It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cheney, Bush and Blair Indicted

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies

Originally posted by djohnsto77
This story is so fake, it came up on ATS before and was promptly trashed as I'm sure this thread will be.

But just to point out two fallacies with this article:

1) Fitzgerald's grand jury is sitting in Washington D.C., not Chicago

2) It's impossible to indict a sitting President, the U.S. Attorney could only report to the House recommending impeachment

May this thread R.I.P. soon!



Other then the fact that it could be false, why would you want this thread to rip? Is it because it has everything to do with bush and cheney? Are you that much of a closed minded soul and their sheep, to dismiss anything that refutes other possible truths? What is your deal?

Back on topic, I would like to say that one day I do hope that something like this happens, I would like to see the old days become modern when dealing with treasonous individiduals who supposed to be held in high esteem for the honest jobs they are to do for the people, America is supposed to defend their country, not divide, not go into other countries on fallicious arguments of point of facts (lies). I remmeber when this war was up in the air, bush wanted to go into iraq because they had wmd and sadam was a threat to the world... I'm sorry but again, sadam wasn't a threat to the world or this country, bush sr, rumsfeld, and current bush were doing business with the man, despite the facts that he killed and gassed his own people, what about the people being slaughtered in sudan? What about the people being murdered by aristide in haiti?
All these guys are dangerous, but bush didn't do anything about them.. He's full of #, he went to iraq to pursue the plan that israel drew up 20 years ago, he went into iraq because halliburton and cheney wanted to line their pockets, he went to iraq because he wanted stay on course with the plan for global domination and his euphoric idea of a nwo with europe, so don't tell us to let this thread die in peace because this administration wants just that, to let the facts of all that I said die in peace so he and they (media and his associates) can continue down their path while telling us scary stories about the potential threats of islamic extremists..
neocon is a real world, pnac is a real organization, neo con can be put under the definition of extremism, I believe when they say another terrorist attack is plausible and goingt o happen, I just believe that they are the ones who are going to do it, andi believe they are going to get richer, more powerful, and dominating.. don't forget that megalomanic is also another word to describe the ilks of a person, a person is a person is a person and bush is a person he isn't a god so stop bending over and listening to everything he says as if it's the gospel truth. political parties are very dangerous and for this very reason and if you were as american as you want or claim to be I would say that you should know the warnings of your former president washington who warned the people of this very thing...



Absolutely .... Right on True




posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Yea Baby Hang them all, and Bu# is running away to the farm for 5 weeks, to clear shrub.




Federal Whistle Blower Claims Chicago Grand Jury Indicted Bush And Others For Perjury and Obstruction Of Justice; U.S. Attorney's Office Says 'No Comment,' Refusing To Confirm Or Deny Alleged Indictments
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the Valerie Plame-CIA leak has now spilled over into Bush administration lies involving 9/11 and the war in Iraq, according to sources close to the Chicago probe.
August 2, 2005

By Greg Szymanski

Snip~~

Although the U.S. Attorney’s office in Chicago is staying silent, it is well known that Fitzgerald is digging deep into an assortment of serious improprieties among many Bush administration figures based, in part, on subpoenaed testimony provided by former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

However, sources close to the federal grade jury probe also allegedly told Heneghen a host of administration figures besides Bush were also indicted, including Vice-President Richard Cheney, Chief of Staff Andrew Card, Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, imprisoned New York Times reporter Judith Miller and former Senior Cheney advisor Mary Matalin.

Heneghen, unavailable for comment and first reported by internet reporter Tom Flocco, allegedly also told sources White House Advisor Karl Rove was indicted for perjury in a major document shredding operation cover-up and that Prime Minister Tony Blair was also indicted for obstruction of justice charges.

Heneghen also claimed that Blair failed to honor a subpoena issued by Fitzpatrick and is now consulting with British legal counsel on how to avoid appearing in Chicago

www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com...

[edit on 4/8/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   
This has to be to good to be true! I am sure we will find it is not but it would help cleanse our image in the eyes of the world, and may get our country back on track...

Nothing so sweet could be true...



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I think if someone actually gets close to exposing this stuff, they'll either be ignored or killed, Hunter S. Thompson-style. We can hope, though.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   
As this is not a real story, (as Sauron admitted it was wishful thinking) but is a debate over whether Bush should remain in office, I will move it to PTS Slug Fest.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I did not say this was not a news story thank you very much, I said I could not find anything to back it up, and that it sounded to good to be true. Well here is a bit more.
I do not think the media will pick this up, but will run with nuke stories, and the Neo-Cons will put Amerika under Marshal Law.
ANd this is in the wrong forum.


True Bill for all


Bush & Co. Facing Prosecution
By Sherman H. Skolnick
www.cloakanddagger.de...
www.skolnicksreport.com...


12. One or more of the grand juries have concluded their probe and have voted True Bills, Federal Criminal indictments, against George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, "Scooter" Libby, Condoleeza Rice, and Theodore B. Olson; and several media people not previously mentioned in the monopoly press as implicated. Shown as unindicted co-conspirators are two Judges on the U.S. Supreme Court, William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia, who are among the Gang of Five also in Bush versus Gore.
Because of the horrendous consequences involved, the Indictments are suppressed and there may be an extended delay until they appear on the Chicago Federal Court open records.

13. The substance of the details in this story have been confirmed to us as being true and correct by high government officials, with spotless records, of the U.S., Canada, and Europe.

14. To distract from the impending release of the indictments and the naming of the unindicted co-conspirators, the Bush White House has caused deadly rumors to circulate.

Such as, that the FBI is tracking in the District of Columbia and elsewhere that certain supposed "terrorists" have suitcase dirty nukes ready to set off in D.C.

Such as, that Bush will declare Martial Law and suspend Habeas Corpus, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Such as the U.S. will be wracked with financial and domestic anarchy as Bush seeks asylum in Brazil, or Australia, or elsewhere overseas.
MORE COMING. STAY TUNED.
Link




Chicago Grand Jury Fingers President Bush & Vice-President Cheney
Cloak and Dagger RADIO-NEWS Bulletin 1:53 EDT August 2ND

Listen Windows Media player



[edit on 6/8/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Truelies,

Are you against this war now? As far as I know, about a month ago, you were for the removal of Saddam, and supported putting an end to the brutalities that he commited. Did you change your mind? I remember at first you were against it, then for it, you've got me REALLY confused! I read your post that was just a week or two ago where you were defending Bush. Are there TWO truelies? A friend using your account? You made a post a month ago saying that you had lost your password....

On the thread!

How immature... And isn't there something in the ATS guidelines about posting knowingly false information? Just accept the fact that Bush won the election, and move on! He's going to do what he's going to do, and frankly immature Bush-bashing isn't going to solve anything. He's removed a mass-murderer from power, killed or captured over 75% of the taliban and al qaeda leaders, caused Iraq and Afghanistan to hold elections where many of the participants were WOMEN, who were once persecuted in that society and STONE TO DEATH for being RAPED. Are you perhaps following the ideology, (I'll quote from Pirates of the Caribbean
) "Even a good decision made for the wrong reason can become a wrong decision..."? Anyway, we've been over this millions of times, so I don't even know why I'm bringing it up...



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 03:48 AM
link   
May I begin by politely reminding everyone to watch the one liners. I am by no means petty enough to send any of them to the complaint forum, but it would be a nice gesture on everyone's part to elaborate on their sentiments and post something of value when they choose to post. Otherwise it's really just wasted bandwidth, isn't it?
Anyway, on to the issue.

This is simply the Democrats following the Republican's lead in stooping to an alltime low when it comes to partisan dirty tactics. There is much to learn about this situation from Clinton's military misadventures (particularly Kosovo) and the Lewinsky Scandal.

What is at stake here is a lot bigger than Bush's detractors imagine. I'm no fan of the man myself. He's done me no favors as a union man who believes in the 40 hour week, or as a former Marine who (justifcation aside) feels that he has mismanaged the war in Iraq in a way detrimental to the future viability of our forces, especially our reserve forces. What you need to realize however is that this is way way bigger than getting somebody out of office. This is about that stability of American governments.

Bush is being pilloried primarily because he failed. The lies aren't the whole thing. The failure is what really makes him so unpopular. If we were pulling down our troop strength right now and had a stable Iraqi security force doing most of the work, Bush would be popular right now. The History Channel just a couple months ago was praising the hell out of FDR for keeping the American people in the dark as he lead them steadily down the path to war.

So the question is this: Are we going to hunt for a crime of some kind to justify impeachment every time an American politician fails? I submit to you that if we continue down that path, we're going to see an impeachment once every 8-12 years for the rest of the forseeable future. America will never be able to take a difficult but necessary path ever again, because the leaders will know that if they screw up and their popularity falls, they'll be out on their butt. Shall we become like other nations who regularly experience coups? Make no mistake, impeachment is our constitutional panic button to prevent revolution- it is our peaceful means of revolution. Are you ready for a revolution every time somebody screws up?

What about Clinton? He screwed up. He lied and people died. He said that half a million Kosovar Albanians were feared dead. The official NATO body count ended up being 2,788. Better yet, NATO openly admitted that it might have been responsible for up to 1,500 of those! Not only that, but he came dang close to pushing us over the edge with the Russians in that little dust up. After that Gorbachev blamed Clinton for "reversing the strategies which ended the cold war".

But Clinton wasn't impeached for that, nor should he have been. The fact of the matter is that the United States has to take decisive action on a host of issues, some of them military, and as a function of international politics it can not be honest about it's motives. To heck with the American people- we can't anymore stop our president from going to war if he told the truth than if he told a lie which he is bound to be caught in just a few months down the road. We're not the ones really being lied to in many cases. The fact of the matter is that it is other nations whose support we need or want who are being lied to for the most part.

So we have a choice to make. Are we so petty and partisan that we will seek to impeach and possibly subsequently imprison every liar and failure in our government? We haven't even mapped out our order of succession far enough to accomodate such a decision. We'd end up with a city councilman from Bumsville, Idaho in the oval office because he'd be the last man standing when the liars and failures were purged from our government.

Those who would support an indictment of President Bush (if there in fact were one) are taking the lead of their Republican adversaries from the Lewinsky fiasco and agreeing to lead this country down a path that will ruin our government, and if taken to its extreme would eventually be quite likely to lead to the outbreak of open civil war at some point.

I think we are facing a real possibility that the next time one party controls both houses of congress by any strong margin while the other party holds the White House, there will be two successful impeachments, leading to the installation of the Speaker of the House as president. Then there will be a Supreme Court ruling on the need for new elections, and ultimately there may very well be violence in the streets, if not war at that point.

This is a vindictive, dangerous, and childish approach to politics and it's bad for America. If Bush should be outed over lying about Iraq, he should have been outed during the elections.
Now you're going to scream election fraud. You've got two options: prove it in a court of law and get him impeached for THAT (which would be justified) or shut up.

edit for typo

[edit on 8-8-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Well it seems this little none / Fake story is getting around the WWW.


Sunday morning on line editions of Newsweek and Time are reporting that the President is planning to fire Chicago's U.S. Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and replace him with a Bush classmate/Skull and Bonesman from Yale.


Fitzgerald


Following on the heels of these reports, we have learned from U.S. intelligence sources that federal agents are prepared to immediately arrest Mr. Bush if he fires Fitzgerald and seeks to obstruct justice and commit additional treasonous acts regarding ongoing grand jury proceedings against his administration and himself.
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...




has anyone seen the Newsweek article that was to be in print yet?
From The Raw Story
Newsweek's Michael Isikoff will splash a story in tomorrow's Newsweek which reveals that the boss of CIA leak probe prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is likely to be replaced by a former Bush classmate at Yale.
What's more, Newsweek has found that the new boss is a fellow initiate of the Yale secret society, Skull and Bones. Details will appear on the magazine's website early Sunday and on newsstands Monday.
Link



From Citizen Spook
TREASONGATE: White House Indicted? - US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE "ISSUES" OFFICIAL COMMENT




Chicago Grand Jury Fingers President Bush & Vice-President Cheney Cloak and Dagger RADIO-NEWS Bulletin 1:53 EDT August 2ND

Listen Windows Media player




Is the Fix In (in Plamegate)?

The new boss will also be in a position to overrule any decision by Fitzgerald to issue indictments.

The position we're talking about is Deputy Attorney General, currently held by the widely admired James Comey, who is leaving for private practice.

Fortunately, the Deputy Attorney General position requires Senate approval.




Judith Miller's Dirty Little Secret
Notice how Judith Miller and Karl Rove have miraculously vanished from the headlines. No one wants to dig deeper into this pit – because the snake’s head can only end up devouring the snake’s tail.

In Washington, they all know Judith Miller’s dirty little secret. Miller is a senior neo-con propagandist. If she goes down, she won’t go down alone. She will take the paper of record and Sulzberger with her. Her intimate relationships with Ahmed Chalabi, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, AIPAC, and the American Enterprise Institute are all part of the public record.

Miller coordinated her work with the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon, an outfit set up by Wolfowitz and Feith and tasked with fixing intelligence to make a case for war. Judith Miller is pleading the fifth to avoid confessing to the prominent role she played in launching weapons of mass deception at the American people.




Also see: From The Truth Seeker

Bush & Co Facing Prosecution?

U.S. Attorney's Office Says 'No Comment,' Refusing To Confirm Or Deny Alleged Indictments

Bush and Cheney Indicted?

Tony Blair's MI-6 Agents Caught Trying To Blow Up Chicago Subway


[edit on 8/8/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Looks like nobody wants to play with me
Can't say that I blame them. It's hard to talk about something when somebody shows you that you're wrong. It happened to me once, I feel your pain.

But really now, intelligence services ready to arrest Bush? Does the term "Coup D'etat" mean anything to you. That's what it would have been called if this had happened when Clinton screwed up in Kosovo, and rightly so, because that's what it would be.

Surely somebody will step out from behind the news articles and try to weigh in on the morality/wisdom of this course of action. Won't they?

[edit on 8-8-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   
With all due respect, this is an issue of US Politics. There is an investigation going on with a sitting grand jury. It goes from Plamegate back to 9-11 as the Flocco story suggests.

There has been much confusion regarding the Chicago tie-in. Fitzgerald has been doing much of his leg work out of his Chicago office AND at the same time, he is investigating the governor of Illinois. Its all very convoluted and Fitzgerald, to his credit, has not been one to leak. So, there is so much speculation going on, this could very well fall into the category of Political Conspiracy. I do believe it should be at home in US politics as it applies to an investigation of members of the current administration.

I feel pretty confident of one thing, a "terror attack" will occur or Fitzgerald will be canned before any indictment is leveled at Bush or Cheney. They may throw Rove or Scooter Libby to the dogs, however.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Looks like nobody wants to play with me
Can't say that I blame them. It's hard to talk about something when somebody shows you that you're wrong. It happened to me once, I feel your pain.

But really now, intelligence services ready to arrest Bush? Does the term "Coup De'tat" mean anything to you. That's what it would have been called if this had happened when Clinton screwed up in Kosovo, and rightly so, because that's what it would be.

Surely somebody will step out from behind the news articles and try to weigh in on the morality/wisdom of this course of action. Won't they?


I will, I don't know if all this hype is true, it sure sounds like a good book, I have not found the Newsweek or the Times articles yet. So no MSM has picked this stuff up yet. So I don't know, I do know it's only me here on ATS and if I go down in flames oh well
it won't be the last.

[edit on 8/8/2005 by Sauron]

I stole this but it describes my thoughts on this articles and links

I post this but note: the powers that be are growing increasingly concerned over the independent Internet and, in an attempt to discredit it and reduce its growing influence, are starting to disseminate false reports. The reports above may be such, or they may not be



[edit on 8/8/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Have you all been hearing the rumours that a terror attack will occur here in the states sometime this month? It could very well have to do with wiping this whole Fitzgerald mess away. I mean, who's gonna worry about some silly investigation when "al Qaeda's" just loosed a nuke or two on American cities?



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Have you all been hearing the rumours that a terror attack will occur here in the states sometime this month? It could very well have to do with wiping this whole Fitzgerald mess away. I mean, who's gonna worry about some silly investigation when "al Qaeda's" just loosed a nuke or two on American cities?


There is a very good chance of this, and where is G.W. back down on the farm out of the way. Another attack I think would put US.inc under Marshal law and the rule of King George W II.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
There is a very good chance of this, and where is G.W. back down on the farm out of the way. Another attack I think would put US.inc under Marshal law and the rule of King George W II.


Exactly. Any and all speculation of holding BushCo. to account for its myriad crimes would forever be put to rest.

On an even more chilling note, I have heard speculation that Bush himself may be a target (by this ruthless cabal). Afterall, if you think about it, Bush is nothing but a liability for them and he's hardly in charge. Full command would fall to Cheney (and his Neo Con PNACers) and America would be so traumatized by the loss of the president, I highly doubt anyone would dare make noise about it. The coup would be complete.

Tecumseh's curse is still in effect, too. I'm not into superstition, but I do think its interesting to ponder b/c of the history of it.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   
If it goes as far as we're speculating now, rest assured that I'll be among the first men to fire a shot in defiance, but for now it's just speculation.
With the hard evidence we have in hand at the moment, we're still just looking at a liar, a failure, and a business criminal. Not necessarily a "king george".

So long as that remains the case, I maintain that he's in the same lot as Bill Clinton, Bush 41, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Roosevelt, Hoover, Harding, and perhaps even as far back as "His Accidency" John Tyler or Andrew Jackson depending on how you view their careers in their separate historical contexts.

For as long as this remains the case, I still think removing a president, even a god awful one, especially at this juncture in our nation's evolution, is very dangerous.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Two questions:

1. How would it be dangerous (any more than Nixon's)

2. Did you support Bill Clinton's impeachment?



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   
I tried to answer this last night but somebody saw fit to bug the hell out of me so that I couldn't.

1. As I have been saying at some length (and as I am preparing to debate in a grudge match with memoryshock in the near future) America has gone down a very dangerous road, starting with the Clinton impeachment, and the ability of our government to act strongly on any given issue is in peril if we make it a habit to impeach every liar and failure that comes along. An impeachment is a congressional coup, a bloodless revolution, our nation's safeguard against the need for an armed uprising. It's a serious and inherently destabilizing move, and it's coming into vogue as just another partisan tactic.

Being a liar, or experiencing failure simply isn't reason enough- every president runs a high risk of impeachment by that formula, and in fact I believe that at the rate we are going we could see a real live partisan coup next time congress and the white house are held by different parties. Imagine that- The president and VP impeached to install the Speaker of the House when the people have chosen the other party. That would be unjust, that would be a coup, and we are building up to it, building the will and precedent for it.
As I have said, if an unconstitutional power grab is made. or if there is clear evidence that crimes have been committed which go far beyond the scope of what has been common to politicans for years, as I mentioned in that list of less scupulous presidents, thats a whole other issue and impeachment could be justified. But when we get down to brass tacks right now, we're talking about impeaching Bush because he lied and because he screwed up in Iraq. Without that, the people would not be against him heavily enough to make impeachment realistic. Like I've said, if you impeach failure, America can't hold a stready course, and America can't take the hard but necessary paths anymore, because future presidents will know that if they fail, their out. There's more to politics than partisanship. The future of our government is at stake.

2. To be brief, considering that I was 15 at the time and kids form some pretty half-baked opinions sometimes, I'd rather not answer that. Suffice it to say that I've considered the Clinton impeachment a petty partisan circus for several years now.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Herman
Truelies,

Are you against this war now? As far as I know, about a month ago, you were for the removal of Saddam, and supported putting an end to the brutalities that he commited. Did you change your mind?



Duh, of course... I got thinking about the removal of Saddam, and why they didn't do it during the gulf war, why did they wait until after 911 to get him out? He gassed his own people when bush sr was in office, rumsfeld and then were even doing business with them, they didn't see him as a threat to this country after he gassed his own people with what we're told is wmd. If they cared so much about ending the brutalities that he commited they would of taken care of him after the fact, not wait years and years to do so and then make a connection with him after 911. It doesn't make sense. The more I question, and the more I have unanswered questions the more, I read, research, and ponder... Is that ok with you?



I remember at first you were against it, then for it, you've got me REALLY confused!


I'm human, not a zombie sponge head.



Just accept the fact that Bush won the election, and move on!


Typical conditioning response... How many of you use that as an objection?
It's not about that, but your brain wouldn't understand.




Anyway, we've been over this millions of times, so I don't even know why I'm bringing it up...



Because you want to be right and get people to believe in your beliefs.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies

Duh, of course... I got thinking about the removal of Saddam, and why they didn't do it during the gulf war, why did they wait until after 911 to get him out? He gassed his own people when bush sr was in office, rumsfeld and then were even doing business with them, they didn't see him as a threat to this country after he gassed his own people with what we're told is wmd. If they cared so much about ending the brutalities that he commited they would of taken care of him after the fact, not wait years and years to do so and then make a connection with him after 911. It doesn't make sense. The more I question, and the more I have unanswered questions the more, I read, research, and ponder... Is that ok with you?


Well let's see. Bush sr. did go after Saddam during the gulf war, and for reasons nobody really knows, we didn't go through with removing him. Maybe Bush knew something we didn't, maybe Saddam threatened to nuke the U.S, who knows! But many of the attrocities committed were committed during Clinton's times, and I think we all know why Clinton didn't want to try to remove him... Also, there were U.N. sanctions put on Saddam that were supposed to keep him in check. Whether or not those were working were under seriously speculation. George Tenet, a CLINTON appointee, called it a "Slam dunk case" that Saddam had WMDs. So Bush took office. Less than a year after he took office, the 9/11 attacks took place. Why didn't he remove Saddam BEFORE the attacks? There's a bunch of possible reasons. 1.) Maybe it was just too early in his presidency to do anything that drastic. Another reasons is that maybe he knew that not enough people would support him. Bare in mind, this is coming from someone who's not 100% pro-Bush. (I'm not after all. I support him, but I do recognize he's a politician, and he's done wrong things just like all the other politicians most likely). So after 9/11 happened, we started going after all terrorist groups that were very likely involved in the WTC attacks. While chasing Bin-Laden, they realized that Saddam maybe have a link to the same organization that was behind the world trade center bombings. After further investigation, and a so-called "Slam dunk case" he decided it would be appropriate to go into Iraq, based on 3 reasons (Or possibly more). Destroying the al qaeda, removing Saddam from power because he's an evil, murderous dictator, and finding the WMDs. This is a war on terror, not just a war on the Taliban. Specifically, he's targeted Iraq because that's a central area where there's a lot more than just one thing going on. And now we're learning that Iran has been selling Nuclear weaposn to Iraq... Hmmmmmmm...

(God that was a lot longer than I intended to make it.




Typical conditioning response... How many of you use that as an objection?
It's not about that, but your brain wouldn't understand.


Eh..that wasn't directed at you, but thanks for hurting my brain's feelings. That was directed at all of the people who are still obsessed with the "Bush cheated" thing, because some conspiracy sites have worked out a way that it could have possibly happened, and even though REAL investigators have already looked into it and determined that it didn't.





Because you want to be right and get people to believe in your beliefs.


Because this is a political debate board
.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join