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.

 

It's been all over TV

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
tower seven was brought down by controlled demolition. until the government can prove that a building can do that under ANY amount of damage, without explosives, the government and the media are guilty of a cover-up.


I believe in America, you would be required to prove the building was brought down that way. "Innocent until...." means that the burden of proof to show guilt is required.

Again, you are prejudging the government and the media with your statement...yet God forbid that you should be prejudged in any way by those same groups.


oswald didn't kill kennedy.

the rich get rich through war and oppression.

there is nothing new under the sun.


More broad sweeping statements because you "just know", right? Well then if you "just know" guilt, then Bush could also "just know" guilt regarding Iraq then.

Why is it ok for you to have that logic and attitude, but if he does that...he's a nazi? More hypocritical thinking in my book.


...you guys would rather tonguelash people for wanting to change it, than admit that there is a problem.


Not at all. By all means change things please. But just like Bush shouldn't change things by breaking rules...same applies to you. You claim he breaks the Constitution with an unjust war and with the recent spying tactics, and yet you will also break the Constitution by prejudging him to be guilty without a trial.

What amazes me is you see nothing wrong with that.


clearly people who are whisked away in the middle of the night and held indefinitely without trial and tortured have had their god-given human rights violated. (SOME are AMERICAN!)


Torture has not been proven and you were not there. Most people in prison say they are innocent too, and I imagine you believe that. The governement gets away with a technicality that it is a "war" and so those people are the "enemy" and don't have the same rights as others.

How do you plan to change that? By taking someone else's rights in return, so once again...it makes you no better then the enemy.


to instantly turn that around, and say, oh yeah, you can't do that to the president, 'cause you got no proof, hypocrite is a little simplistic, and indeed HYPOCRITICAL. you say it's alright to do it to 'terrorism suspects'. i say it's not right to do it to anyone.


But yet you ARE doing it by proclaiming his guilt without trial.


i clearly took a stance. EVIDENCE first, and then, ARREST, and then TRIAL. it's a revolutionary take on justice, these days. that is not hypocritical.


Yet you allow no evidence or trial before proclaiming guilt? That's not hypocritical?



all the quotes i gave are evidence, for example. not nearly enough to close a case, but still would be considered evidence in a court of law.



A court would take "Bush was reading a book upside-down" or a lame dictator joke as evidence? I suggest you file a case then if you think so. Funny how not a single attorney (or senator, etc) in the USA has come up with such a simple plan for change.


what happened? was it put into an evidence locker? no. it was JUDGED, and DISMISSED. this tactic serves to take the attention off the actual problem(corporate nepotism), andfocus it on people who are concerned about the actual problem('conspiracy theorists' and 'liberals'.


If it was dissmissed, then that is the law and we should abide by that. In your perfect world we wouldn't kill civilians because that is wrong and America is supposed to be better than that. In this case however, you're willing to drop your morals and break the Constitution because you simply don't agree or don't like someone.

Like I said...it seems Bush just might have disliked Saddam and you have a huge problem with that, yet you can do the same thing and feel ok about it.


i am not america's saviour, and there is no burden of proof on me for anything. anyone who thinks i need to prove something, can sue me and take me to court.


Now THIS is classic.


Bush is just the President, Leader of the Nation and he's human. There is no burden of proof on him and anyone who thinks so can just sue him and take him to court.

Oh no. That doesn't sit well with you and that is just plain wrong because "you know" he is guilty. Once again...ok for you but not for him. Hypocracy lives!


i also find it rather darkly humorous that it is up to me to prove bush guilty, when he is admitting guilt(illegal spying). now, it's not about guilt. the argument has shifted to how much evidence i have. i don't know. maybe a confession is less accurate if it's not tortured out of you on some legally invisible nightmare island.


Well, then where is the congress and why are they not holding him accountable if they could? Are they all guilty of being in the cabal then or are there nuances to the situation that we don't know? I thought people knew that NSA listens in on phone conversations. They have been doing it for years, Clinton did it, well before 9/11 and it goes back to the 70's.

If they have the proof and a "confession" then why is it not being followed? When you have the goods on someone, they hold no power over you so what's the fear?




posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
and I'M the hypocrite!? HAHAHA! i at least, do not condone crime.


Yes you do. You condone taking someone's rights away and proclaiming guilt, yet your upset that Bush has effectively done the same thing. That is hypocritical.

I don't condone everything that has been done, but I also don't condone believeing heresay and speculation as fact and pronouncing someone guilty. From a moral standpoint...that makes you no better than your enemy.

As for the rest of the "hate, hate americans...all evil brainwashed nazis" diatribe, well...that's where you lost me.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
it is you who is not listening, and twisting what i say.

i say there is EVIDENCE(not proof) against bush.
you say i have pronounced him guilty. i have not. i have ACCUSED him of being guilty. if i was bush, or any other NWOer, bush would be in abu gharib without a trial. you are okay with that.
you keep turning it around, and calling me a hypocrite because i see evidence of crime, and am accusing the person i see as the most likely suspect. (this isn't actually completely true. i feel bush is about as 'guilty' as a buick in a hit and run. the man's an idiot, incapable of intricate subterfuge. )

and yet, i have sent noone to prison without trial. bush has.
i have tortured no one. america under bush has. (proven, admitted, tried, photographed, written up in media.....oh right. that's not 'proof')

c'mon. you're real good with words. you should be able to tell the difference between 'accuse' and 'pronounce guilt'.

speculation about why nobody is doing this in congress or court or elsewhere is proof of nothing. and speaking of the air of authority, how about when it is filled with us military grade anthrax? how much would ANYONE want to breathe that air?

i say the measured collapse rate of tower seven is the rate of acceleration due to gravity in a vacuum (as illustrated on the 911eyewitness video, if you want to see the proof). the proof is there. coincidentally, it is the piece of evidence most blatantly, and most often, ignored by those who 'believe'(quotes for people who are willing shills of the grift) the government is not lying. most people don't even know a third tower fell. talk about lousy news coverage.




[edit on 6-1-2006 by billybob]



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
(typed by me, hence, no caps. sorry.)



as burckhardt saw, machiavelli stands at the gate of the modern age, divorcing technique from social purpose. thenceforth the state was free to develop in accordance with the laws of mechanics and 'power politics'. the 'state as a work of art' becomes unified in accordance with the laws of power for the sake of power.

-marshall mcluhan, the mechanical bride, copyright 1951, beacon press



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   
If the information at this site is true, then Bush's fascist policies really are taking hold. God forbid!

Link

~Jammer+



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Which one of Bush's policies are facist, maybe right wing, but facsism is the farthest right wing you can be. Its ultra-nationalism. Like when Hitler was in power he believed Germans to be the master race. I dont see Bush proclaiming anything of the sort, that blonde hair and blue eyes make you superior, or that Americans are the best in the world. It also is a system of government that has absolute power, so how in any way are Bush's policies facist?



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
The definition of fascism includes much more than holding a race superior over another you know...
Just wanted to make sure



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
While our leadership has always secretly broken its own rules, Bush has done it right out in the open. He didnt do it behind our backs to make the country safe. He came right out and said "I did it, and I will continue to do it." Its this blatent, outspoken disregard for our laws by leadership that needs to be addressed. I think most of us Americans understand that Uncle Sam is not honest with us all the time, but we hold hope that it is for our own good. We obey like good sheep.
This time I think they are rubbing it in our faces.
Nah nah nah, you cant stop us!

You see it as "blatent, outspoken disregard for our laws" and you want the gov't to make you feel better by doing it behind your back?

Well, guess what. Maybe GWB believes that what he is doing is the right thing for the country. I can't say for sure, because I'm not inside his mind. But for someone to openly "break the law" ( your interpretation, btw ), he must be ascribing to one of two beliefs:
1. He is so arrogant that he thinks no force can stop him, even though what he is doing is totally wrong, or
2. He sincerely believes that what he is doing is the right thing, and perfectly legal under his interpretation of the law.

Bush has brass cojones, so, while he is capable of 1, it is, imo, not in his heart to do so.

The second option sounds much more like Bush, imo.

On another topic:

from billybob
all the stupid slip-ups(when liars tell the truth by accident) i pointed out, you just waved away as being your interpretation of them.

all of them.

and no, it wasn't "planes AS missiles", it was "planes AND missiles".


Have you ever done much public speaking? If you have, I daresay it was probably in front of a friendly audience, and you were speaking on topics you knew well and had time to prepare your speech on.

Q&A is a different ballgame altogether.

It is much different when you are under enormous stress and facing a hostile crowd. Not all men are born orators. There's nothing worse than trying to concentrate on your answers when your mind has a zillion details banging around in it.

In other words, I wouldn't read too much into whether it was "as" or "and".



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   
I never ment to insinuate that W doesnt think he is doing us a favor by spying. I dont doubt he is doing it because he believes he is making us safer. How ignorant would I be to say he is doing this for fun? I just think there is some ulterior motives as well.
And just because he thinks its ok, doesnt make it legal.
I am no lawyer, so I wont even try to post the individual laws that he broke, but I do know that my whole life I have been taught that America doesnt spy on citizens without warrant. It doesnt search us without warrant. It doesnt delibrately invade your privacy.
This obviously doesnt bother you, but I always seen these as Soviet, or Cuban tactics, not the US.
You dont have to agree with me, because WE THE PEOPLE are building a resistance to this crap, and it will stop.
"Those who trade their freedoms for protection deserve neither"



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
I never ment to insinuate that W doesnt think he is doing us a favor by spying. I dont doubt he is doing it because he believes he is making us safer. How ignorant would I be to say he is doing this for fun? I just think there is some ulterior motives as well.
And just because he thinks its ok, doesnt make it legal.
I am no lawyer, so I wont even try to post the individual laws that he broke, but I do know that my whole life I have been taught that America doesnt spy on citizens without warrant. It doesnt search us without warrant. It doesnt delibrately invade your privacy.

Up to this point, I was silently nodding my head, agreeing with you. But then you have to interject crap like this:


This obviously doesnt bother you, but I always seen these as Soviet, or Cuban tactics, not the US.
You dont have to agree with me, because WE THE PEOPLE are building a resistance to this crap, and it will stop.
"Those who trade their freedoms for protection deserve neither"

Where do you get off saying "This obviously doesnt bother you"? What single shred of evidence leads you to draw a conclusion like that? Don't bother - it's the same type of thinking that wants to divide this country into a WE vs THEM war with statements such as "because WE THE PEOPLE ...". You have no monopoly on citizenship, pal, or patriotism either. So don't apply labels or tags to anybody except for yourself.

Sounds like I'm pissed, doesn't it? Well yeah, I am. There is way too much unformed logic and lazy thinking like yours, being passed off as "reason" on this board. And it's enough to piss off the Pope.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Forgive me for upsetting you...
Maybe I have misread your posts, but it does seem like you are advocating Bush's spying. If I misinterpreted your opinion, I sincerely apologize.
I just feel very strongly that the indifference shown by Bush supporters is against our national culture of FREEDOM. I believe that if we all sit back and allow these things to happen, without taking action, or at least being outspoken, the powers that be will walk all over us.
I preach more unity than most, so I think you are misunderstanding my position. But, if by unity you mean sittin idle and silent while our freedoms are trampled upon, like good sheep, I will not play ball. I think we should all stand up, in UNITY, for our rights. This guy is representing the greatest nation on earth, and we are letting him get away with murder.

Remember the story "If you give a mouse a cookie, he will want a glass of milk?"



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Just checking on threads I've posted to, or started Myself, and I noticed this one got quite a few responses.

Glad to see it's still going. I just posted to a very good thread last night on why you don't believe the official story of 9/11.

You can check it out here if you'd like :

Why don't you believe the "Official Story" of 9/11

See ya around



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I said this before and I'll say it again: The Constitution is supposed to be a leash for our government dogs.

Now those dogs are chewing through the leash. It's only a matter of time before that leash is broken!



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   
You are so right. It's almost as if we are nothing to the government and it's just them living here with a bunch of pests...well guess what, we should have a say too! We are people who have rights as of now...it wouldn't surprise me if they took them away too.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Wait, since CLinton Cheated on his wife it is ok for Bush to wiretap John McCain's office? PETA? Greenpeace? To kill thousands of Americans so he can play golf, read books to advanced for him like The Little Engine that COuld, and clear brush while the secret government attacks America with planes to start WWIII and a War for Oil? Wow, I wonder though, since Cain killed someone does that mean Charles Manson should be let loose? Jeffery Dahmer never should never have gone to jail, because Cain killed someone before them? I like this, I'll go and rob a store, then say can't arrest me someone else robbed a store somewhere before me, and if it is ok for Bush to commit felonies because his daddy and Reagan did it then it is ok for me to rob a store because someone else did before me.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 03:33 AM
link   
ZZZ,
Just to pick you up on a few points,
”Well, probably when the matter was declared a "war" and the "enemy" in a war has less rights.”
However they still have rights, which at this time are being infringed. I am talking of course of those at Gitmo
“It still doesn't change my view on how AMERICANS should not be prejudged by the public/media and how "innocent until PROVEN guilty" does apply to everyone...including the President. “
Are you serious with this? Innocent until proven guilty only exists in court of law not in the media. Whether this is fair or not is a matter of opinion but it is undeniable that it is the case.
“Why did Osama deny it? Well, I imagine just like in prison where most people are innocent, so is Osama. “
Again I am surprised at your apparent lack of understanding of the psychology of the terrorist. I suspect there is a hint of troll about this post, however if I take your comment at face value I would say to you that you are confusing the mindset of your common criminal with that of a high profile terrorist.

”Where? Just one piece of "evidence" is all it should take to start a case. Why is there nothing, nada, ziltch, zero? Maybe name just one...

And the rest of your stuff, more heresay and speculation DESIGNED with words like Bush Co. etc to convince people he is guilty.

No trial. No proof. Full of bias, speculation and anger. I'm not saying he HASN'T done wrong at all. What I am saying is to refuse him basic rights all Americans have and then to cry about yours being trampled (Patriot Act, NSA taps, etc) is hypocritical.

I don't see why that basic concept is so hard for someone to understand, especially when they are supposed to be so careful NOT to lose their rights granted by the Constitution. Bush? Oh he is a Nazi, war criminal and needs to be hung. Evidence? Trial? No, you should just KNOW he is guilty. Look at his face. Look how he can't speak very well. He MUST be guilty. Just open your eyes! “
Again with the disingenuousness, is this a default position for you? With a Republican controlled White House, Senate, Congress and Supreme Court where is a trial supposed to take place? What body is going to bring such a case?
“On a day of chaos who cares if he said he saw fluffy pink bunnies. He's human and humans DO make mistakes.”
Bush seems to be very prone to making “mistakes” in what he says he saw or was told or knew about. Take the recent example of Katrina as evidence of this.
After all this however, I do agree with your basic premise that if BillyBob wants to “get” Bush he has to do a better job than he has done so far. I firmly believe that were the Supreme Court, the Senate and the Congress not so firmly Republican held he would have been impeached by now.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Let's be real here. Anyone who opposes BushCo. are essentially deemedterrorists.

It's very creepy.

[edit on 1/1/06 by EastCoastKid]


Taking in consideration what I have experienced by some hard core pro-Bush followers I have to agree with you.

Occurs in my example the bad spelling keeps coming out.


It seems that anybody that is questioning Bush is either an Islamic terrorist in disguised or either hates the president.


By the way over and over the excused that he went around the Court was necessary do to his powers given by him with the help of Gonzales is nothing but a lie.

The court was available even for extreme last minute request.

So he just did it because he thinks that he is above the law and the constitution.

Funny, in the records of how many request were denied they were not many he got most of them when he asked.

The question that the congress in an inquiry hearing that they will be doing this year will be, to give an explanation of why.

So far Bush and his backing partner Gonzales has given none.

If he was listening to Al-qaida only related communication then he has nothing to fear.

If he was doing illegally surveillance on American citizens then these citizens can sue the government withing the law.

The whole deal is going to get better and better.

[edit on 1-1-2006 by marg6043]


You cannot sue the government. They are not considered an entity. There are laws that prevent that. I don't remember which ones exactly, but if you'd like, I can look it up for you.

TheBorg



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
that was a great post, orangetom.

we ALL know that the government overstepped it's authority LONG ago, and has since become a mere facade of what it claims to be(democratic), however, the difference between ECK and i, and zed and you, is that you guys would rather tonguelash people for wanting to change it, than admit that there is a problem.

like is said, do we charge no one with murder because CAIN got away with killing ABEL?

clearly people who are whisked away in the middle of the night and held indefinitely without trial and tortured have had their god-given human rights violated. (SOME are AMERICAN!)

to instantly turn that around, and say, oh yeah, you can't do that to the president, 'cause you got no proof, hypocrite is a little simplistic, and indeed HYPOCRITICAL. you say it's alright to do it to 'terrorism suspects'. i say it's not right to do it to anyone.

i clearly took a stance. EVIDENCE first, and then, ARREST, and then TRIAL. it's a revolutionary take on justice, these days. that is not hypocritical.

all the quotes i gave are evidence, for example. not nearly enough to close a case, but still would be considered evidence in a court of law.

what happened? was it put into an evidence locker? no. it was JUDGED, and DISMISSED. this tactic serves to take the attention off the actual problem(corporate nepotism), andfocus it on people who are concerned about the actual problem('conspiracy theorists' and 'liberals'.

tower seven? DISMISSED.

i am not america's saviour, and there is no burden of proof on me for anything. anyone who thinks i need to prove something, can sue me and take me to court.

i also find it rather darkly humorous that it is up to me to prove bush guilty, when he is admitting guilt(illegal spying). now, it's not about guilt. the argument has shifted to how much evidence i have. i don't know. maybe a confession is less accurate if it's not tortured out of you on some legally invisible nightmare island.





Using that system of judgement leaves the suspect in question free roam to just run off and do it again. You can't have suspected terrorists running around just because you don't have any evidence of guilt. I think they should be locked up, but for the same length of time as current civil law allows. I don't like this being held without representation for an undefined period of time, which is against the Geneva Convention I believe.

I too think proof is necessary before going to trial, but does anyone here think that anything would come of an impeachment if Bush got it? I mean that you have to have OVERWHELMING evidence to show that he broke the law, and then you have no way to insure that the committee in charge of the trial oversight will actually follow through with the proper punishment. Take the Clinton impeachment for example. He was being impeached for lying to Congress, and only got a proverbial slap on the wrist. If I were a prisoner locked up for perjury, I woulda been asking for a presidential pardon, and fast. That kind of stuff isn't fair.

The list could go on and on, but this seems like a good place to stop. Thanks for listening.

TheBorg



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join