So... how 'bout that Bush?

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

My post was not about torue being effecitve and you knew that so cut the crap.

Oh, really?

The president of the united states of America is charged with the defence of his country, if some foms of toture can be used effectively to extract the information needed to obtain advantages or greater safety then it is his duty and responsibility to do so, you are in no position to judge him upon that whatsoever.

I bolded it for you, just so you won't miss it.

And if it's not effective or accurate, why would you support it?

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

The president of the united states of America is charged with the defence of his country, if some foms of toture can be used effectively to extract the information needed to obtain advantages or greater safety then it is his duty and responsibility to do so, you are in no position to judge him upon that whatsoever.

But how accurate is this information, how do we know if the POWS just tell(and they do talk of course, everyone talks in those situations) their interrogators what they want to hear, instead of what the facts are?

I answered that he was the wrost, which isn't true (don't forget about Reagan, Nixon, and Jackson), but is honestly horrible. His constant support of torture (with out ever addressing the issue completely), ignoring the Constitution, and over-all lack of ability to get anything done, is why.

Originally Posted by Snapdragon

oh come on now.
of course I have all the right in the world to think whatever I want about him and his actions.

*Shhh* Don't talk so loud. The ears have walls!


Flames, of course we are in a position to judge him! If citizens had been as obedient and quiet as you'd like, swallowing the pills without question, following blindly whenever someone yanks the leash, things would've been much, much worse.

Originally Posted by Skoomzeh

*Shhh* Don't talk so loud. The ears have walls!


Flames, of course we are in a position to judge him! If citizens had been as obedient and quiet as you'd like, swallowing the pills without question, following blindly whenever someone yanks the leash, things would've been much, much worse.

RAGE AGAINST THE FUCKING MACHINE

Originally Posted by Alexo

In times of war, I understand that some rights are taken away. However, I still think it is wrong and just plain paranoia. I mean, look at what we did to the Japanese during WWII.

lolwut? You do realize that there would be a bloodletting of epic proportions if we took your suggestion that (facetious example about citizens and non-citizen resident aliens notwithstanding that ostensibly proves racism but ignores the ethnic differences of Europeans that let us put ethnic Germans and Italians in camps as well - really, the only race we didn't put in camps were blacks. lol, US of KKKA, lol) we chose to extend the Bill of Rights to include foreigners, right?

No, you don't realize we would have to invade every single other nation in the world and several states and county governments, do you? You don't. You can't grasp that a blanket like that is a blanket provision. You can't extend it and then not extend it because you don't like to in one particular situation. Prepare for World War 3-12!

I can guarantee if I asked most people why they think Bush was a bad president they wouldn't be able to come up with any sort of answer whatsoever.

Edit: One that made any sense.

The president of the united states of America is charged with the defence of his country, if some foms of toture can be used effectively to extract the information needed to obtain advantages or greater safety then it is his duty and responsibility to do so, you are in no position to judge him upon that whatsoever.

If people find foms of toture [sic] an inhumane way to go about this, then they're entitled to their opinion. Similar to what you said, you have no right to judge others based on what they think is immoral.

Originally Posted by aeternus aura

I can guarantee if I asked most people why they think Bush was a bad president they wouldn't be able to come up with any sort of answer whatsoever.

Edit: One that made any sense.

If people find foms of toture [sic] an inhumane way to go about this, then they're entitled to their opinion. Similar to what you said, you have no right to judge others based on what they think is immoral.

I can guarantee that if I do the same where I'm from, most people would be fully capable to give a satisfying answer. do you mean here in the thread or IRL?

I have not read every post in the entire thread, but are you saying you only found one person with a valid reason to dislike bush?

Originally Posted by Maxwell Smart, Ph. D.

lolwut? You do realize that there would be a bloodletting of epic proportions if we took your suggestion that (facetious example about citizens and non-citizen resident aliens notwithstanding that ostensibly proves racism but ignores the ethnic differences of Europeans that let us put ethnic Germans and Italians in camps as well - really, the only race we didn't put in camps were blacks. lol, US of KKKA, lol) we chose to extend the Bill of Rights to include foreigners, right?

Well, aren't foreigners who come into our country legally granted the same rights as well as any other American?

Originally Posted by Mike87

But how accurate is this information, how do we know if the POWS just tell(and they do talk of course, everyone talks in those situations) their interrogators what they want to hear, instead of what the facts are?

I wasn't delving into details I said, if it can get us the upper hand in situtations than it is our governments responsibility to do so.

I bolded it for you, just so you won't miss it.

And if it's not effective or accurate, why would you support it?

Missed what? THis isn't about what I said,

it is our governments responsisbility to defend this country, if torture gain the upper hand than they are required to do so.

This is true.

(don't forget about Reagan, Nixon, and Jackson)

Tell me what was soo wrong with Ronald Reagan, I imagine you like that bastard Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. I want legit reasons not some closed minded opinions from someone who thinks the issue of torture is enough to be the worst president over.

Originally Posted by Project 2501

his current popularity rate is a record-shattering 18%, making him the most unpopular president in American history..

Yes, but isn't the unpopular thing, most of the time the right thing to do? I'll let you all think about that. *leaves*

How many times do I have to repeat myself? This is getting tedious.

I recently saw a poll that showed his approval ratings at an all-time low: about 31%. Still, this was higher than the ratings of Hoover, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, and Carter, so I hardly see where all this worst-president-ever stuff is coming from.

Originally Posted by Noscreenname

There's the average of his approval polls. Each dot represents a poll. If you look you can see, way far off of the definite cluster of other dots, the one poll that indicated 18%.

EDIT: And another thing, how on Earth does Reagan even come close to being the worst president ever? (Also, FoV, Carter wasn't really a bastard, just a weenie. And Clinton wasn't so bad, he was just a liar.)

Originally Posted by Noscreenname

EDIT: And another thing, how on Earth does Reagan even come close to being the worst president ever?

Exactly.

(Also, FoV, Carter wasn't really a bastard, just a weenie. And Clinton wasn't so bad, he was just a liar.)

And his pussy attitude makes him a bastard, I mean he sat in his office and did **** against the Iotola (spelling) when they held our troops for over a year. He abandoned his own men and never came back. That is a pretty bastard thing to do. And Clinton? Does a man who lies outright to the ENTIRE country deserve to be even slightly above the worst? No. They are a skid mark on the underwear of our countries presidential history.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor[/I

Missed what? THis isn't about what I said,

it is our governments responsisbility to defend this country, if torture gain the upper hand than they are required to do so.

This is true.

You didn't answer my question. My question was that, however effective torture is, it has been proven to be inaccurate, so why would you support it?

And his pussy attitude makes him a bastard, I mean he sat in his office and did **** against the Iotola (spelling) when they held our troops for over a year. He abandoned his own men and never came back. That is a pretty bastard thing to do.

To my knowledge, he actually spent the last year of his term looking for a peaceful way to get the hostages back. And look, none of them died. Yes, Reagan was in office by that time, but that doesn't mean Carter's efforts were for nothing. I just hate how you have these infantile notions of "pussyness" and "boldness" or whatever it is. This isn't the schoolyard, buddy. This is the world.

And Clinton? Does a man who lies outright to the ENTIRE country deserve to be even slightly above the worst? No.

Oh, like the one who lied about weapons of mass destruction? But wait, he wasn't under oath. I guess that excuses him.

Originally Posted by Ogmios22188

You didn't answer my question. My question was that, however effective torture is, it has been proven to be inaccurate, so why would you support it?

Can I see evidence that it is inaccurate, and I would not support something proven to be inaccurate but I want sources before I make decisions.

To my knowledge, he actually spent the last year of his term looking for a peaceful way to get the hostages back. And look, none of them died. Yes, Reagan was in office by that time, but that doesn't mean Carter's efforts were for nothing. I just hate how you have these infantile notions of "pussyness" and "boldness" or whatever it is. This isn't the schoolyard, buddy. This is the world.

Thats just it though, Carter made no effort. Carter was a pussy, he left the soldiers to rot, peaceful negotiation or not he did nothing.