freeztar Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 you will have to explain under what conditions the President is to give accountability to you. I'll just tackle this first sentence here. I would say that as The President of The US (as in us), he is accountable for every action. But since you desire explanation of what conditions the president is accountable to me, let me make a little list for you:*Falsely leading America into war*Ignoring Global Warming and even paying off staff scientists to falsify evidence*The Patriot Act (shudder)*Conflict of interests within the administration*Saying one thing, and then later saying something opposite (The Daily Show and The Colbert Report do a good job of exposing this) etc. etc. etc... The president should be the most accountable person in the country imo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 there is not much i can add to what i said to Freestar. the US is primarily a Christan Nation, claiming Christan values and living under the laws which have formed from that society. we also have as a fundamental understanding that religion and government should remain separate entities, just as i feel science and religion should be. whether duties either in personal life, the business community or our government are fine with me, so long as the decisions pertaining to the total are based in law. many people read their Bible daily. some pray daily and in some cases many times every day. they seem to accept life as a median from one existence into the next, where nothing but this acceptance is of importance. none of this i agree with as a way to live a life. the insinuation of the argument is that Mr. Bush as a Christan is trying to wipe out the Islamic Faith, or in some way protecting his Christan faith from the Islamic. i do not buy this under any scenario, nor would i entertain an argument with that idea... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 It surprises me to see you say... the US is primarily a Christan Nation, claiming Christan values and living under the laws which have formed from that society. and then follow it up with... we also have as a fundamental understanding that religion and government should remain separate entities, just as i feel science and religion should be. Obviously, your President does not think so. You have a Christian Fundamentalist for President, and he has chosen to use his office to spread his religion. But I guess this is simply rehashing the obvious... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 I'll just tackle this first sentence here. I would say that as The President of The US (as in us), he is accountable for every action. But since you desire explanation of what conditions the president is accountable to me, let me make a little list for you:*Falsely leading America into war*Ignoring Global Warming and even paying off staff scientists to falsify evidence*The Patriot Act (shudder)*Conflict of interests within the administration*Saying one thing, and then later saying something opposite (The Daily Show and The Colbert Report do a good job of exposing this)etc. etc. etc...The president should be the most accountable person in the country imo! 1-The war on terror, was and is being fought in Afghanistan. the war in Iraq was to enforce UN mandates which Saddam had ignored for many years. that war won, Saddam toppled and the aftermath, forming a viable government in progress. as for the war on terror going to Iraq, we don't have time for that..2-The Patriot Act, approved by Congress, was a formal declaration of powers in today climate, which the president had the powers to perform under many laws already in existence and involved many time in history.3-Not knowing which conflict, i would think the error was the Presidents *new tone* theme, not ridding government of the previous administrations people in total. individual heads, which were chosen by Bush, were chosen for there abilities and in general had long histories in area he chose them for.additionally any group of people, especially considering the events early in this administration are going to cause conflicts in decision, when the option to speak out is implied. many presidents never confer with there advisers until the problems are obvious.4-Now were going to waffling, instead of stubborn insistence. 5-I have said, Bush and his predecessor's all have used the media to convince the public of their viewpoints. this for political reasons or in some cases to force congressional opinion. in the US, we elect a person to perform duties and for a certain time period.the only obligation being to follow the rules, do whats been said will be done and protect our nation. to my knowledge, this has been done and since we cant get four more years from Bush and i see no person in the line up for 08, that will follow. any faulting of Bush has been in a *my way*, political disapproval or jumping on some hate band wagon with no apparent destination.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 It surprises me to see you say... and then follow it up with... Obviously, your President does not think so. You have a Christian Fundamentalist for President, and he has chosen to use his office to spread his religion. But I guess this is simply rehashing the obvious... yes its rehashing, but remember when running for his first term as president, even after running Texas for 8 years, the arguments were everything but that fundamentalist Christan. what he did for Texas had already been written in the books, with all thats suggested today just not there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 1-The war on terror, was and is being fought in Afghanistan. the war in Iraq was to enforce UN mandates which Saddam had ignored for many years. that war won, Saddam toppled and the aftermath, forming a viable government in progress. as for the war on terror going to Iraq, we don't have time for that.. Hmmm...I seem to remember something about WMDs which were never found.2-The Patriot Act, approved by Congress, was a formal declaration of powers in today climate, which the president had the powers to perform under many laws already in existence and involved many time in history. I don't question his authority to issue such an Act, but rather find him (and/or his administration) accountable for what the Act actually spells out. It's a moot point whether we agree or disagree with the Act's provisions as he is held accountable either way.3-Not knowing which conflict, i would think the error was the Presidents *new tone* theme, not ridding government of the previous administrations people in total. individual heads, which were chosen by Bush, were chosen for there abilities and in general had long histories in area he chose them for.additionally any group of people, especially considering the events early in this administration are going to cause conflicts in decision, when the option to speak out is implied. many presidents never confer with there advisers until the problems are obvious. Well, there's Texas Gold for one.4-Now were going to waffling, instead of stubborn insistence. What are you referring to? 5-I have said, Bush and his predecessor's all have used the media to convince the public of their viewpoints. this for political reasons or in some cases to force congressional opinion. Ok, what's your point?in the US, we elect a person to perform duties and for a certain time period.the only obligation being to follow the rules, do whats been said will be done and protect our nation. to my knowledge, this has been done and since we cant get four more years from Bush and i see no person in the line up for 08, that will follow. any faulting of Bush has been in a *my way*, political disapproval or jumping on some hate band wagon with no apparent destination.. The obligations you mentioned are not being met. Following the rules to me entails NOT ignoring scientific data on global warming, which btw, you failed to address as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFaithfulStone Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 the only obligation being to follow the rules, do whats been said will be done and protect our nation. follow the rules? Steeeeriiiike 1! do what he's said he'll do? Steeeeriiike 2! protect our nation? Steeeeriiike 3! He's out. No, wait - no he isn't. We must be playing cricket. TFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 The Bush Doctrine, primarily states that to harbor, fund or in any way sponsor terrorism will NOT be tolerated by the US government. if this statement is heading for that cliff, then were going over and you best fasten your seat belt. It would have been nice if Bush had followed the above Bush Doctrine you mentioned.While going after OBL in Afghanastan, he pulled away our focus and attacked a country that did not harbor, fund or sponsor Al quada (sp?) in any way.Sadam, although a terrible person who deserved to be over-thrown, actually kept Iran in check and didn't get along with any religiously controlled government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 Logic doesn't seem to work on the indentured minds of blind followers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 Infinite; i have opposed "no child left behind" or the education reform act itself, i have opposed the "new tone" premise or that the loyal opposition was indeed loyal, i have opposed the spending both by Bush (not vetoing) and Congress over the six years of his administration. More recently I have opposed "Immigration Reform" at least as written and said would be signed.I am concerned about many of the recent GW remedies which are being presented, even if offered as appeasements and I am not understanding the need to Veto "stem cell research". if I am a blind follower, then i have no idea how he was elected twice. Z; Terrorist activity, or if you prefer the governing promotion that; is the annihilation of Israel and all the Infidels regardless of location, can get very difficult to follow. Saddam, himself was probably not the total villain which we prefer to think he was, at least in his later years. the problem IMO, were his two sons, which were probably instrumental in his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.they would have taken over, probably sooner than thought and in many ways already were in charge. we have no idea what problems the future intended for Iraq would be, however i think the limited tolerance showed by Saddam, was or would have soon come to an end. TFS; i will not argue the strike, for "do what said will be done", but think you should put you glasses on on, for follow the rules and protect the nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFaithfulStone Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 but think you should put you glasses on on, for follow the rules and protect the nation. It is you sir who wears glasses. Of the rose-tinted variety! Dum, dum, dum! [that's supposed to be music] Seriously, how do you think "follow the rules" and "protect the nation" don't count in the examples I gave? TFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 Hmmm...I seem to remember something about WMDs which were never found.I don't question his authority to issue such an Act, but rather find him (and/or his administration) accountable for what the Act actually spells out. It's a moot point whether we agree or disagree with the Act's provisions as he is held accountable either way.Well, there's Texas Gold for one.What are you referring to?Ok, what's your point?The obligations you mentioned are not being met. Following the rules to me entails NOT ignoring scientific data on global warming, which btw, you failed to address as well. 1-WMD, was all we heard of, with a rare mention of the actual reasons... 2-Am not sure what the accusations are on misuse of the Patriot Act. if you answer, please also tell me which broken plan for terror, that we even know about, could have happened. 4-i am being told he refuses to modify and you tell me he reverses. IMO he holds to decisions once made, which should be the rule. whats the purpose if you decide something 10 times, with different solutions, maybe you will satisfy all the opposition. 5-obligation to inform, no. even a responsibility is not implied under law and he as all the rest have done so for political reason, just to be liked by some of the total. the *State Of The Union* speech is designed for this purpose and has not always been a public spectacle. now were getting to a reason; Global Warming as created by mankind, no doubt, which is another subject and will debate you anytime on any issue of the idea, but in that forum... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 It is you sir who wears glasses. Of the rose-tinted variety! Dum, dum, dum! [that's supposed to be music] Seriously, how do you think "follow the rules" and "protect the nation" don't count in the examples I gave? TFS in times of War, however defined the President, becomes secondary to the powers of the Commander In Chief. that is where the powers of the president are somewhat limited, the CIC are increased, as seen fit to protect the public. he has, as has is administration followed the rules, frankly not using the *executive powers* to there limits. many presidents have used such orders, not requiring congressional approval, even in peace time to achieve some political goal. since we as a Nation have not had a re-enactment of 9-11, even after being told a few times we will be, seems rather good evidence something is working. Cedars 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 I'd counter more of your points Jackson, but I'm afraid I'm beginning to suffer from "no supporting evidence" fatigue when reading your posts. When one who is blind asks you to shine a light at them, you can shine the brightest light and still get no response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 I agree with InfiniteNow. You have disregarded the evidence that has been presented, so it seems a futile discussion at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFaithfulStone Posted June 22, 2007 Report Share Posted June 22, 2007 Yes, I agree. Let's move on shall we? The issue at hand was this - Heartless plutocrat or jackbooted fascist? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller? TFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted June 22, 2007 Report Share Posted June 22, 2007 Yes, I agree. Let's move on shall we? The issue at hand was this - Heartless plutocrat or jackbooted fascist? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller? TFS I've already pointed out that your a commie. End of *discussion* unless otherwise, the there wanting of troops, or if it is really something else as in the negotiations of popular rule . Look, there's a Teredactyl!! :cocktail: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.