|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
The Compleat BUSH record.
 Sun Feb 09, 2003 10:00 am
|
 |
|
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/articlesbush.html
We cannot allow the state an autocratic right to govern outside the Constitution.
-- Boyd E. Graves, J.D
|
| |
|
|
Billy Joe McAllister
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 249
|
|
Sun Feb 09, 2003 7:09 pm
|
|
|
Mech misspelled complete!  |
| |
|
|
Donny_B
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Posts: 4
|
|
Sun Feb 09, 2003 10:29 pm
|
|
|
Does Bush help NWO plans or hinder NWO plans? Isn't it Bush who refuses to put the USA under the jurisdiction of the NWO's International Criminal Court? Isn't it Bush who is leading a coalition in the interest of the USA on Iraq in spite of the NWO's United Nations wishes?
I think that many of you, although well-intentioned, are missing the point in who the good guys and bad guys are.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Donny_B on 02-09-2003] |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Mon Feb 10, 2003 5:55 pm
|
|
|
Bush is like any other good NWO stooge. Keep the left and the right arguing while Globalists suck up the money. Not being answerable to anyone means the US can do what it wants. This is where the right goes off a bit, the UN caution. In theory, a team of nations could do good, but a UN disctatorship is worse than a US dictatorship.
Does being outside an international criminal court mean the US is answerable to no one? To do want they want with impunity? Imagine this or any other country without a police force? That is what the US wants. Stomp on anyone, and do something about it.
BJM,
You are such an anal retentive, I can smell you from here. If you had 1/4 of the post starts and ideas that Mech has, you'd be doing good. |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Mon Feb 10, 2003 6:17 pm
|
|
|
But David,
The US and Bush are the good guys. We can gas people, drop nukes, spray chemicals, dose our citizens with radiation, shoot students, fabricate wars, overthrow democratically elected governments, cheat, lie, and steal, because we are the Chosen Ones. |
| |
|
|
Billy Joe McAllister
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 249
|
|
Mon Feb 10, 2003 6:27 pm
|
|
|
David, the use of non-lethal gas sounds like a very humanitarian idea to me, if the article is not a fabrication, that is.
And Gas....you've finally gone off the deep end, and the pool has just been drained. On the one hand, you say you hate these nefarious "globalists" that cause you so much concern, but in the same errant stroke of a keyboard key, you imply that the US should be subservient to a socialist, one world government type organization like the UN's world court. You seem confused.
At best, you make little or no sense at all….(and PS. Please leave my bowel functions out of the conversation…that’s just gross) |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Mon Feb 10, 2003 7:06 pm
|
|
|
Confused, No...Just undecided on the UN vs US syndrome. The standard conservative view is, go alone and screw everyone else. The standard liberal view is, let a body of people decide the fate of a single country. There is good and bad in both concepts. But as usual, your tilted brain can't see the good in anything other than your far right views. Just remember, the world is madeup of many POV's, not just two. Since you are obviously bi-polar, I can now say I feel sorry for your affliction, and like any mentally deficient person, not make fun of you. |
| |
|
|
Billy Joe McAllister
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 249
|
|
Tue Feb 11, 2003 12:01 am
|
|
|
Gas, you are by far the most insulting hypocrite on the board...Just want you to know that. Your idea of what a conservative is, is completely false and twisted, as well as your notion that I am somehow "far right". I am mainstream. But if someone is far right to you, simply because he states the truth, then so be it. It is logical that it would appear that way to one as deluded as yourself.
BTW, you say I'm mentally deficient. Well I notice, it is you who cannot respond to any actual points that are brought up. I don't think you've had a rational response to any point or comment, come to think of it. You simply change the subject and bring up irrelevant garbage. If anything is a sign of a mental deficiency, it would be this tendency because this implies that you do not have the capacity to think rationally and focus on one train of thought at a time. Instead of rational discourse, your only instinct is to respond in an insulting way simply because you do not have the capacity to respond with actual depth of thought. Thanks for illustrating. |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:39 am
|
|
|
It's THE CONSTITUTION...stupid.
Wow...FACTS don't mean a thing to Billy...Instead he attacks someone for spelling.
No wonder our country is turning into Nazi Germany...it's a mentallity like this. |
| |
|
|
Donny_B
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Posts: 4
|
|
Tue Feb 11, 2003 2:41 am
|
|
|
Is it constitutional to put the US under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which Clinton signed off on in his last days of office, but Bush "unsigned"? I thought the US Supreme Court was the supreme law of the land, under the US Constitution.
http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterXVIII/treat y10.asp#N6
Under the ICC, there would be no right to trial by jury, and no right to a speedy trial. Judges, prosecutors, and counsel would be drawn from murderous totalitarian and authoritarian regimes with juridical views completely at odds with Western concepts of law and justice and specifically hateful of America and Americans. There would be no appeal of an ICC decision, except to the same ICC court. A person convicted under the ICC may be sentenced to prison anywhere in the world the ICC chooses.
http://www.getusout.org/icc/
Thank you President Bush for unsigning the United States from this treaty.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Donny_B on 02-10-2003] |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Tue Feb 11, 2003 2:54 am
|
|
|
Yeah, Bill Clinton was a treasonous SOB too.
Too bad you are so blinded by party affiliation that you can't see treason when it has a Republican disquise. |
| |
|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3136
Location: Texas |
|
Tue Feb 11, 2003 11:24 pm
|
|
|
 |
| |
|
|
Billy Joe McAllister
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 249
|
|
Tue Feb 11, 2003 11:50 pm
|
|
|
Thermit,
What do you think causes the budget deficit? Tax cuts or spending? How do tax increases affect the economy? And were you aware that a budget surplus means that the American people are being over taxed? Are you aware that your chart shows the deficit beginning precisely at a little date known as 9/11?
I do criticize Bush for not cutting government spending however. Under Bush there is actually an increase in government spending in his new budget, as there has been ever single year in the federal government. There is just less of an increase in spending on domestic programs and far more of an increase in military spending in Bush's budget that the Clinton budget. In addition there is a significant tax decrease, (unlike the Clinton administration) and there is talk of Bush throwing out the old income tax system altogether and going with a consumption tax replacement.
It is evident that Bush intends to grow the economy out of the deficit, rather than cut spending (as I would like to see). But one thing I applaud Bush for is the increase in the military budget. Under Clinton, the one constitutionally mandated institution, the US military, was woefully under-funded to the point of endangering national security, and eliminating our long held ability to fight a war on two fronts. In fact, the ONLY cuts Clinton ever made in the ever increasing federal budget was cuts in military spending.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Billy Joe McAllister on 02-11-2003] |
| |
|
|
Donny_B
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Posts: 4
|
|
Wed Feb 12, 2003 8:01 am
|
|
|
If you take into account America's total debt in the 1990's you will see there was no surplus after all. Any surplus was cancelled out by the increasing debt of the cities, states and private business and households. Not a pretty picture.
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-a.htm
|
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 6:27 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
