Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/26/07 08:39 PM, Dre-Man wrote: LOGICAL?! HE FUCKING HAS IGNORED THE CONSTITUTION THROUGHOUT HIS PRESIDENCY, YET ACCUSING HIM OF WRONGDOING IS ILLOGICAL?!

I don't give a fuck what Congress did, they're just as wrong as he is. But that doesn't give him a liable alibi.

Are you totally ignoring what we're saying? Whether Bush has violated the Constitution or not, until the Supreme Court rules on it, it's not illegal! You can't charge someone with something that is not a crime! It is illogical to keep asserting that Bush should be charged with a crime based on his actions under PATRIOT while that law is still considered legal. And until the courts declare it unconstitutional, it will continue to be considered legal.

At 3/26/07 11:37 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: And until the courts declare it unconstitutional, it will continue to be considered legal.

LOL! That's bullshit and you know it. An unconstitutional bill is an unconstitutional bill, regardless of whether the Supreme Court says something about it. Sheesh, you've entirely lost the concept of the American mindset. You let the government tell you what's right and wrong. That's the problem with our government today, the citizens ALLOW it to do whatever the hell it wants.

At 3/26/07 11:35 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

Bull feces. The only thing that matters is that he passed a bill ALLOWING unwarranted phone taps. And I find it hilarious that when you get proven wrong that you don't even admit it, and then just move on to the next retarded comeback.

Despite you not proving your assertions.

Rubbish, they gave that power to Bush, unconstitutionally,

Not according the constitution, since the constitution allows congress to give him that power.

If you get caught going 120 down the highway with a speed limit of 75 mph, with three other guys, and you're the one who gets caught, does it suddenly make it okay just because other people were doing it? NO!

I'm trying to give you a picture on how all of these people can get away with your supposed opinion.

How did they all get away with it?

I want you to show me that power in the Constitution. Now. Otherwise, stfu.

I figured you would know oh so all knower of the constitution.

Here ya go

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States"

another page

"The President, however, is just as clearly made the Commander in Chief of all of the armed forces, in Article 2, Section 2. In this role, the President has the ability to defend the nation or to take military action without involving the Congress directly, and the President's role as "C-in-C" is often part of the reason for that."

How about another?

Not really. Because they're about to cross the 2nd revolution line. America has BECOME 18th century Great Britian.

Yes, because, we're in as much turmoil as the 60's and Vietnam.

He seems to have 'overlooked' the "LAW of the land" with quite of the few of the bills he's signed and passed during his time in office. And considering that 2 out of 3 Americans can't recite the 1st amendment, the fact that they elected him doesn't add much credibility to your argument.

It's not up to them. And considering Congress can recite the first amendment, and they gave Bush the "go ahead" and considering they're professionals, i'd rather go by what they say than you.

lol. This has nothing to do with Bush physically torturing someone now does it?

You're the one who said it.

At 3/27/07 12:01 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/26/07 11:35 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

Bull feces. The only thing that matters is that he passed a bill ALLOWING unwarranted phone taps. And I find it hilarious that when you get proven wrong that you don't even admit it, and then just move on to the next retarded comeback.

Despite you not proving your assertions.

Sure, so proving you to be incorrect about the Constitution wasn't proving my assertions about both your ignorance and Bush's breaking of the law?

Rubbish, they gave that power to Bush, unconstitutionally,

Not according the constitution, since the constitution allows congress to give him that power.

Bull. Again.

If you get caught going 120 down the highway with a speed limit of 75 mph, with three other guys, and you're the one who gets caught, does it suddenly make it okay just because other people were doing it? NO!

I'm trying to give you a picture on how all of these people can get away with your supposed opinion.

Wut?

How did they all get away with it?

Because the American people don't know shit about their rights or their country, and you're a prime example.

I want you to show me that power in the Constitution. Now. Otherwise, stfu.

I figured you would know oh so all knower of the constitution.

Here ya go

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States"

Wtf does that have to do with Congress giving the executive branch the right to declare war on a foreign nation?

another page

"The President, however, is just as clearly made the Commander in Chief of all of the armed forces, in Article 2, Section 2. In this role, the President has the ability to defend the nation or to take military action without involving the Congress directly, and the President's role as "C-in-C" is often part of the reason for that."

That has nothing to do with declaring war, that Article states that the President overrules Congress when it comes to military strategy and planning, not declaring war.

How about another?

Not really. Because they're about to cross the 2nd revolution line. America has BECOME 18th century Great Britian.

Yes, because, we're in as much turmoil as the 60's and Vietnam.

Once again... wut? Unrelated.

He seems to have 'overlooked' the "LAW of the land" with quite of the few of the bills he's signed and passed during his time in office. And considering that 2 out of 3 Americans can't recite the 1st amendment, the fact that they elected him doesn't add much credibility to your argument.

It's not up to them. And considering Congress can recite the first amendment, and they gave Bush the "go ahead" and considering they're professionals, i'd rather go by what they say than you.

Precisely. You allow the government to do what it wills because you trust in its better "judgement". Well, guess what, their judgement is going to destroy your freedom and everything the United States stands for.

lol. This has nothing to do with Bush physically torturing someone now does it?

You're the one who said it.

No, not really. I said nothing of the sort.

At 3/27/07 12:09 AM, Dre-Man wrote:

That has nothing to do with declaring war, that Article states that the President overrules Congress when it comes to military strategy and planning, not declaring war.

It also say "military action". Iraq is not a war. See the connection?

When did I say Iraq was a war? I said Iraq was a military action, which the constitution clearly gives the president the power of doing. Which I have proven.

Well, because i've proven my point, I hereby declare this discussion, over.

At 3/27/07 12:15 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/27/07 12:09 AM, Dre-Man wrote:

That has nothing to do with declaring war, that Article states that the President overrules Congress when it comes to military strategy and planning, not declaring war.

It also say "military action". Iraq is not a war. See the connection?

Again, when you take aggressive action against a foreign nation, you ARE declaring war. Quit mincing words.

When did I say Iraq was a war? I said Iraq was a military action, which the constitution clearly gives the president the power of doing. Which I have proven.

BUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSHIT.

Well, because i've proven my point, I hereby declare this discussion, over.

Right... the only thing you've proven is that you don't know a flying fuck about your government.

At 3/27/07 10:53 AM, Dre-Man wrote: Again, when you take aggressive action against a foreign nation, you ARE declaring war. Quit mincing words.

The last official war we were in was WW2. The rest have been military actions.

At 3/27/07 11:17 AM, Freemind wrote:

At 3/27/07 10:53 AM, Dre-Man wrote: Again, when you take aggressive action against a foreign nation, you ARE declaring war. Quit mincing words.

The last official war we were in was WW2. The rest have been military actions.

That's pathetically stupid. I'll quote myself again. "When you take aggressive action against a foreign nation, you ARE declaring war." I suppose that if Russia came over to the U.S. becuase they 'supsected' us of having nuclear weapons, and to free us of President Bush's 'regime' it would simply be a military action?

At 3/26/07 11:41 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 3/26/07 11:37 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: And until the courts declare it unconstitutional, it will continue to be considered legal.

LOL! That's bullshit and you know it. An unconstitutional bill is an unconstitutional bill, regardless of whether the Supreme Court says something about it. Sheesh, you've entirely lost the concept of the American mindset. You let the government tell you what's right and wrong. That's the problem with our government today, the citizens ALLOW it to do whatever the hell it wants.

You are obviously a moron. It doesn't matter whether I think a law is wrong. It doesn't matter whether you think a law is wrong. Until someone takes it up for judicial review, it remains legal. You cannot charge someone with a crime until what they're doing has been declared a crime. If we had it your way, the justice system would be in chaos.

I think PATRIOT is unconstitutional. But I know that there's no basis for prosecuting anyone for following it unless it is DECLARED unconstitutional. The opposite is also true: if you violate an unconstitutional law, you can still be charged with a crime until that law is overturned. Andrew Johnson was put through impeachment proceedings for violating a law which was soon declared unconstitutional. His impeachment was completely justified in legal terms.

Impeaching Bush would have no legal justification at this point in time.

If the law was administered according to the kind of mindless, impassioned pseudo-logic you practice, it wouldn't be justice at all.

At 3/27/07 11:43 AM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 3/27/07 11:17 AM, Freemind wrote:

At 3/27/07 10:53 AM, Dre-Man wrote: Again, when you take aggressive action against a foreign nation, you ARE declaring war. Quit mincing words.

The last official war we were in was WW2. The rest have been military actions.

That's pathetically stupid. I'll quote myself again. "When you take aggressive action against a foreign nation, you ARE declaring war." I suppose that if Russia came over to the U.S. becuase they 'supsected' us of having nuclear weapons, and to free us of President Bush's 'regime' it would simply be a military action?

Not according to our terminology. Only congress can declare war, and the last time congress declared war was December 8th, 1941 on Japan.

At 3/27/07 01:35 PM, Freemind wrote: Not according to our terminology. Only congress can declare war, and the last time congress declared war was December 8th, 1941 on Japan.

Precisely, which is why every single war since December 8th, 1941 has been an unconstitutional one.

At 3/27/07 02:19 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 3/27/07 01:35 PM, Freemind wrote: Not according to our terminology. Only congress can declare war, and the last time congress declared war was December 8th, 1941 on Japan.

Precisely, which is why every single war since December 8th, 1941 has been an unconstitutional one.

You sir are the dumbest person I've met on the BBS.
But do go on so I shall never stop laughing.

We have a constitution to protect our rights, not Johnny Jihad's.

How is every war unconstitutional? Us telling Saddam to knock his shit off or we're gonna spank him? We didn't attack without warning and we had probable cause. It would stand up in court since it's an American "crime" by American laws so Americans would be on the jury. I guarantee an unanimous verdict.

At 3/27/07 03:58 PM, Eoewe wrote: We have a constitution to protect our rights, not Johnny Jihad's.

How is every war unconstitutional?

Because congress didn't declare war.

Us telling Saddam to knock his shit off or we're gonna spank him?

What shit? Bush and Cheney lied about the WMD's PURPOSELY to get us to go over there.

We didn't attack without warning and we had probable cause.

What probable cause? Tell me what we found over there that was of any threat to the United States whatsoever.

It would stand up in court since it's an American "crime" by American laws so Americans would be on the jury. I guarantee an unanimous verdict.

If I do recall correctly, a President lying to the American people automatically deserves an immediate removal from office.

At 3/26/07 05:48 AM, Eoewe wrote: Clinton should have been shot. Anyone else would have been fired if they got caught screwing on the job. Why should he get away with making the entire American population look like shit?

Why should Bush?

At 3/27/07 04:17 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 3/27/07 03:58 PM, Eoewe wrote:

Because congress didn't declare war.

According to the War Powers Act of 1973, all a president needs to authorize force is the approval of congress, and another aproval after 60 days. This was given both times.

If I do recall correctly, a President lying to the American people automatically deserves an immediate removal from office.

Perjury is only an impeachable offense under oath. Every president has lied outside of oath, and all will lie. It's human nature.

At 3/27/07 04:43 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 3/27/07 04:17 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 3/27/07 03:58 PM, Eoewe wrote:

Because congress didn't declare war.

According to the War Powers Act of 1973, all a president needs to authorize force is the approval of congress, and another aproval after 60 days. This was given both times.

Now, Penguins, why did you have to come in here and start using logic and precedent?

At 3/27/07 04:43 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: According to the War Powers Act of 1973, all a president needs to authorize force is the approval of congress, and another aproval after 60 days. This was given both times.

The War Powers Act of 1973 was unconstitutional.

Perjury is only an impeachable offense under oath. Every president has lied outside of oath, and all will lie. It's human nature.

And all who lie should be punished.

At 3/27/07 04:46 PM, Dre-Man wrote: The War Powers Act of 1973 was unconstitutional.

It has not been proven so in court, even though the legislative veto part of it has been voided. In fact, I believe it only requires a single authorization within 60 days, not an initial one, and Congress provided that.

Perjury is only an impeachable offense under oath. Every president has lied outside of oath, and all will lie. It's human nature.

And all who lie should be punished.

Only if a lie is worth punishing should it be punished. When a President celebrates Christmas with his young child, should he be punished to telling the kid that Santa Claus left presents?

And what constitutes a lie? A lie can be told intentionally, when one is aware of the facts, or told through ignorance, when certain information was not available. How do you differentiate between the two situations?

At 3/27/07 04:46 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 3/27/07 04:43 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

The War Powers Act of 1973 was unconstitutional.

Do you have the Supreme Court legislation that says so. Like a case proving to be unconstitutional.

You also realized that the War Powers Act was to give more power back into the hands of Congress and is completelly legal and unconstitutional.

And all who lie should be punished.

Of course, because it's possible to catch them and write laws saying that your no longer allowed to lie.

At 3/27/07 04:57 PM, Draconias wrote:

At 3/27/07 04:46 PM, Dre-Man wrote: The War Powers Act of 1973 was unconstitutional.

It has not been proven so in court, even though the legislative veto part of it has been voided. In fact, I believe it only requires a single authorization within 60 days, not an initial one, and Congress provided that.

Proven in court doesn't mean shit to me when it's bluntly obvious.

Perjury is only an impeachable offense under oath. Every president has lied outside of oath, and all will lie. It's human nature.

And all who lie should be punished.

Only if a lie is worth punishing should it be punished. When a President celebrates Christmas with his young child, should he be punished to telling the kid that Santa Claus left presents?

Stating that Santa Claus exists in order to make your child behave so that he'll get lots of presents, and stating that Iraq has WMD's in order to attack and take control of the country for no good reason are two entirely different things, my friend.

And what constitutes a lie? A lie can be told intentionally, when one is aware of the facts, or told through ignorance, when certain information was not available. How do you differentiate between the two situations?

Sooo... even though he was wrong, we're going to stay in the country anyway, even though we know that they weren't a threat?

At 3/27/07 05:00 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 3/27/07 04:57 PM, Draconias wrote:

At 3/27/07 04:46 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

Proven in court doesn't mean shit to me when it's bluntly obvious.

And your not the government, in the government nor are you in any way related to the government. And likewise, your interpretetion is different then the one that the Supreme Court has, which, if you remember your balance of powers, is one of thier jobs.

Stating that Santa Claus exists in order to make your child behave so that he'll get lots of presents, and stating that Iraq has WMD's in order to attack and take control of the country for no good reason are two entirely different things, my friend.

And who is to decide what counts as a lie, are we to write legislation for each individiual instance of a lie, or are we going to generalize and fuck people over.

Or, are we going to infringe on the cival liberties of an individual, or the fact that Bush used evidence from the CIA that said they had WMD's. Now, we know that the evidence isn't valid, so should Bush be punished for something he though was true.

Sooo... even though he was wrong, we're going to stay in the country anyway, even though we know that they weren't a threat?

Yes, because we fucked over a peolples way of life and started a civil war, I think we ough it to them to try to fix it.

At 3/27/07 05:05 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Yes, because we fucked over a peolples way of life and started a civil war, I think we ough it to them to try to fix it.

Which was Bush's plan in the first place.

At 3/27/07 05:11 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 3/27/07 05:05 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Which was Bush's plan in the first place.

Of course.

He wanted to lose massive support from the American people, Congress and the international community.

He wanted his power to become unsupported and lost Congress to the democrats.

He wanted his country to rack up 3,000 causalties and a massive deficit.

It's all so clear now.

At 3/26/07 03:38 PM, lunas2 wrote: im glad people side with me Bush is one of the worst Presidents in history
i think the only people Bush can be compared with is the Nazis

On behalf of the president, I would like to thank you for contributing to the contrast between Bush and Hitler.

At 3/27/07 05:13 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Of course.

He wanted to lose massive support from the American people, Congress and the international community.

He wanted his power to become unsupported and lost Congress to the democrats.

He wanted his country to rack up 3,000 causalties and a massive deficit.

It's all so clear now.

To be frank, he just didn't give a fuck. And he still doesn't give a fuck. If he did. We would have been long gone.

At 3/27/07 05:14 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 3/27/07 05:13 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

To be frank, he just didn't give a fuck. And he still doesn't give a fuck. If he did. We would have been long gone.

Yes thank you. Your detective skills are quite noted in your pyschoanalysis of George W. Bush.

We thank you again.

At 3/26/07 11:41 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

LOL! That's bullshit and you know it. An unconstitutional bill is an unconstitutional bill, regardless of whether the Supreme Court says something about it. Sheesh, you've entirely lost the concept of the American mindset. You let the government tell you what's right and wrong. That's the problem with our government today, the citizens ALLOW it to do whatever the hell it wants.

well you can't be punished for following the law, no matter how right or wrong that law is. if they repealed the laws against murder, and i killed someone, then they reenacted the laws, they wouldn't be able to touch me, thanks to Article 1, Section 9 of the constitution I removed the irrelevant parts.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. meaning congress cannot pass a bill affecting people negatively, such as a death sentence, fine, or anything of the such, and they cannot pass a law, then punish you for breaking it before it was passed.

GW bush did the wiretappings under the patriot act, which made it legal, unless he continued to do it after it was repealed, then he is an innocent man, and you know it.

in law there is no room for emotion.

At 3/27/07 05:52 PM, Korriken wrote: in law there is no room for emotion.

Quite, the reason I think Bush should be removed from office is becuase I've had a longstanding bitter hatred for him since the day I was born.

At 3/27/07 06:03 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 3/27/07 05:52 PM, Korriken wrote: in law there is no room for emotion.

Quite, the reason I think Bush should be removed from office is becuase I've had a longstanding bitter hatred for him since the day I was born.

you made my point perfectly. thanks.