Monday, October 16, 2006
Deranged anti-Bush post of the day
This guy would do well to adjust the dosage.
24 Comments:
By 
Final Historian, at
Mon Oct 16, 11:38:00 PM:
Yeah, reading that... this person definitely needs serious help. BDS is the least of his problems.
By 
, at
Tue Oct 17, 12:48:00 AM:
Poor crazy guy is off in his facts... everyone who's anyone knows that the Bush human rights trials are going to begin in July of 2008.
He must not have gotten the original memo and is not fully looped in as I am.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Tue Oct 17, 01:15:00 AM:
Puts us garden variety deranged people to shame.
TELL OTHERS.
By , at
Tue Oct 17, 01:22:00 AM:
Laugh at him all you want, this crackpot has a point.
Even ignoring the UN lunatics who control the World Court in The Hague, to whom either Kerry or Rodham would plausibly surrender a former President GW Bush in order to curry favor with their Europals, the wackos on the federal bench in our own country, in Detroit and elsewhere, could lead a responsible estate planner to advise the president to hedge against this possibility with the purchase of an acreage in S. America. Not that I believe he would act on such advice.
By , at
Tue Oct 17, 07:08:00 AM:
http://www.truthwarehouse.blogspot.com
(proof that our leaders are liars)
By Dan Trabue, at
Tue Oct 17, 08:55:00 AM:
So, is he crazy because he thinks Bush will be brought up on war crimes (I doubt it, but if justice were served, an investigation ought to be conducted at the least) or because he thinks Bush is buying land in Paraguay? (THAT might be crazy, given Bush's popularity in Latin America).
By skipsailing, at
Tue Oct 17, 10:10:00 AM:
An investigation into what pray tell?
By Fausta, at
Tue Oct 17, 10:27:00 AM:
By , at
Tue Oct 17, 10:37:00 AM:
Look at his previous posts. They're comedy gold. In any other situation, I'd think they were sarcastic, but I'm not so sure now.
By Dan Trabue, at
Tue Oct 17, 10:39:00 AM:
"An investigation into what pray tell?"
Skip, I know you don't think thusly, but a goodly number - maybe a majority - of the US (and a clear majority of the world) questions the legality of the Iraq invasion. We think the Bush administration may have manipulated data, they may have violated the Geneva Convention (ie, OUR laws), they may have committed war crimes.
IF this is what a majority of the US and world think, then it is entirely reasonable to expect there should be a war crime investigation. I sort of doubt it will happen, because the world is a bit afraid to stand up to the US, but it could (and should happen, I say, if a majority of the people find his actions questionable - you wouldn't try to subvert the will of the people, would you?)
By skipsailing, at
Tue Oct 17, 10:45:00 AM:
What a steaming pile of parrot droppings Dan. When will you anti victory guys get over yourselves? All this righteous indignation just has to be bad for your blood pressure.
And spare me the smarm with the "will of the people" bologna. The will of the American people was quite clearly expressed.
What international law are you talking about Dan? Can you cite chapter and verse or is this yet another one of those fantasies we can file under "there ought to be a law"?
My goodness three years of this is more than enough. Doesn't the phrase "Fait Accompli" mean anything to you?
By Dan Trabue, at
Tue Oct 17, 11:26:00 AM:
I can offer you endless links to show why an increasing number of people suspect illegal activity, Skip, but I don't really think you believe it. (for instance:
http://elandslide.org/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=warcrimes&refer=home
http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/laws.php
http://www.nogw.com/warcrimes.html
And on and on...)
So, it's fine if you don't believe it. That's your conscience to deal with your God. But a good number - maybe a majority, depending upon which polls you read - disagree with you. And we WILL try to see him investigated and, if the investigation supports it, charged for criminal behaviors.
What else would you have us do if we think the evidence suggests that our leader committed war crimes in our name?
By skipsailing, at
Tue Oct 17, 11:38:00 AM:
You are making an ad populum argument Dan. It's a logical fallacy.
Were you to argue that x number of people question the efficacy of continuing to fight in Iraq there would be no logical fallacy.
but to argue that something is "right" because a lot of people say it is make no sense. That you believe that a "lot" of people suspect foul play is meaningless in and of itself.
At one point a few hundred years ago everyone you asked would have agreed that the earth was flat. Ad populum at its finest.
As for the threat of your little investigations, as I said earlier righteous indignation is bad for your blood pressure. This is just another temper tantrum you're having because a duly elected president had the unmitigated gall to do something with which you disagree.
My my, such denial. You're angry at the wrong people Dan and it's sad.
By Dan Trabue, at
Tue Oct 17, 02:00:00 PM:
I understand ad populum. This war's right-ness or wrong-ness does not depend upon numbers.
I'm saying that, in my opinion,
1. the people who think this war is questionably legal are right
2. Something close to or surpassing a majority of the people think so, and
3. In a democratic republic, the will of the majority is what decides cases - right or wrong.
For instance, apparently a majority were unwilling to take the steps to stand up to this war so, right or wrong (wrong, I say), this country okay'd the Iraq Invasion. The fact that a majority may have sort of supported the action doesn't make it right.
But you're still not answering my question (what does a guy have to do to get questions answered around here?). Let me put it another way:
Suppose you found yourself a citizen of Germany in 1940. You think the chancellor of your country is committing war crimes, but apparently you are in a minority. What do you do?
Since I've had a bad record of getting questions answered, allow me to supply the correct answer: You stand against that leader. You try to get him ousted. You do whatever is in your power to try to stop what he's doing.
You may disagree with the many who think this war is wrong, but surely you understand that, IF we think the evidence shows our president is committing questionably legal acts, THEN we who think so MUST try to stop him?
By Dan Trabue, at
Tue Oct 17, 02:02:00 PM:
"This is just another temper tantrum you're having because a duly elected president had the unmitigated gall to do something with which you disagree."
And talking down to people is no way to win friends or influence people. Can we disagree respectfully?
By skipsailing, at
Tue Oct 17, 03:35:00 PM:
Hmmm,
A few things: you are getting answers. you just don't like them, or so it seems to me.
and yes, I do believe that this whole little investigation thing is simply a temper tantrum. That's not meant to be demeaning to you Dan. I never demeaned my kids when I gave them a time out, and that's what is needed here, a time out.
Your logic is, with respect, somewhat flawed. This, for example is utter balderdash:
For instance, apparently a majority were unwilling to take the steps to stand up to this war so, right or wrong (wrong, I say), this country okay'd the Iraq Invasion. The fact that a majority may have sort of supported the action doesn't make it right.
It's just phenomenal Dan. Your "logic" goes like this: Since you disagree with the war and believe in your heart that the "majority" of people in America disagree with the war anyone who voted for the war wasn't really supporting it, they were expressing weakness because they, in their heart of hearts, actually disagreed with the war.
Utter, complete balderdash. Pretzel logic at its absolute finest. If these people were too weak to stand up then, I cannot imagine any reason to trust the future of my country to them now. Either one has the courage of one's convictions or one does not. Arguing that your side showed weakness is hardly playing a strong suit.
You may hate our president, but you cannot claim that he's secretly too weak to do what he sees as the right thing. Your side (and it is your side) bashes the man endlessly yet he carries on. To say that your guys were too weak to do what they really believed is infamous hogwash. It sounds like a false dilemma: Either they are cowards or they are fools, I get to pick, right?
yes, standing against hitler made sense. Standing against Bush does not. All this Bush bashing is simply denial speaking: you've got the wrong enemy Dan. Hitler wanted to destroy the world and went a fair distance down that path. If you're looking for global destruction, check the Mullahs in Teheran, not the guys in the White House.
I stand with the leader Dan, one way to look at this is that you are my enemy because you oppose the leader of my country. You will use whatever is in your power.
SO WILL I.
If it's a fight you're looking for, I'm prepared. It is long past time that right thinking Americans starting confronting the anti victory crowd. soros millions, candlelight vigils and habeus corpus rights for terrorists will get us all killed.
You people rail against Bush in specific because, IMHO you lack the nerve to defy the Muslims.
Those who call for "investigations" would rather live on their knees than die on their feet and I pity them. For these so called "unwilling" it is far easier to convince themselves that Bushchimphitlerhaliburton is the enemy than it is to face the fact that there are ugly evil people stalking us. How sad is that?
I don't respect them Dan. sorry, but Immanuel Kant is dead. Beyond the respect one shows to any living creature I simply can't respect the anti victory crowd. They are not worthy of my respect. Dwelling in denial and insisting that everyone else join them in denial is a stupid way to lead a country.
I'm no saint but your threats concerning the condition of my soul are meaningless. Such as I am I will stand before my maker. All your baited hooks notwithstanding I have no doubts about the rightness and justness of my position.
As for not answering questions Dan I eagerly await the citations from this dusty tome of "international law" that you throw about so carelessly. What chapter and verse? When someone stands accused they are told what law they violated. The code I was breaking the last time I got a speeding ticket was printed plainly on the form I signed. So tell us Dan, what chapter, what verse, what paragraph of this so called international law or even domestic American law do you claim Bush is violating?
If the majority decides to change course at the next presidential election, so be it. It will, in my view, result in the deaths of countless people, but that's the way denial works, ya gotta hit bottom.
By , at
Tue Oct 17, 04:21:00 PM:
If BDS was a crop, he would be wealthy beyond his wildest dreams. But sadly BDS is an illness, suffered by the truly deranged.
We have seen this movie before, after the deranged Kennedy-Johnson liberals got us into Vietnam, they then proceeded to blame the Vietnam war on Nixon. And guess what, got us out. The result millions more died. Yes deranged, it's the liberal way.
By Dan Trabue, at
Tue Oct 17, 04:27:00 PM:
"As for not answering questions Dan I eagerly await the citations from this dusty tome of "international law" that you throw about so carelessly. What chapter and verse?"
I answered it. Chapter and verse. I gave three links that gave multiple legal reasons why we think Bush is possibly in violation of our laws (and I'm talking about OUR laws, not "international" laws). If you'd like me to spell them out here...
From the UN Charter (which we have signed as a treaty and has the power of law for us):
II. JURISDICTION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Article 6.
(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity...
As well as violating Article 3 of the Geneva Convention (again, OUR laws):
The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to [non-combatants]: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.
"You will use whatever is in your power."
And just so I'm not misunderstood and don't get a call from our Big Brothers at Homeland, when I say anyone who thinks war crimes are being committed ought to oppose them in every way within their power, it is with the caveat that I'm a Just Peacemaker/pacifist and would not consider deadly violence an option, even in opposing war crimes.
So, if you consider me an enemy, does that mean you're advocating my imprisonment, brother? Disappearance? Capital punishment?
To my point, you agree that it made sense to stand against Hitler. Then understand that we who think Bush is committing war crimes MUST stand up - we don't really care that it doesn't make sense to you, we must act upon our conscience and oppose these Bush policies that are so damaging our world and maligning our great nation.
Finally, I must say that I find the way you twist things and speak down to people off-putting and does not speak well for those who'd claim to be "conservative." It's no wonder the nation is fed up with those supposed "conservatives" in power and are ready to give them the boot. Apparently folk realize we ARE hitting bottom.
God willing.
By skipsailing, at
Tue Oct 17, 05:02:00 PM:
It is not my intention to be "off putting" but your position is simply laughable Dan.
Here's a great example:
So, if you consider me an enemy, does that mean you're advocating my imprisonment, brother? Disappearance? Capital punishment? Did I write any of that Dan? Your question is an insult sir. This stems from your false assumption that you alone occupy the "moral high ground". In your view, I am to assume that you will act in accordance with the laws of the land while you are free to assume that I will not.
How utterly contemptable. And then to lecture me for my words? come now Dan, I stated last week that this is an emotional topic. It is clearly such for you. And I know it is for me.
Further you make the insulting assumption, clearly on display in your comment, that as a pacifist you wouldn't engage in violence, but moi, well hey, as a non pacifist I guess you assume I'm capable of anything.
What an insult. Your condescending response doesn't speak well of pacifist either Dan. It's not my intention to insult you, but it is my intention to oppose you, by any means I can. Why does that mean one set of rules for you, brother, but another for me? Do you presume to state that you have a moral compass and I have none?
further, I'm hardly twisting your words, I quoted you directly. you may not like the way I understand your POV, but communication occurs in the receiver Dan, not the sender. You've made yourself clear, I've responded clearly, there's no "twisting" going on here, I'm rebutting and refuting, pure and simple.
As an example here are your words:
"unwilling to take the steps necessary". Why were they "unwilling" Dan? Since you don't state the source of their unwillingness directly I am free to interpret that as I see fit. To me that unwillingness can stem from only one source: cowardice.
as I explained to my son years ago, bravery isn't a lack of fear, its doing what right, despite that fear. If these people you mention believed that the war was wrong but failed to say so at an important juncture in our history then they failed all of us. No twisting there Dan, just a straightforward examination of your words.
if there is another dynamic besides simple cowardice, pray sir, share it. In the absence of your definitions, I have chosen my own. It is the nature of interchange and a fact of life.
as for the laundry list of "crimes" once again I refer to my position vis a vis denial. To find such violations one need look no further than our foe, the islamic radicals. That you would rather "try" Bush than fight the people who are trying to kill you is simple denial.
By Dan Trabue, at
Tue Oct 17, 05:30:00 PM:
You misunderstand me but I'm tired today of explaining. If you're not deliberately twisting my words, then I apologize.
Just know that you are reading much into what I say that I DIDN'T say. I'd suggest you just take my words for what they are, rather than interpreting them. (One small example: You said - "I am to assume that you will act in accordance with the laws of the land while you are free to assume that I will not." when I didn't say that - I was asking for clarification of your position, naught else.)
You further misunderstand that it is an "emotional" topic for me. I'm not upset, outraged, fearful or otherwise being emotional, rather I'm trying to logically explain my position - and I'm doing so not to condemn you, nor to get you to change your position, but merely for the sake of communication between fellow citizens.
Peace.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Tue Oct 17, 07:40:00 PM:
Ad populem may be fallacial, but there's no need to retort with an ad hominem. That's just fellacial.
By skipsailing, at
Tue Oct 17, 09:44:00 PM:
et tu LB?
I don't see any ad hom in my replies at all.
The words that are written are subject to intepretation by the reciever. Dan doesn't like my intepretation and that's the way it is.
This isn't bean bag nor is it a popularity contest. It's a war gentlemen.
And we will have peace that much sooner when our enemy realizes that we present a united front against his depredations.
As long as we appear weak and divided the onslaught against our civilization will continue.
There is nothing I would like better than peace, but it will not come to us through investigations of our president, it will come through taking arms against this sea of troubles and by so opposing ending them.
By Dan Trabue, at
Tue Oct 17, 10:11:00 PM:
"And we will have peace that much sooner when our enemy realizes that we present a united front against his depredations."
Well, seeing how there hasn't been any significant support for this invasion, ever and the majority thinks it's a mistake, I reckon we'll all have to settle down in the realization that we do NOT have a united front. Some think the Iraq Invasion is wrong and/or questionably illegal and/or counterproductive (having the opposite effect we desire, and some support it.
That's just the way it is, eh?
By , at
Wed Oct 18, 01:01:00 AM:
Gotta say, feeling a mite stained for having given that fellow's site the hit. Besmirched, even.
