Declassified Intel Trends

[Fishu]

Yeager & Co.

Ahh, the dreaded defaming tactic... ignorance rules.

[Mightytboy]

Originally posted by Fishu
Yeager & Co.

Ahh, the dreaded defaming tactic... ignorance rules.

Just like your tactics against Bush?

[Yeager]

no defame, just want you accusers to put up something that could stand in court rather than just running off at the mouth like you know what your talking about.  Im honestly looking for more than just talk.  Talk is cheap.  Put up or shut up.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Fishu
Me too, I'd like to see G.W. Bush in jail, he's committed many other crimes before leaking this document.

believe me, if they could the dems would have locked him up and thrown away the key ...
the truth is they can't as he has not broken any laws ...

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Yeager
no defame, just want you accusers to put up something that could stand in court rather than just running off at the mouth like you know what your talking about.  Im honestly looking for more than just talk.  Talk is cheap.  Put up or shut up.

It's not worth my time to every time put up something that could stand in court, which would be eventually put down by a reason or another, without much more than just the talk. Been there done that.
Therefore it's easier to stay at the same level with the opposition - all they have is talk, so why should I do more?

Besides, Bush's actions have been discussed so many times that people on this board should already know what he's done wrong.

Secret jails around the world (mainly in europe and middle east), Guantanamo..

That's just for starters. Why should I dig up rest of his crimes, when one category of crimes is sufficient to have him jailed; if the justice would be in working order.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Eagler
believe me, if they could the dems would have locked him up and thrown away the key ...
the truth is they can't as he has not broken any laws ...

Why hasn't the congress required him to explain his actions?
There was a great fuzz over Clinton's adultery, but the congress doesn't care if Bush is restricting the freedom of people without charges in Guantanamo and in an unknown number of secret jails around the world, which of only few co-operating countries are known.

The congress hasn't either cared to inquire from Bush where's the WMD and terrorist camps of (pre-war) Iraq. No victims were caused by Clinton's adultery (except for the spent sperm cells), but couple thousand american lives lost in Iraq and many more permanently wounded.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Fishu
Yeager & Co.

Ahh, the dreaded defaming tactic... ignorance rules.

But you weren't defaming our president? I agree with the ignorance rules part though.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by lukster
But you weren't defaming our president? I agree with the ignorance rules part though.

Depends on how you take it. I didn't simply claim that he's a tard because I say so, but referred to his own actions which have been discussed over and over again. I don't really feel the need to every time put up several pages of his actions and the proofs of the wrong doings (just to be put down in a way or another simply with the talk.. been there done that!).

I've even proved the fact that whatever you put up here will be put down by talk. Most notably by the people who WANTS you to put up the evidence. It was few years ago and after I proving it twice I didn't care to repeat myself over and over again over generally known issues. I chose to test the 'put up' thing by putting up facts that CAN'T be denied; yet it was denied by simple talk and attempts of defaming.

[john9001]

clinton lied under oath to a grand jury.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by john9001
clinton lied under oath to a grand jury.

Yes, but that's not the point, but what happened BEFORE he was put into the position where he lied.
Bush hasn't been put into the situation, so there hasn't even been a chance to get him caught of a lie under oath. Although there's really no need to have him caught of a lie to have him sentenced.

Money & power talks and BS walks.. I suppose. I don't think there has been a single american charged of war crimes in a court, but few have been wanted for war crimes. H. Kissinger for one, who could be arrested if he'd travel to europe. Americans are highly uncooperative when it comes to handing over accused war criminals and they generally lack the will to charge the accused war criminals themselves. Only some very low level scape goats have been accused of war crimes in the US, and when pressed into it.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Fishu
Yes, but that's not the point, but what happened BEFORE he was put into the position where he lied.
Bush hasn't been put into the situation, so there hasn't even been a chance to get him caught of a lie under oath. Although there's really no need to have him caught of a lie to have him sentenced.

Money & power talks and BS walks.. I suppose. I don't think there has been a single american charged of war crimes in court, but few have been wanted for war crimes. H. Kissinger for one, who could be arrested if he'd travel to europe.

Uh, good question. What exactly did happen before? You do know that this whole thing with Monica Lewinsky wasn't about whether he had sex with her right? It started based on accusations by others of sexual assualt.

Bring charges against Bush in your court and see how far it gets ya.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by lukster
Bring charges against Bush in your court and see how far it gets ya.

I don't think I could as a foreigner. Besides I don't have the money to feed the poor lawyers. I'm not a plaintiff either.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Fishu
Why hasn't the congress required him to explain his actions?
There was a great fuzz over Clinton's adultery, but the congress doesn't care if Bush is restricting the freedom of people without charges in Guantanamo and in an unknown number of secret jails around the world, which of only few co-operating countries are known.

The congress hasn't either cared to inquire from Bush where's the WMD and terrorist camps of (pre-war) Iraq. No victims were caused by Clinton's adultery (except for the spent sperm cells), but couple thousand american lives lost in Iraq and many more permanently wounded.

well ya know when we are attacked, we get slightly P.O.'d.
Thought the media and the dems may seem to be making big noise over the bs you stated above, the majority of us don't give a rats arse what happens to those in gitmo and we'd rather have or army pop them in iraq than have their greasy camel humping arses show up on our shores.
looks to be working too:
al-Qaida in Iraq: 4,000 Insurgents Dead

[Shifty]

Originally posted by Fishu
Yes, but that's not the point, but what happened BEFORE he was put into the position where he lied.
 

OMG . Give it up.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Eagler
we'd rather have or army pop them in iraq than have their greasy camel humping arses show up on our shores.
looks to be working too:
al-Qaida in Iraq: 4,000 Insurgents Dead

Indeed a great way to tackle the terrorism problem by first creating majority of the insurgents as a result of own actions and then declaring the large body count as a success in the war on terrorism.

Too bad there's 40 times more to kill, and after that there'll be another 40 times more to kill.