why should bush go?

[george]

no proof needed. just your reasons.

1. for pretending jobs at mcdonalds are manufacturing jobs to pump up his job creation numbers.

2. invading iraq.

3. allowing 9/11 so that we could have exclusive control of afghanastans natural gas.

[mburbank]

4.) He can't speak English.

5.) He believes God is telling him what to do.

6.) He gave high level jobs to convicted Iran/Contra criminals.

7.) He's taken more vacation time than any President ever during a time he says we're at war.

8.) He says we're at war.

9.) He makes his Dad look like a great President.

10.) He makes Richard Nixon look like a great President.

11.) The doctrine of preemtion.

12.) Establishing legal grounds for ignoring the Geneva convention.

13.) Establishing legal grounds for torture.

14.) His choice of VP.

15.) His choice of secretary of defense.

16.) His choice of attorney General.

17.) The complete gelding of the EPA.

18.) The complete gelding of Colin Powell.

19.) Thwarting Habeus Corpus.

20.) Flight suit dress up.

21.) "Mission Accomplished"

22.) Not eating enough pretzels.

[nothing4buddha]

23.) USA patriot act =(

[mburbank]

Which is a fine example of

24.) Naming things the exact opposite of what they are. (Clear skies initiative, Camp Redemption, etc.)

[george]

25) ruining my faith in conservatives.

26) halting stem cell research.

[ScruU2wice]

27) trying to hold "Enemy combatants" without due process

[Spectre X]

28) gereral asshattery and cunting about, regarding the truth about him having been in the army.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

29) lowest IQ of any president in history.

[ranxer]

30) providing new reasons for alqaeda's growth.

31) killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians

32) putting our citizens and military in harms way for corporate control of oil and other contracts.

33) wrecking the worlds opinion of America.

34) escallating violence worldwide

35) empowering creationists

36) increasing dependance on oil and nukes with a bait and switch 'hydrogen economy'

[kellychaos]

Maybe he just needs to be pruned a bit. :/

[Stabby]

37) Stealing an election.

38) Record surplus reduced to record defecit.

39) Dividing the country to such an extreme.

40) Either a liar or incompetent.

[punkgrrrlie10]

or both.

Originally Posted by ScruU2wice

27) trying to hold "Enemy combatants" without due process

Everyonce in a while the current justices get it right

[GAsux]

Because Will Ferrell is gone and the new guy sucks in Bush skits. Maybe they'll have someone funnier for Kerry.

[Bobo Adobo]

41. He looks like a monkey...

and smells like one too.

[Zhukov]

33) wrecking the worlds opinion of America.

I hold a much higher opinion of America now that I see how many people hate him.

[kellychaos]

Why is due process an option when we have can just deport them? I mean, if they are considered serious combatants, then detain them and question them until you are satisfied they are not threats. If there is any serious evidence that they are threats, then a trial shouldn't seem so menacing to our government. If there is nothing substantial, then they shouldn't have been held in the first place and should be deported. Even the slightest evidence of possible terrorist activity, if it can be somewhat substantiated, is proof enough to me for there deportation. You don't need a trial for that as they are not citizens and it seems to me that this fall under the jurisdiction of the INS and not the court system. Is that so hard to grasp? Any detaining beyond that makes it seem as if the government is trying to hold a card to be played later.

[stong bah]

Originally Posted by Cosmo Electrolux

29) lowest IQ of any president in history.

el wrongo


42. A plan for gay people to be "civil partners" and have all the same rights as married couples only not be married.

[Sethomas]

Yeah, I think Warren Harding might have had a low enough IQ to rival Bush's claim to the lowest.

[punkgrrrlie10]

Originally Posted by kellychaos

Why is due process an option when we have can just deport them? I mean, if they are considered serious combatants, then detain them and question them until you are satisfied they are not threats. If there is any serious evidence that they are threats, then a trial shouldn't seem so menacing to our government. If there is nothing substantial, then they shouldn't have been held in the first place and should be deported. Even the slightest evidence of possible terrorist activity, if it can be somewhat substantiated, is proof enough to me for there deportation. You don't need a trial for that as they are not citizens and it seems to me that this fall under the jurisdiction of the INS and not the court system. Is that so hard to grasp? Any detaining beyond that makes it seem as if the government is trying to hold a card to be played later.

1. They aren't being detained on american soil 2. deport them and they still do terroristy things against us, doesn't stop them from coming back and 3. any good lawyer will tell them to shut up and not say anything which kind of nullifies trying to question them.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

Originally Posted by stong bah

el wrongo


42. A plan for gay people to be "civil partners" and have all the same rights as married couples only not be married.

okay..he's still a fucking idiot.

[ArrowX]

42.) He can't read

43.) Cant Ride a bike

44.) He's fron Texas

45.) According to a news article I read, he lost the 2 thirty megaton nukes that he supposedly placed in Iraq to make his story legit.

46.) Still alive

[ItalianStereotype]

47. you fucking suck, Arrow.

[ScruU2wice]

Originally Posted by stong bah

el wrongo

No,
this isn't a real news report, nor does it describe a real study. There isn't a "Lovenstein Institute" in Scranton, Pennsylvania (or anywhere else in the USA), nor do any of the people quoted in the story exist, because this is just another spoof that was taken too seriously.

:/

Edit: and any of what you said Kelly would make sense if the US wanted to release the people they have detained. They want to hold them either because they want stop them from rejoining terrorist networks or they just wanna say "hey, look at how many terrorists we caught after 9/11..."

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by punkgrrrlie10

1. They aren't being detained on american soil 2. deport them and they still do terroristy things against us, doesn't stop them from coming back and 3. any good lawyer will tell them to shut up and not say anything which kind of nullifies trying to question them.

I know I'm being a bit naive here, but if the evidence were strong enough for a trial, then they should be able to get a least something substancial enough to bring them to trial. While I agree these guys are probably hardened criminals and have probably seen more horrific things than our best interrogation techniques, you can't hold them indefinitely else we would be hypocritically guilty of the same human rights violations for which we hold other countries guilty. I know it's a double-edged sword but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Doing something other than trying them or deporting them makes it seem to the rest of the world that we're trying to hide something.

[ranxer]

you can't hold them indefinitely else we would be hypocritically guilty of the same human rights violations for which we hold other countries guilty.

yea! no doubt!

however, our biggest problem is that many of the detainees are completly innocent. its a public relations spoof on the blue pillers.. swallow this idea that we are on top of terrorism folks.. we have all these people incarcerated so you are safe!

i call bull! .. cause the bush admin knew and facilitated the 9/11 attacks..making homeland security, the patriot act, afghan war, and the war on Iraq all based on a farce to enrich the contributors of the bush admin and the military industrial / prison industrial / oilygarky.