Slippery Slope to tyranny

[builder]

Again, you dodged the question.

"YOU" said "the NG is on duty elsewhere".

Now back that statement up, or did you just tell a lie,

Check your own history, weirdo.

NG and shrub

President George W Bush last night sent thousands of troops to the Mexican-US frontier in an eye-catching gesture to tighten border security and raise the morale of his mutinous conservative supporters.

In a sign of the passions raging over immigration, Mr Bush told the nation of his initiative in a prime-time address from the Oval Office, his first on domestic policy in his five and a half years in the White House

Senior Republicans and Democrats have expressed concern that the deployment will place fresh strains on the National Guard, given its commitments in Iraq and responsibilities for combating natural disasters on US soil.

"We've got National Guard members on their second, third and fourth tours in Iraq," said Chuck Hagel, a senior Republican senator. "We have stretched our military as thin as we have ever seen it in modern times."

Lastly, what does any of this have to do with Bush? The problem is here now, Bush signed a bill that was defunded by Obama, Obama has all the power now, everything that is done, and everything that is blocked is the responsibility of the Obama administration. Each time you try to blame Bush you prove that your not interested in debating actual events but instead your just trying to play blocker and defender of the socialist mindset.

It has everything to do with the shrub because he did jack ***** about this immigration issue for five and a half years of his time in power (for lack of a better descriptor).

What was the bill he signed, and how late in his fading insignificant time in office did he sign it?

Oh, and while we are on the issue of answering for what we type here, go back to my first post in this thread, and get your left-hand man IWS to answer my questions, or at least apologize for the only question he answered with a wrong link disproving his claim.

Just like your lazy answers with **** links that proved absolutely nothing.

Ya weirdo. B)

 

[builder]

And here's the real slippery slope to tyranny;

Illegal wiretapping.

The no-fly-list.

The illegal invasion of Iraq, a soveriegn nation, killing and maiming how many American people?

Not to be forgetting erasing a country's infrastructure and polluting the whole country with depleted uranium, while killing tenfold more Iraqis, and sending hundreds of thousands of them to hide in other countries.

The declaring of the War on Terror, meaning a war without end, resulting in perpetual government, because you can't call an election when the nation is at "war".

Nice try, ****.

Spending over a trillion dollars, mostly through Cheney's Halliburton, supposedly "rebuilding" Iraq. and through private "security" firms. For christ's sake, you have how many hundreds of thousands of soldiers and national guard stationed in Iraq, and you have to employ "security". Just how untrained are the military, if you have to employ "security" to watch over them?????

But wait, there's more.......

 

[Anna Perenna]

And here's the real slippery slope to tyranny;

Illegal wiretapping.

The no-fly-list.

The illegal invasion of Iraq, a soveriegn nation, killing and maiming how many American people?

Not to be forgetting erasing a country's infrastructure and polluting the whole country with depleted uranium, while killing tenfold more Iraqis, and sending hundreds of thousands of them to hide in other countries.

The declaring of the War on Terror, meaning a war without end, resulting in perpetual government, because you can't call an election when the nation is at "war".

Nice try, ****.

Spending over a trillion dollars, mostly through Cheney's Halliburton, supposedly "rebuilding" Iraq. and through private "security" firms. For christ's sake, you have how many hundreds of thousands of soldiers and national guard stationed in Iraq, and you have to employ "security". Just how untrained are the military, if you have to employ "security" to watch over them?????

But wait, there's more.......

Another thing of more concern to me than the Constitution (sorry Hugo, you know I'm not a fan) is the fact that the World Cup is distracting a lot of people from the real news, ie the rapidly escalating tensions between North and South Korea, and between Iran and the USA / Israel.

There are rumours, apparently leaked by the US, of Saudi Arabia allowing Israel an "air corridor" through which to potentially fast-track an attack on Iran.

And right now US warships, including the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman, escorted by one or more nuclear submarines and other warships carrying missiles and cannons, are moving towards the Iranian coast via the Suez Canal. This movement is accompanied by Israeli military ships, carrying equally sophisticated weaponry, intended to supervise any vessel involved in the import or export of commercial products required by the Iranian economy for its operations.

The Navy Commander of the elite Corps of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, General Ali Fadavi, has issued a warning: "if the United States and its allies inspect Iranian ships in international waters ‘they will have their response in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz'". The General has also stated "the Navy of the Revolutionary Guardians currently has hundreds of vessels equipped with missile launchers".

But much like the sophisticated mine planted on the Korean flagship Chenoan, designed to provoke conflict between North and South Korea, I foresee a provocation from the US / Israel, trying to instigate a "first strike" from Iran.

 

[Anna Perenna]

The point is the abuse of power, your right that there are other great discussions that can be had but answer me a question........why do you think you should try and "STOP" this discussion?

I don't feel I should try and stop it - why do you ASSUME that?

I simply asked WHY this ASPECT was so IMPORTANT to the people debating the topic. I then pointed out the things I thought were more important about the issue at hand.

Because I wanted to DISCUSS it on a DEBATE forum.

Why not take those other topics you mentioned and start some new threads to discuss those things also?

Well, considering this topic is about the BP oil spill, I thought I'd mention it here. It makes perfect sense for me to discuss other aspects of the BP oil spill in the BP oil spill thread - doesn't it?

Why don't you take your own point - why don't you make a whole different topic about me supposedly wanting to stop this discussion in another thread?

Because your not really interested in those other things, your just trying to create an excuse to take shots at people.

No, I'm pretty sure that's what YOU are doing right now. Not me.

This is a great discussion to an America because freedoms are the thing we are founded in, there are still a few people who live here who see these freedoms as important and when someone like Obama comes along and tears down those freedoms that small number of us who feel they are important become vocal about it.

And that's all anyone needed to say in reply to my very first question.

It's pretty much what Hugo explained previously, without needing to get into a petty 'fight' with me about it.

Which pretty much sums up why I love and respect Hugo, and I still struggle to get along with you and IWS.

 

[hugo]

[but much like the sophisticated mine planted on the Korean flagship Chenoan, designed to provoke conflict between North and South Korea, I foresee a provocation from the US / Israel, trying to instigate a "first strike" from Iran.

Pat Buchanan:

Unlike 1950, when we faced a Soviet empire storming down the Korean peninsula, there is no vital U.S. interest in Korea today to justify sending another army of 350,000 men to fight a second Korean War. And as the new South Korean regime has undercut U.S. policy and is pandering to anti-Americanism, we should tell Seoul all U.S. troops will be out of Korea within two years. If Seoul wishes to play the hand with Pyongyang, let Seoul take the risks.
For if a war, conventional or even nuclear, broke out, no vital U.S. interest would be imperiled, so long as no U.S. troops are in South Korea. And no U.S. army should be sent to fight it. South Korea has 30 times the economy and twice the manpower of the North. It is past time Seoul took responsibility for her own defense.

Moreover, withdrawal of U.S. forces from the peninsula would moot America's quarrel with the Communist North. An agonizing reappraisal of an Asian policy that dates to John Foster Dulles is overdue.

As for Beijing, the Chinese should be told that if they will not assist us in keeping Pyongyang out of the Nuclear Club, the United States will no longer seek to restrain South Korea, Japan or Taiwan from joining that club. Let us withdraw our troops from Asia and let Asia's democracies acquire the same weapons as Asia's communist dictators. Nuclear weapons have raised the price of empire too high.

Of course we never had the Korean War, just a conflict, wars have to be declared by Congress.

 

[hugo]

[but much like the sophisticated mine planted on the Korean flagship Chenoan, designed to provoke conflict between North and South Korea, I foresee a provocation from the US / Israel, trying to instigate a "first strike" from Iran.

Pat Buchanan:

Unlike 1950, when we faced a Soviet empire storming down the Korean peninsula, there is no vital U.S. interest in Korea today to justify sending another army of 350,000 men to fight a second Korean War. And as the new South Korean regime has undercut U.S. policy and is pandering to anti-Americanism, we should tell Seoul all U.S. troops will be out of Korea within two years. If Seoul wishes to play the hand with Pyongyang, let Seoul take the risks.
For if a war, conventional or even nuclear, broke out, no vital U.S. interest would be imperiled, so long as no U.S. troops are in South Korea. And no U.S. army should be sent to fight it. South Korea has 30 times the economy and twice the manpower of the North. It is past time Seoul took responsibility for her own defense.

Moreover, withdrawal of U.S. forces from the peninsula would moot America's quarrel with the Communist North. An agonizing reappraisal of an Asian policy that dates to John Foster Dulles is overdue.

As for Beijing, the Chinese should be told that if they will not assist us in keeping Pyongyang out of the Nuclear Club, the United States will no longer seek to restrain South Korea, Japan or Taiwan from joining that club. Let us withdraw our troops from Asia and let Asia's democracies acquire the same weapons as Asia's communist dictators. Nuclear weapons have raised the price of empire too high.

Of course we never had the Korean War, just a conflict, wars have to be declared by Congress.

Great post, Hugo. Let me add this.

War is just one more big government program. – Joseph Sobran

 

[timesjoke]

Check your own history, weirdo.........

Weirdo?

History has nothing to do with my question, stop dodging Buildre. You accused IWS of not answering the questions asked and yet here you are doing exactly that.

Your comment had nothing to do with ancient history, you said we could not respond to our current issues because our National Guard were all deployed eleswhere, now back that up with some facts.....or did you intentionally tell a lie?

Anna, my point was that we could discuss all sides of the situation if you wanted to without you trying to squash 'this' side of it. You belittled this aspect and went on and on about other things "your felt" were more important. If they were important, why not make a new thread and we could address it? Why do you think it was okay to try and kill this aspect?

 

[builder]

Read the thread weirdo

Stop wasting people's time.

 

[timesjoke]

Stop wasting people's time.

Your wasting time dodging a direct question, why not just answer the question and be done with it? All this energy and name calling just to avoid taking responsibility for what you said?

Again, the NG is on duty elsewhere. This came to light after Katrina.

You took IWS to task for refusing to offer proof to his claims so now I ask you to do the same thing. You claim that there are no National Guard to work the border because they are all on duty "elsewhere". Please provide proof of that claim, don't just vomit up something so foul and run away from it, either what you said is true or a lie, now stand up to what you said Builder.

 

[builder]

Which part of Read the Thread is giving you so much trouble, weirdo?

 

[timesjoke]

Which part of Read the Thread is giving you so much trouble, weirdo?

What part of the question is giving you so much trouble Builder?

Your words, not mine, you said all the National Guard were deployed and not capable of responding to the border, now stand behind your own words and either back them up or admit you told a lie.

Remember this comment?

Well, Times, we can't get IWS to answer any straight questions, so here's one question for you.

So if you ask IWS a direct question, he should respond or you will talk **** about him, but if your asked a direct question you see nothing wrong with dancing around and refusing to answer?

You already proved your hypocrisy by creating a huge line-by-line set of questions for me but when I gave the same thing back to you, you ran away too scared to answer every question the way I answer every question you asked me. I dodge nothing, but clearly you dodge direct questions all the time and have no business trying to point your finger at IWS or anyone else for refusing to answer a question asked you.