|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Antisthenes
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 604
Location: Phoenix
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 11:08 am Post subject: |
    |
|
That's just it static labels only have as much power as we give them and as little power as we have in this age taken away from them.
because they only lead to dehumanization of individuals, all with equal dignity
therefor defusing them and broadening them past their historical hateful context, thus making them into popular culture(can't not NYC make any law in language that would ever stand up to a constitutional challenge), art and humor just highlights this that much more, so we as people can exert more control over the destiny of the humanistic project we are all involved in.
have a good day and don't take it the wrong way, Nigger is a work of brotherhood, solidarity, empowerment and a desire to overcome our condition, that of slavery to the new master, the corporation. towards success and progress bro.
_________________
The most necessary/useful piece of learning is that which unlearns what is untrue: 'evil'
may be acquired, Happiness through virtue which is based on knowledge!/? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1135
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Blazing Saddles
Jim "The Waco Kid" (Gene Wilder): "My name is Jim, most people call me... Jim."
Sheriff Bart (Cleavon Little): "Mornin', ma'am! And isn't it a lovely mornin'?"
Old Woman: "Up yours, nigger!"
Jim "The Waco Kid" (Gene Wilder) [consoling Bart afterwards]: "What did you expect? 'Welcome, sonny'? 'Make yourself at home'? 'Marry my daughter'? You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers... these are people of the land... the common clay of the New West. You know – morons." |
- Mel Brookes
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's Mel Brooks -- and a great movie ! Thanks for the forgotten quotes. . .
SDR
"Mongo straight. . .!"
"Mongo just pawn in Game of Life." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antisthenes
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 604
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
a message fron Nader and Gravel
| Quote: |
A Personal Message from Mike
March 26th, 2008 by Senator Mike Gravel
I wanted to update you on my latest plans before news gets out. Today, I am announcing my plan to join the Libertarian Party, because the Democratic Party no longer represents my vision for our great country. I wanted my supporters to get this news first, because you have been the ones who have kept my campaign alive since I first declared my candidacy on April 17, 2006.
The fact is, the Democratic Party today is no longer the party of FDR. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism -- all of which I find anathema to my views.
By and large, I have been repeatedly marginalized in both national debates and in media exposure by the Democratic leadership, which works in tandem with the corporate interests that control what we read and hear in the media.
I look forward to advancing my presidential candidacy within the Libertarian Party, which is considerably closer to my values, my foreign policy views and my domestic views.
|
| Quote: |
Prominent Constitutional law experts believe President Bush has engaged in at least, five categories of repeated, defiant "high crimes and misdemeanors", which separately or together would allow Congress to subject the President to impeachment under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. The sworn oath of members of Congress is to uphold the Constitution. Failure of the members of Congress to pursue impeachment of President Bush is an affront to the founding fathers, the Constitution, and the people of the United States.
In addition to a criminal war of aggression in Iraq, in violation of our constitution, statutes and treaties, there are the arrests of thousands of Americans and their imprisonment without charges, the spying on Americans without juridical warrant, systematic torture, and the unprecedented wholesale, defiant signing statements declaring that the President, in his unbridled discretion, is the law.
In 2005, a plurality of the American people polled declared that they would favor impeachment of President Bush if it was shown that he did not tell the truth about the reasons for going to War in Iraq. Congress should use its authority under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution to officially determine what President Bush knew before going to war in Iraq.
Your files and retrieval systems are bulging with over-whelming evidence behind all these five categories. When constitutional duty combines with the available evidence, inaction amounts to a suppression of that evidence from constitutional implementation.
When the Democrats were heading for a net election gain in 2006 in the House of Representatives, many observers of presidential accountability entertained the hope that the Judiciary Committee, with its new chairman, would hold hearings on an impeachment resolution. No way! The next backup was the belief that there would an impeachment inquiry (fortified by your own op-ed in the The Washington Post) No way! The next lowered expectation backup was just a hearing on impeachment urged by several of your present and former Congressional colleagues. So far, no way!
The fourth fallback was simply a hearing on the criminal and constitutional violations of Bush-Cheney by your Committee, as urged in a letter sent to you earlier this year by, among others, several of your former Congressional colleagues, including Senators George McGovern and James Abourezk, and Representatives Andy Jacobs and Paul Findley, along with Rocky Anderson, former mayor of Salt Lake City, and the undersigned. So far, no progress.
There is another option: do nothing. Since January 2007 - the politically expedient option of doing nothing has triumphed. Volumes can and will be written, about what can go down as the most serious abdication of impeachment responsibilities by a Congress in its history. No other president has committed more systemic, repeated impeachable offenses, with such serious consequences to this country, its people, to Iraq, its people and the security of this nation before, than George W. Bush. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and their colleagues had just these kinds of monarchical abuses and violations in their framework of anticipation.
Declarations by Bush on the somber occasion of the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq this past March 20, 2008 demonstrated his criminal, unconstitutional arrogance and his confidence that this Democratic Congress will continue to be cowed, continue its historic cowardliness, and continue to leave the American people without representation. Even should he unilaterally attack Iran. The Democratic Party has abandoned its critical role as an opposition Party in this and other serious matters.
In a January 6, 2008 op-ed in The Washington Post, former Senator George McGovern wrote an eloquently reasoned plea for the impeachment of George W. Bush. More than two out of three polled Americans want out of Iraq, believing it was a costly mistake.
Repeatedly during the past seven years, Mr. Bush has lectured the American people about "responsibility" and that actions with consequences must incur responsibility.
It is never too late to enforce the Constitution. It is never too late to uphold the rule of law. It is never too late to awaken the Congress to its sworn duties under the Constitution. But it will soon be too late to avoid the searing verdict of history when on January 21, 2009, George W. Bush becomes a fugitive from a justice that was never invoked by those in Congress so solely authorized to hold the President accountable.
Is this the massive Bush precedent you and your colleagues wish to convey to presidential successors who may be similarly tempted to establish themselves above and beyond the rule of law?
Is this the way you and your colleagues wish to be remembered by the American people?
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
|
_________________
The most necessary/useful piece of learning is that which unlearns what is untrue: 'evil'
may be acquired, Happiness through virtue which is based on knowledge!/? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good stuff. They're right, of course. There is a feeble (?) impeachment effort underway by Rep Robert Wexler (D, Florida), not even mentioned on his web page http://wexler.house.gov/ but promoted in a series of emails to interested parties. The fact that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has placed the subject "off the table" probably means the effort is doomed.
We, the Sheep of America, apparently welcome being led to slaughter.
SDR
_________________
"I'm the commander . . . see, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." GWB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antisthenes
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 604
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
have you read the Pirate Parties take on it all?
http://www.falkvinge.com/2008/03/why-us-is-collapsing.html
| Quote: |
I see the pirate fight as being against corrupt governments that systematically curtail civil liberties as the primary and only defense of a gigantic and growing financial bubble, built over four decades. A fight against a small elite that are literally killing people to be able to keep living in luxury without paying the bills for it. Some bloggers have called this Fascism 2.0. The entertainment cartels are just a small part of this bubble, and fascism is used here in its most lexical sense.
|
| Quote: |
This is what the pirate fight is about, in my eyes. Preventing fascism from spreading amongst corrupt administrations; defending civilization against the systematic curtailment of civil liberties in order to maintain a false image of prosperity and enrichen a self-serving elite. You could even say "defending democracy". The file sharing debate is but the symbol, but a very powerful symbol. Like the insignificant Belgian village of Waterloo, or the small overlooked Pennsylvanian town named Gettysburg. They, too, were important battlegrounds.
The US is already lost....
|
_________________
The most necessary/useful piece of learning is that which unlearns what is untrue: 'evil'
may be acquired, Happiness through virtue which is based on knowledge!/? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1135
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
and now there is yet another warning from Whitehall about the imminent risk of an American attack on Iran ......
it is being loudly reported that Gen. Petraeus intends to pretend to Congress that Iran is busy attacking America in Iraq. That would be used as the pretext to attack Iran.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antisthenes
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 604
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.1
2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."2
3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.3
4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."4
5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.5
6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.6
7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."7
8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.8
9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."9
10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.10
|
how about this liar?
_________________
The most necessary/useful piece of learning is that which unlearns what is untrue: 'evil'
may be acquired, Happiness through virtue which is based on knowledge!/? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cheney, others OK'd harsh interrogations
By LARA JAKES JORDAN and PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer
32 minutes ago
Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned.
The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved.
A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the meetings described them Thursday to the AP to confirm details first reported by ABC News on Wednesday. The intelligence official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the issue.
Between 2002 and 2003, the Justice Department issued several memos from its Office of Legal Counsel that justified using the interrogation tactics, including ones that critics call torture.
"If you looked at the timing of the meetings and the memos you'd see a correlation," the former intelligence official said. Those who attended the dozens of meetings agreed that "there'd need to be a legal opinion on the legality of these tactics" before using them on al-Qaida detainees, the former official said.
The meetings were held in the White House Situation Room in the years immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks. Attending the sessions were then-Bush aides Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
The White House, Justice and State departments and the CIA refused comment Thursday, as did a spokesman for Tenet. A message for Ashcroft was not immediately returned.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., lambasted what he described as "yet another astonishing disclosure about the Bush administration and its use of torture."
"Who would have thought that in the United States of America in the 21st century, the top officials of the executive branch would routinely gather in the White House to approve torture?" Kennedy said in a statement. "Long after President Bush has left office, our country will continue to pay the price for his administration's renegade repudiation of the rule of law and fundamental human rights."
The American Civil Liberties Union called on Congress to investigate.
"With each new revelation, it is beginning to look like the torture operation was managed and directed out of the White House," ACLU legislative director Caroline Fredrickson said. "This is what we suspected all along."
The former intelligence official described Cheney and the top national security officials as deeply immersed in developing the CIA's interrogation program during months of discussions over which methods should be used and when.
At times, CIA officers would demonstrate some of the tactics, or at least detail how they worked, to make sure the small group of "principals" fully understood what the al-Qaida detainees would undergo. The principals eventually authorized physical abuse such as slaps and pushes, sleep deprivation, or waterboarding. This technique involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning.
The small group then asked the Justice Department to examine whether using the interrogation methods would break domestic or international laws.
"No one at the agency wanted to operate under a notion of winks and nods and assumptions that everyone understood what was being talked about," said a second former senior intelligence official. "People wanted to be assured that everything that was conducted was understood and approved by the folks in the chain of command."
The Office of Legal Counsel issued at least two opinions on interrogation methods.
In one, dated Aug. 1, 2002, then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee defined torture as covering "only extreme acts" causing pain similar in intensity to that caused by death or organ failure. A second, dated March 14, 2003, justified using harsh tactics on detainees held overseas so long as military interrogators did not specifically intend to torture their captives.
Both legal opinions since have been withdrawn.
The second former senior intelligence official said rescinding the memos caused the CIA to seek even more detailed approvals for the interrogations.
The department issued another still-secret memo in October 2001 that, in part, sought to outline novel ways the military could be used domestically to defend the country in the face of an impending attack. The Justice Department so far has refused to release it, citing attorney-client privilege, and Attorney General Michael Mukasey declined to describe it Thursday at a Senate panel where Democrats characterized it as a "torture memo."
Not all of the principals who attended were fully comfortable with the White House meetings.
The ABC News report portrayed Ashcroft as troubled by the discussions, despite agreeing that the interrogations methods were legal.
"Why are we talking about this in the White House?" the network quoted Ashcroft as saying during one meeting. "History will not judge this kindly."
___
Associated Press writer Pete Yost contributed to this report. ©2008 AP
_________________
"I'm the commander . . . see, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." GWB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antisthenes
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 604
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
National Security Advisor Rice to the CIA: Torture “is your baby. Go do it.”
"Who would have thought that in the United States of America in the 21st century, the top officials of the executive branch would routinely gather in the White House to approve torture?" Kennedy said in a statement. "Long after President Bush has left office, our country will continue to pay the price for his administration's renegade repudiation of the rule of law and fundamental human rights."
"Why are we talking about this in the White House?" the network quotedAshcroft as saying during one meeting. "History will not judge thiskindly."
"With each new revelation, it is it is revealed that the torture operation was managed and directed out of the White House," "This is what we suspected all along."
_________________
The most necessary/useful piece of learning is that which unlearns what is untrue: 'evil'
may be acquired, Happiness through virtue which is based on knowledge!/? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cheney aide denies writing interrogation memos
By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer
Vice President Dick Cheney's top adviser on Thursday refused to claim any responsibility for the adoption of harsh interrogation methods following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks during a combative exchange with congressional Democrats.
David Addington, chief of staff to the vice president, said he merely responded, "Good, I'm glad you're addressing these issues," to the lawyer who wrote memos providing a legal basis for harsh interrogation techniques of terror suspects.
Addington appeared along with the lawyer, former Justice Department attorney John Yoo, before a House Judiciary subcommittee investigating the role of Bush administration lawyers in approving interrogation procedures. The tactics were far harsher than those traditionally used by the U.S. military.
The Associated Press learned in April that administration officials from Cheney on down signed off on the techniques after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality.
Addington denied several reports that he was involved in the drafting of a key memo that the Justice Department later rescinded. The August 2002 memo narrowly defined torture as resulting in "death, organ failure or serious impairment of bodily functions."
Addington said he attended a White House meeting during which it was discussed; he said Yoo outlined for him and the president's counsel at the time, Alberto Gonzales, the subjects he planned to address.
Addington also said he was more involved in CIA interrogation policies than those used by the Defense Department at its detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Addington was forced by subpoena to testify, and he told lawmakers they would have to subpoena him again if they wished him to return.
Addington gave hostile answers to the Democrats who control the committee but remained calm and relaxed, stroking his beard or resting his head on his chin, sometimes pausing for several seconds before giving an answer. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the New York Democrat who heads the subcommittee, told reporters he thought Addington was being smug.
Nadler asked Addington whether it would be legal in some circumstances to torture a detainee's child.
"I don't agree or disagree with it, Mr. Chairman. I don't plan to address it," Addington said. "I'm not here to render legal advice to your committee. You do have attorneys of your own to give you legal advice."
Yoo, a professor at the University of California-Berkeley, appeared voluntarily but repeatedly refused to answer questions, insisting the Justice Department had instructed him not to address a range of questions. When Nadler told him he would have to give a specific reason, Yoo struggled, whispering with his lawyers before finally saying he could not violate attorney-client privilege or reveal classified information.
The panel's Democrats grew increasingly irate, with several shouting at the witnesses.
"What is the answer?" Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the House Judiciary Committee chairman, yelled at Yoo. "You're wasting my time!"
At one point, Yoo debated the meaning of "implement" with Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., who asked whether the 2002 memo had been implemented.
"What do you mean by 'implement,' sir?" Yoo asked.
"Mr. Yoo, are you denying knowledge of what the word 'implement' means?" Ellison said.
"You're asking me to define what you mean by this," Yoo said.
"I'm not going to get into semantical games with you," Ellison said.
Eventually, Yoo said he didn't know whether the memo had been followed.
Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press.
_________________
"I'm the commander . . . see, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." GWB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WorldDesigner
Joined: 08 Jun 2008
Posts: 38
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | a message fron Nader and Gravel
Prominent Constitutional law experts believe President Bush has engaged in at least, five categories of repeated, defiant "high crimes and misdemeanors", which separately or together would allow Congress to subject the President to impeachment under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. The sworn oath of members of Congress is to uphold the Constitution. Failure of the members of Congress to pursue impeachment of President Bush is an affront to the founding fathers, the Constitution, and the people of the United States.
In addition to a criminal war of aggression in Iraq, in violation of our constitution, statutes and treaties, there are the arrests of thousands of Americans and their imprisonment without charges, the spying on Americans without juridical warrant, systematic torture, and the unprecedented wholesale, defiant signing statements declaring that the President, in his unbridled discretion, is the law.
In 2005, a plurality of the American people polled declared that they would favor impeachment of President Bush if it was shown that he did not tell the truth about the reasons for going to War in Iraq. Congress should use its authority under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution to officially determine what President Bush knew before going to war in Iraq.
Your files and retrieval systems are bulging with over-whelming evidence behind all these five categories. When constitutional duty combines with the available evidence, inaction amounts to a suppression of that evidence from constitutional implementation.
When the Democrats were heading for a net election gain in 2006 in the House of Representatives, many observers of presidential accountability entertained the hope that the Judiciary Committee, with its new chairman, would hold hearings on an impeachment resolution. No way! The next backup was the belief that there would an impeachment inquiry (fortified by your own op-ed in the The Washington Post) No way! The next lowered expectation backup was just a hearing on impeachment urged by several of your present and former Congressional colleagues. So far, no way!
The fourth fallback was simply a hearing on the criminal and constitutional violations of Bush-Cheney by your Committee, as urged in a letter sent to you earlier this year by, among others, several of your former Congressional colleagues, including Senators George McGovern and James Abourezk, and Representatives Andy Jacobs and Paul Findley, along with Rocky Anderson, former mayor of Salt Lake City, and the undersigned. So far, no progress.
There is another option: do nothing. Since January 2007 - the politically expedient option of doing nothing has triumphed. Volumes can and will be written, about what can go down as the most serious abdication of impeachment responsibilities by a Congress in its history. No other president has committed more systemic, repeated impeachable offenses, with such serious consequences to this country, its people, to Iraq, its people and the security of this nation before, than George W. Bush. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and their colleagues had just these kinds of monarchical abuses and violations in their framework of anticipation.
Declarations by Bush on the somber occasion of the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq this past March 20, 2008 demonstrated his criminal, unconstitutional arrogance and his confidence that this Democratic Congress will continue to be cowed, continue its historic cowardliness, and continue to leave the American people without representation. Even should he unilaterally attack Iran. The Democratic Party has abandoned its critical role as an opposition Party in this and other serious matters.
In a January 6, 2008 op-ed in The Washington Post, former Senator George McGovern wrote an eloquently reasoned plea for the impeachment of George W. Bush. More than two out of three polled Americans want out of Iraq, believing it was a costly mistake.
Repeatedly during the past seven years, Mr. Bush has lectured the American people about "responsibility" and that actions with consequences must incur responsibility.
It is never too late to enforce the Constitution. It is never too late to uphold the rule of law. It is never too late to awaken the Congress to its sworn duties under the Constitution. But it will soon be too late to avoid the searing verdict of history when on January 21, 2009, George W. Bush becomes a fugitive from a justice that was never invoked by those in Congress so solely authorized to hold the President accountable.
Is this the massive Bush precedent you and your colleagues wish to convey to presidential successors who may be similarly tempted to establish themselves above and beyond the rule of law?
Is this the way you and your colleagues wish to be remembered by the American people?
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
|
What happened to that Bush impeachment thing. Shows that bi-partisan polarities quickly favor the enemies of our interests. Are they playing one big game with us or what. By the time America wakes up, we will realize maybe the President is not really running the country dude. Who is really calling the shots when they can get away with stuff like that. So what for those high crimes then. Guess they aren't doing anything about those. Why is it we keep hearing, no way man, no way. So what is really going on in America, who knows. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antisthenes
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 604
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
protection of ill gotten privilege brought on my the past 270+ imperial wars usa has been involved in since the Louisiana purchase
_________________
The most necessary/useful piece of learning is that which unlearns what is untrue: 'evil'
may be acquired, Happiness through virtue which is based on knowledge!/? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antisthenes
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 604
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
protection of ill gotten privilege brought on my the past 270+ imperial wars usa has been involved in since the Louisiana purchase
_________________
The most necessary/useful piece of learning is that which unlearns what is untrue: 'evil'
may be acquired, Happiness through virtue which is based on knowledge!/? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
