Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/ ... ml?ref=rss


The mass media are all lineing up to tell you that the show trials the US had planed for their idefinately detained prisoners has itself been declared to be unlawfull. However, there's a bigger story here:


Doesn't that mean that the US Supreme Court just told the world that the whole thing is in violation of international law? Oooohhh looks Bush doesn't have the same support now that got him the presidency in the first place, eh?

Of course



Very conveinient, not agreeing to be bound by international law. Yes, it means that your Supreme Court can denounce something American as being in contravention of the Geneva Conventions, and your president can then do the sound bite equivilent of a shrug in response. Don't have to relase the prisioners, don't have to shut the place down, don't have to stop the torture. Just trot out some lame excuse about needing to find a way to respect the court's findings and throw in a line about protecting the American people from the boogeyman, and wha-la it's legal loopholes and legal limbo for the next two years.

Act now while soundbites last! Limited time offer!

_________________

You're a sad, sad man.

That's all.

_________________

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. He ain't lying.

_________________

You know, if you'd like to add something to the conversation instead of putting someone down, feel free to do so any time now.

_________________

You've mistaken "sarcastic" for "sad."
I mean, really: Don't you even know darkly wittly biteling sarcasm when you see it.
I was aware that you americans are humor-impared, but I had no idea it had gotten so bad.
Someone get that man a rubber chicken and a whoopie cussion. He needs an imediate humor-filled enema.

_________________

This is exactly what I was referring to.

Wait, you aren't even American? Why stress about what we do here in the greatest nation on earth? You don't live here.

Also, I love how you try to have it both ways.

"The Supreme Court handed Bush the presidency! They're corrupt!"

And now

"Heh heh heh... looks like the Supreme Court turned on Bush."

This after he appoints two judges personally.

You're unbelievable.

_________________

That's a neat trick, refering to something I hadn't written yet. Tell you what: You tell me what it is you want me to say, and I'll nominate you for member ship in the Nazi party so you can be with more people who think like you do. I'll bet you'd enjoy it. After all, you already love telling me what it is I'm not supposed to say (you don't do it very well, but you do love to do it).


1) I have no desire to be American, but everything America does affects the rest of the world. That means it affects me. Seeing as how I live next door to the US, it means that it affects me quite imediately and quite frequently. But, according to you, I'm not suppoosed to speak up becasue "an american" has said so. Guess what? I'm going to continue to comment on issues.
2) If you think America is still the greatest nation on earth, you're the one who's a sad, sad man. That's pure nationalistic propaganda you're spouting there, and it doesn't make you look very intelegent. Try thinking for yourself insetad of spouting someone else's tured old catch phrase.
3) No, I don't live there. You couldn't pay me to live in the US. Been there, done that, not going back. You all can fix the mess you've gotten yourselves into on your own. Rednkecks like Captian Lame-Oh Tah have made it quite clear what they think of anyone who's "Not American" and frankly it disgusts me.

Man, go away and learn how to formulate a basic argument.
I was pointing out that the Supreme Court has turned on him. And hey, look: Nothing you said refutes my argument. It was widely expected that the judges appointed by Bush would support his every decision, but now that his approval ratings are in the basement, he's not getting that support anymore.
What part of that don't you unmderstand?

_________________

Even though I find this ridiculous, I still think Gitmo will stay open. It sounds likely. If "Bush" and "shutting down Gitmo" is in the same sentence, I feel like there's supposed to be a "not" between them. It's just the way Bush works. He'd possibly change how Guantanamo Bay works so it'd be a POW place instead of a torture place, though.

Anyway, if you don't want to be flamed, it's best to just keep a cool head and display both sides indiscriminately without obvious sarcasm. It would raise my respect for you. Subtle sarcasm is fine, though.

_________________

I prefer to be obvious in my sarcasm. It's a fine Canadian tradition that goes back to some time before I was born.

_________________

So...we Americans are obvious in our stupidity because it's a fine American traidtion?

_________________

Okay, guys, chill. Just because a Canadian started the thread doesn't mean it has to become a fight.

Or will you listen to the Canadian mod?

_________________

Even though I don't see it happening, what will you say if Gitmo is shut down? I don't everyone's opinions of Bush changing in the slightest. In fact I would imagine that the only opinions that would change would be those of the ultra-right, and it wouldn't be for the better.

As for the sarcasm, insults, and "childish" personal attacks, for the sake of the rest of us take it somewhere else. If you want to attempt to discuss something in a "civil" manner, feel free to user our forums. Otherwise, I am going to have to ask you to leave. That applies to everyone.

_________________

Wait...sarge looses. "I'll nominate you for member ship in the Nazi party so you can be with more people who think like you do." This definitly applies as Godwins law. Thread over. Sarge looses

_________________
"Those loonies are gunna blow up the ocean!"

Umm.... Please learn some spelling.

Godwin's Law doesn't apply because you brought up Nazis to end the thread. Also, if anyone would lose, it'd be you.

Now, if you have a need to contribute and are able to do so intelligently, please feel free to do so. Otherwise, please go away.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

How soon Gitmo closes depends entierly on who the next president turns out to be.

Frankly, I don't understand why you Americans stand for the sort of blatant abuse of human rights that is Gitmo; not to mention the erosion of your civil rights.

_________________

Not all of us do. Why do you think nearly half of the voters in 04 tried to get him out of office? Right now though, we can't get him out unless he's impeached and found guilty. And the way the House and Senate is right now, it more than likely won't happen until the midterm elections, where all the House and a third of the Senate is up in the air. There is where Republicans could be kicked out of office and Dems could take their place. But that's months away, who knows what could happen between now and then.

_________________

I'm sorry about my spelling, it's not one of my strong points, but that was Godwins law. That quote was from Sarge earlier in the thread. I should have labeled it Please don't be so harsh StrongRad, I'm not really that mean of a guy. Now if I can contribute

I don't think it will close but Bush won't blatently defy (SP?) the supreme court. He's be able to change the workings of the prison to meet the court's standards. Or at least make it seem that way.

_________________
"Those loonies are gunna blow up the ocean!"

My civil rights AREN'T being eroded, as best as I can tell. I voted against the kinda people that I saw as wanting to erode my constitutional right to worship as I please and to purchase and legally own and operate firearms.

Of course, there are some other things that I'm not happy about, but yeah, I'm not going to be completely happy with ANYONE that is in office.

As far as Gitmo, I don't see it as a bad thing. The people there were plotting attacks that could have killed or injured many innocent people. People who would do such a thing don't care about human rights and shouldn't care if they're not given the same.

Unfortunately, the people there may not all be guilty of planning and/or preparing to commit attacks. I disagree with harsh treatment of the innocents. I say give these people a fair trial (be it by jury or tribunal), if they're found innocent, give them a firm apology and something for their troubles. If guilty, perhaps dump them into Yankee Stadium and make them all wear signs that say "I applaud 9/11".

I disagree with the Geneva Conventions ruling. First off, I'm not sure it's the Supreme Court's place to decide. Secondly, I'm not so sure that enemies that do not wear uniforms and hide among civilians fall under those protections.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

That wouldn't do much good--they'd just be seen as more crazies from the Westboro Baptist Church and forgotten about for the most part.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Actualy, more than half the voters tried to get rid of Bush in 04, it's just that the Republicans and their buddies used every dirty trick in the book (and some that weren't in the book) to rig the vote.

I still don't understand why you all put up with this. Why aren't there ever-growing crowds gathered in downtown Washington conducting a peacefull protest and refusing to go home untill Bush resigns? I seem to recall this tactic working in the Ukraine a while back. Something about an Orange revolution. I was hopefull when Sindy Shehan (sorry, that's probaly not how you spell her name) tried, but for some reason that movement ran out of steam. What's the deal, America?

_________________

Listen, I'm no fan of Bush, but let's not get into the whole rigged election thing, ok? It'll only lead to more fighting and bickering. Speaking of which, if I see any more of the name callings and senseless bashing, on either side, I will lock this, ok? Last warning to all.

_________________

I think that it is probably due to more people liking and appreciating Bush than some people would like to believe. Plus, I think some people realize that protests don't always get people what they want, and can often simply make their side look worse if some moron gets himself arrested during it (and that applies to any viewpoint).

_________________

Actually, no. There was no rigging to that election. There were no stuffed ballot boxes. Bush won fair and square. The reason he won was because Kerry couldn't stick to a campaign platform. He filp-flopped back and forth. Had he stuck with one plan, he would have beat Bush.

Because he is a lame duck. Once the Midterm elections are done, Bush will be a lame duck president. He will have no power. Congress will not follow him because there is nothing riding on it. We don't need to protest, the government will do it for us.

_________________

That's exactly the sort of attitude that saddled you with Bush for 8 years. "The government will do it for us". You want change? Get out there and demand it. Do something about it, don't just accept that the system will take care of it for you. The system has been repeatedly failing you for the last six years, what makes you think you can rely on that same system now?

_________________

Because he will be gone in a year and a half.

_________________

Sarge, this is your last warning. Enough with the "Bush is an idiot that's going to ruin the world". Talk about the Supreme Court decision, and that's it. No more of this "He's destroying our civil liberties" crap. I'm just as Liberal as the next guy, but enough is enough.

_________________

Keep in mind that the ruling didn't make the entire Gitmo operation illegal, just that some of the military tribunals for Camp Delta detainees are illegal.

_________________

The sad part is that Bush and Co. can keep this whole mess tied up in the courts ad infinitum. As long as it's politicly expedient forthem to have prisoners they can poitn to and say "terrorist!" they'll find a way to do it.
But at least this ruling is a victory for freedom, even though it's a small one. Gives me hope that Bush will tossed out sooner rather than later. (Not much hope, but considering I had no hope of that before, it's a start.)

_________________

If Bush does not obey the Supreme Court's ruling, then we may have enough to have him impeached. But I have one question, how much better would Cheney be than Bush? I'd rather not have Cheney as President.

_________________

Actually, that's a major reason why nobody's really tried to impeach Bush before. The Democrats don't like Bush, but they really don't want Cheney as the Prez. Besides, as BTG said, all you have to do if you're not satisfied with the current office is wait a year and a half. You've gotten through six so far, you can stick it out a little more.

_________________