevated the level of your forensic skills to that of an annoying 11 year old girl.



Originally posted by Sniper


Blah... blah... blah...

This is a real classic dimwit1227. You make a mistake and then blame somebody else because you think they should know what you meant. :lol:

Only a total retard would mistakenly use T Cell when he meant stem cell. It's too bad your parents didn't have you tested for M.R. when you were a baby. With early intervention you probably could have lived a semi-normal life.

Now go read a biology book and feel free to comment when you understand the subject material.

OK guys.. I know this all goes back further than these two posts, and before anyone says anything... I don't care who started it. However, it is going to stop here. Attack the post, not the poster. No more personal insults from either of you. Keep to the issue, or take it to Email.

BTW... if I missd anyone else's transgressions in this thread, I appologize for not quoting them also... but these were rather obvious... so the same goes to anyone else that made it personal.

Thanks in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Jon

PhinPhan1227
07-31-2003, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by WharfRat





OK guys.. I know this all goes back further than these two posts, and before anyone says anything... I don't care who started it. However, it is going to stop here. Attack the post, not the poster. No more personal insults from either of you. Keep to the issue, or take it to Email.

BTW... if I missd anyone else's transgressions in this thread, I appologize for not quoting them also... but these were rather obvious... so the same goes to anyone else that made it personal.

Thanks in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Jon

No problem Wharf...I'll refrain in future from pointing out any of Snippys personal issues and will stick to pointing out the glaring fallacies in his posts. Just for clarity, is it ok to call the post moronic so long as I don't refer to the POSTER as moronic?

Sniper
07-31-2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat





OK guys.. I know this all goes back further than these two posts, and before anyone says anything... I don't care who started it. However, it is going to stop here. Attack the post, not the poster. No more personal insults from either of you. Keep to the issue, or take it to Email.

BTW... if I missd anyone else's transgressions in this thread, I appologize for not quoting them also... but these were rather obvious... so the same goes to anyone else that made it personal.

Thanks in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Jon

Understood Wharf.

1227 decided to personally attack me first on this thread, so I obliged him. It will be rather easy to debate him on the merits of his statements when he makes "brilliant" claims like:

"There is no law that says people have to tell Congress the truth..."

and...

"T cells can form into ANY body part..."

and that...

Roe v Wade was decided on the Fourth Amendment...

and so on...

His arguments are "airtight" alright. No glaring fallacy in any of those "astute" claims. :lol: