Arrest Bush and Chenney

[Arcadia]

oh... it became a long thread!!!!!! let´s talk about the Bildenbergs, si?

[tonyc]

Ah yes, the Bildenbergs, si. everybody knows its the Illuminati and members of the Trilateral Commission whose really behind this, and lets not forget the Jews who financed the whole thing.

[stilltrucking]

You mean bush is a jew too . I knew about FDR and LBJ, but not Bush. Say it aint so tony.

[tonyc]

Yes, I'm sorry to inform you, Bush is a goddam Jew!!!!

[stilltrucking]

Hard to believe he seems so normal, a regular guy.

Don't worry about the jews

Iran got a missile that can take out Dallas

Is being a communist still a capital offense in texas>

don't mean nothing does it

just something to fight about.

Keep looking I am sure you will find what you are looking for

Everything on the net these days

a virtual hell

[tonyc]

stilltrucking

Hard to believe he seems so normal, a regular guy.

Yeh that's why he can't say a sentence without that sickening stutter or why he's a pathological liar, with homocidal tendencies.
Yup a real everyday Joe...

Iran got a missile that can take out Dallas

Really? That goes along with that drone with a nuke on it headed for New York...it must be true, Bush the Jew said so..

[stilltrucking]

Oh you heart NY?

Take I-30 East.

How do you arrest a former president? Where do you charge him with crimes, in federal court? Congresss?

[Nazz]

Tell ya what , I'll debate how I wish and I'll allow you to do the same.

Tony C's "debate" method in this thread: Label anyone who disagrees with his premise re: Bush as a "Bush worshipper". Yeah, call it "debate". Call it anything you want. Call it "Daryl Strawberry" if you wish.

Oh wait, I get it. It's satire, right? Never mind. My apologies.

I akways enjoy meeting great authorities and debate experts.

You're welcome.

[tonyc]

stilltrucking

How do you arrest a former president? Where do you charge him with crimes,

Ask Saddam or Nixon, they can tell you all about it.
I'm sure there must be a way to hold king George accountable for the millions of deaths he caused by his pack of lies for money and oil.
Come on man, he's only a dictator and a king, not God.

[stilltrucking]

But I asked you

where did you go Tony C

I never see you post here anymore

[Nazz]

Okay, I changed my mind. I say we go after these vermin. I'll sign the petition. And one for the Lizard people too if you got it.

Tony does raise a good point re: we should be able to "walk and chew gum at the same time"-- ie, prosecute and continue to fix things. But consider this: Obama needs a bipartisan effort to some extent to continue fixing things as he sees fit, and prosecution of the aforementioned neo-CON scum might jeapardize that bipartisanship. We kicked a lot of those GOP lock-step partisan A-holes out of DC, but there still remain quite a few of them. That could be one reason Obama is showing restraint at this point in time. Either that, or he's in on the whole thing too!

Seriously though, the Lizard people need to be dealt with.

[XPress]

As to specific comments earlier, here are my thoughts:
XPress:

Yes, Bush was an odious man, and he did a lot of things that are quite inexcusable, but as I hinted above, the Bush family has been notorious for over 100 years, so it's not like people weren't forewarned, and Bush was re-elected, in 2004, so it's not like, having made an initial "mistake", America didn't do it again... Like I said, people get the President they deserve.

Yeahbut... it remains unclear to many of us if either election victory was legit, particularly 2000. And even if you get past that there was that little matter of Bush and Friends lying their asses off to get us into an unnecessary war, which basically "got their foot in the door"-- don't change horses in wartime and all that.

Maybe in 2000 it can be argued the election wasn't legit (although we are arguing over tiny percentages, so even if it wasn't legit he had a fair whack of the vote anyway) but in 2004 it can't really be argued, as Bush got 286 electoral votes, with 50.7% of the popular vote, to Kerry's 251, with 48.3%, so even if you knock out Diebold's inconsistances (and I'd be inclined to, which idiot appointed a firm, with 'political' backers?), you'd still find Bush winning.

As for the rest...

Caveat emptor springs to mind.

They say, although I'd personally dispute it, that the position of President of the United States of America is the most powerful position in the world.

So, therefore, when electing a person to such a position, are people not beholden to do their homework first?

If I told you, that if you sent me $100 I'd send you a diamond as big as my fist, would you send me $100 today?

& if you did send me a $100 today, and you didn't get that diamond, would at least some of the people you know not laugh at you, and call you a fool?

Most people wouldn't even part with $100, before doing their homework, yet thy'll elect a president on the back of some spin, or gossip.

Sure, Bush lied, I doubt there's been a President that's served who hasn't lied, or spun, or commited some questionable action, but that makes it even more essential to do your homework, and even less acceptable to use it as an excuse.

I'll repeat what I've said several times, no one is saying Bush is a saint, and shouldn't be accountable for his actions, but how can we possibly expect this NOT to happen again, when people refuse to accept their part in it?

If I was running a company, and you kept taking $100's out of my cash register, to send to some guy offering you diamonds as big as his fist, I don't care if you thought you were doing it to profit the company, or not, I'm not only going to want to see Mr Diamond dealt with, but I'm also coming after YOU!

XPress:

Even those that voted "against" him can't exactly claim to have clean hands, I mean, with his record, what sort of opposition was needed to beat him in 2004?

What sort of opposition could have realistically beaten them, given the magnitude of their lies and circumstance? What kind of an argument is that?

What sort of opposition could have beaten him?

A credible one, that set out, and demonstrated, the facts, and showed why he was not the right man for the job, and that they were.

What kind of an argument is that?

A logical one.

Maybe I'm young, and idealistic, or maybe I'm just a fool, but I always figured that, having done my research into the candidates, and what they had to say, that I'd register my vote for the one who had most honestly presented the best case for election, and that a combination of my research, and the available facts in front of me, should lead me to avoid electing someone with no integrity, and no honor.

Again, as I pointed out above, the Bush family skeletons started falling out the closet 100 years ago, so it's not like the truth wasn't there to be found, if people wanted to find it.

I can also use google to find plenty of blogs, articles, and videos, etc., pre-2004 that make the case quite admirably, against Bush, so enough evidence and facts were there, that a credible opposition could not only make their case, but also prove it.

The fact that they clearly didn't speaks volumes, and shows that there was no credible opposition, but had their been...?

Bush's satisfaction rating is no secret, the majority of people never liked him, so it's clear that virtually any credible opposition could have beaten him.

XPress:

How many people, between 2000 and 2004, drove home in their GM car, fuelled on Exxon gas, paid for from their Bank of America account, to their home, got inside, openned the FedEx parcel that had arrived, checked the answer phone, on their AT & T line, cracked open a Budweiser, turned on their General Electric light bulb, switched on their TV, watched a Time Warner show, or a Disney DVD, before turning on their computer, with it's Microsoft operating system, and coming online to bitch about Bush?... Because everyone who did one, or more, of the things above, contributed to Bush's campaign. That's a lot of people to arrest...

I don't consider myself a failure, but I fail to understand what this has to do with anything. Seriously.

Well, I thought it was quite simple, Tony was calling for the arrest of Bush, and all his supporters, that little 'story' names and shames many of those supporters, as they were amongst his biggest financial backers, and therefore, anyone who backed them, were indirectly backing Bush.

It sort of reminds me of the stuff I read about South Africa, and sanctions and stuff, now I wasn't around back then, but the way I heard it, in response to the outrages of apartheid, many countries adopted trade and financial sanctions and a significant amount of foreign investment was withdrawn from South Africa.

After the adoption of sanctions, South Africa experienced economic difficulty and numerous domestic actors commented on how the economic situation was untenable and required political change.

By 1994, Nelson Mandela had been elected President of South Africa. He and other black leaders attributed to economic sanctions a significant role in bringing about the democratic transition.

Now, again, forgive me if I'm young and idealistic here, and via that a little on the naive side, but had everyone removed their custom and trade from GM, Exxon, Bank of America, AT & T, et al., in protest at their support of a known liar, and a man they considered criminal, might GM, Exxon, Bank of America, AT & T, et al., maybe considered removing their support from Bush too?

I mean at the end of the day these big corporations are about one thing, and that's making a profit, and with no consumer base that's impossible to acheive.

So, had someone really been of a mind to, after having researched the facts, and come to the obvious conclusion that Bush was not the most perfect choice for President, they could have supported a credible opposition, and removed their patronage from his backers, which, if enough other people had also done, would have surely lead to those backers removing their support from Bush, which would have left Bush with no supporters, no money, no campaign, no platform for his lies, and in all probability, un-elected.

Of course, we're not talking about something as monumental as $100 here, so I can understand why nobody bothered to do their research, or actually form an effective opposition, or take direct action, to stop his reign, so I guess, because it's all so trivial, we should just blame Bush, and no one else should take any responsability, for the whole mess?

I'll remember that next time, and there surely will be a next time, and a next time, and a next time, until people learn that you do truly get the President you deserve, because a President can't be elected without YOU.

[stilltrucking]

Seriously though, the Lizard people need to be dealt with.

So who deals with it. How is a former president charged with high crimes or treason after he leaves office. What immunity does he have. Who brings the charges, where is the trial held in a federal court or the senate?

I can't seem to find any answers to this. In any case it is a process that could take years. I am sure Obama can chew gum and walk, but not so sure about Harry Reid.

[Nazz]

As for the rest... Caveat emptor springs to mind.

I'm not saying the voters don't need to do their homework and be accountable for their vote. They do. I was all over the net in 2003-04 trying to get people to do just that. Just out of curiosity, since I recall reading that you lean Republican, if you'd been allowed to vote in 2004, which candidate would you have chosen according to your own homework?

Your thinking on this point is logical. Perhaps too logical. You're neglecting the ominous psychological terrorism perpetrated by the Regime in its "Global War on Terror". If there's a bogeyman with a nuke in his briefcase behind every rock, then a lot of voters will figure "better safe than sorry" and not change horses in the middle of the stream.

What sort of opposition could have beaten him? A credible one, that set out, and demonstrated, the facts, and showed why he was not the right man for the job, and that they were.

Well, I thought Kerry's position on Iraq's fraud was laid out fairly clearly. But again, when the lies are as gargantuan as they were and the deep-seated psycho-terrorism of unabashed fear politics is in play, all bets might be off.

Well, I thought it was quite simple, Tony was calling for the arrest of Bush, and all his supporters, that little 'story' names and shames many of those supporters, as they were amongst his biggest financial backers, and therefore, anyone who backed them, were indirectly backing Bush.

Oh I see. I missed that aspect of Tony's position. I think a lot of it might just be hyperbole though.

Now, again, forgive me if I'm young and idealistic here, and via that a little on the naive side, but had everyone removed their custom and trade from GM, Exxon, Bank of America, AT & T, et al., in protest at their support of a known liar, and a man they considered criminal, might GM, Exxon, Bank of America, AT & T, et al., maybe considered removing their support from Bush too?

That sounds a little unrealistic to me, though in theory arguable I suppose.

[tonyc]

Bush could be indicted by Iraq
http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-index.htm
or indicted by the United States
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/prosecutorstatement
or charged in a International War Crimes Tribunals
http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm
http://www.beyondintractability.org/ess ... tribunals/
These are just for starters, let me know if you need more.