Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Sarge, sarge, sarge.

Please provide some backup for the following points:



It's tough to prove a negative.



This power existed for years before Bush, Jr. took office. Clinton, Bush sr., Reagan and Carter also used signing statements.

The office of President of the United States of America holds more powers that you would like it to.

I'm sorry about that, but it doesn't mean Bush is a dictator.

_________________

You can't be serious. You're saying that the onus is on me to prove that no weapons of masss destructions were there? Uh, no. It's up to BUSH to prove they were there, like he said they were. Untill he does, I consider him to be a lier. And if you need proof that he said there were WMDs... well, what rock wre you living under for the last four years? He only repeated that claim every freeking day for a month leading up to the attack on Iraq. It was his bloody mantra at the the time.
Alright, here's something from the Dubya White House, dated October 7, 2002.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 007-8.html
It's a speach given my the Dubya himself. And I quote:
"Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."


Really? I don't remember Clinton, Reagan or any other president authorising torture, unlawfull detainment, spying on civilians and all the other holes Bush has torn in the Constitution. If you think what Bush is doing with his signing statement compares to what previous presidents did with it, you're completly misinfomed about the topic.
Here: stick this in your bush-loving head and chew on it.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... an?mode=PF
Do you get it now?
A signing statement is supposed to outline how the executive intends to follow the law, but Bush seems to be using it to efectively put an "But" at the end of the lanugage of the bill and then proceded to write/tack new law onto the end of the bill from there.
How is that not a dictator? He's just making up laws as he goes along, he can write whatever "Signing Statement" he wants and Congress can't do anything about it. If Congress passes a new law that overides his Signing Statement, he just overides that with a another Signing Statement.

For example:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi ... quirement/
Congress says: You're bound by the Patriot act. Bush says "No I'm not"
And lo, Bush was not bound by the Patriot Act.
Nobody passed any laws saying he's not bound by the patriot act. No law empowers him to grant himself imunity from the Patriot Act. He just said so, and so it is so.
How do your like your dictatorship so far?

_________________

Rose, is that you?

You're far too mocking and uncivil to discuss this with.

And lest you think I'm running away from the discussion, I've had this talk on other boards with adults. And it was a good conversation.

_________________

I don't get it, lahi - what have you against Sarge's argument? I think he's raised some valid points and drawn on vaild sources of info - minus the "Bush as dictator" comments (I'm leaving those as a matter of opinion).

But I agree especially with one point that Sarge made - the onus is fully on Bush to prove that there are WMDs in Iraq. Why? Because he declared war by using that asseration. And the fact that he hasn't offered that proof means that the entire basis for the Iraq War is faulty. That's my opinion, anyway.

Right and wrong. They do believe its justified, but for different reasons. they obviously believe strongly in something (I don't know what), or they wouldn't kill themselves over just no common sense. They were raised in a country in which the were taught to hate all Americans. And I must admit, from their viewpoint, it looks pretty bad. We invade their countrys, and bomb their lands (Japan). (And remember, this is fair thought not my complete and whole personal opinion) Also, when you don't live there, you look at a country as one whole, one thinking. There, of course, are people there who think differently about us there, its just most people don't think of it it like this.

_________________
Clicky:

I think that president bush is one of the worst presidents in history. Under his regime, thousands have died, other countries see us as disagreeable rednecks, who hunger for war and blood.

Yes, what the terrorists did were wrong. When they attacked us on september 11th, i was only in fifth grade. i may have supported the war back then, but i weep now. He has brought us very far from world peace. He sets educational standards, so kids succeed, but how many kids actually meet those standards.

i will be happy to see him leave when this term ends

_________________

Hmmm. Sounds like how the US has been seen for decades now. When do you propose this started? 2000?

_________________