Quake3World

Law wrote:I've studied body language. Bush is always cited for his numerous examples of displaying dominant body language.

In other words you get turned on by a monkey who shows domination over you. Get fucked you slave homo.

rep wrote:

If only

Captain Mazda wrote:

Law wrote:I've studied body language. Bush is always cited for his numerous examples of displaying dominant body language.

In other words you get turned on by a monkey who shows domination over you. Get fucked you slave homo.

In other words I've studied body language and Bush is cited for his numerous examples of displaying dominant body language.

Get fucked Mr Bean.

seems like its not only Americans who like torture.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wirq10.xml
this cant be true, Iraqi's hurting fellow Iraqi's,
wait a minute........

The brutal excesses of Saddam Hussein's regime were relived yesterday as Iraq's new government announced that it had hanged 27 prisoners convicted of terror and criminal charges.

why would you laugh about that?

Law wrote:I've studied body language. Bush is always cited for his numerous examples of displaying dominant body language.

that was what suprised me about the interview. if someone acts like that in everyday life, it's customary to step a little closer to them and start tapping their forehead with yours to give them a better understanding of how the situation might unfold.

the way he spoke seemed designed to encourage aggression too.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:why would you laugh about that?

Because the most important thing to Busetibi is that he 'prove all us lefties wrong'.

busetti honestly how often are you privileged with consensual sex?

His sister usually works out of town.

busetibi wrote:seems like its not only Americans who like torture.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wirq10.xml
this cant be true, Iraqi's hurting fellow Iraqi's,
wait a minute........

The brutal excesses of Saddam Hussein's regime were relived yesterday as Iraq's new government announced that it had hanged 27 prisoners convicted of terror and criminal charges.

great, so nothing has essentially changed in that department in iraq. that can only mean one thing

MISSHUN UCCUMPLISHED!!!111

Canis wrote:Here we go again on what is or isnt "law". In that interview we've already got a distinction between "American Law" and "International Law" and its already clear there's a divergence of opinions in what aspects of current events are considered within each. Wahoo, nobody's got any power over what's being done, and bush knows that, so its all just rhetoric in the wind. "International Law"?...fucking please! Look at the feigned respect to this idea that Bush gives it in his responses, and ask yourself if it really means a damn thing in the long run.

No, here you go again about what is and isn't law.

The Geneva Conventions are the law of the land in the United States, vis a vis the Constitution, and any thing said to the contrary is just dissembling.

It was ratified, therefore it is United States law.

And the things that are happening during rendition violate those laws.

Now Bush is trying to rescind the War Crimes Act, and make it retroactive. You think he's doing that just to play nice? He knows what he's doing is illegal - hell, his own attorneys have said that he could be tried for war crimes, in writing!

seremtan wrote:

busetibi wrote:seems like its not only Americans who like torture.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wirq10.xml
this cant be true, Iraqi's hurting fellow Iraqi's,
wait a minute........

The brutal excesses of Saddam Hussein's regime were relived yesterday as Iraq's new government announced that it had hanged 27 prisoners convicted of terror and criminal charges.

great, so nothing has essentially changed in that department in iraq. that can only mean one thing

MISSHUN UCCUMPLISHED!!!111

R00k wrote:

Canis wrote:Here we go again on what is or isnt "law". In that interview we've already got a distinction between "American Law" and "International Law" and its already clear there's a divergence of opinions in what aspects of current events are considered within each. Wahoo, nobody's got any power over what's being done, and bush knows that, so its all just rhetoric in the wind. "International Law"?...fucking please! Look at the feigned respect to this idea that Bush gives it in his responses, and ask yourself if it really means a damn thing in the long run.

No, here you go again about what is and isn't law.

The Geneva Conventions are the law of the land in the United States, vis a vis the Constitution, and any thing said to the contrary is just dissembling.

It was ratified, therefore it is United States law.

And the things that are happening during rendition violate those laws.

Now Bush is trying to rescind the War Crimes Act, and make it retroactive. You think he's doing that just to play nice? He knows what he's doing is illegal - hell, his own attorneys have said that he could be tried for war crimes, in writing!

Lol. Hi dude. Now we're on the same argument again. The legal "buck" stops at who can enforce the laws, otherwise its just moral rhetoric that gets people nowhere. Bush is clearly taking advantage of this fact to trod on whatever "laws" he can. We can go after him in a long and drawn out process based on american law (if its worth the effort, etc) but to claim international "legality" wont prevent bush from doing anything, and he knows it. Its apparent in his responses to Matt Lauer. It's all about the practicality of the situation, and if you cannot enforce written morals (of which we cannot call "practical law") then you have no practical law...at all. Bush, and other politicians will not admit to this, but they're taking advantage of it all the time. Using it as an argument is as unproductive as claiming someone is a "terrorist" these days. It just doesnt hold any ground.

If it's codified it's law. Enforcement is a different issue entirely. But I don't expect you'll ever understand that.

I understand the mentality behind it, but I dont agree with it.

That's fine. I just want to make one distinction here -- this is not international law. This is a United States law.

Just because Bush can't be (or at least hasn't been) prosecuted for it yet doesn't mean it is not practical law. For the moment, Bush is getting away with saying things like "I disagree with the Supreme Court on that." Does that mean the Supreme Court is now not a practical court of law?

No, it just means Bush is an arrogant cock who is taking full advantage of the fact that his party runs the whole government right now. But that is likely to change soon, which is why he is trying to push this bill through that would repeal the War Crimes Act.

It IS illegal, and he knows it because Alberto Gonzales told him it was.

Canis wrote:I understand the mentality behind it, but I dont agree with it.

Is your last name Bush? Perhaps Cheney?

R00k wrote:

Canis wrote:I understand the mentality behind it, but I dont agree with it.

Is your last name Bush? Perhaps Cheney?

Cute. Do you always attempt to belittle anyone who disagrees with you?

R00k wrote:That's fine. I just want to make one distinction here -- this is not international law. This is a United States law.

Just because Bush can't be (or at least hasn't been) prosecuted for it yet doesn't mean it is not practical law. For the moment, Bush is getting away with saying things like "I disagree with the Supreme Court on that." Does that mean the Supreme Court is now not a practical court of law?

No, it just means Bush is an arrogant cock who is taking full advantage of the fact that his party runs the whole government right now. But that is likely to change soon, which is why he is trying to push this bill through that would repeal the War Crimes Act.

It IS illegal, and he knows it because Alberto Gonzales told him it was.

I'm not disagreeing with that first part and the characterization of bush one bit.

Do you think the Supreme Court would not be considered a practical court of law because Bush can defy it without consequences?

Canis wrote:

R00k wrote:

Canis wrote:I understand the mentality behind it, but I dont agree with it.

Is your last name Bush? Perhaps Cheney?

Cute. Do you always attempt to belittle anyone who disagrees with you?

I'm not trying to belittle you. I'm just saying that when you said you disagree that a law is a law, you reminded me of both Bush and Cheney. Cheney said almost the same thing in an interview with Chris Matthews Sunday, and Bush said something similar in an interview yesterday.

Your philosophy regarding law is definitely in the Bush camp, where they make their own reality by basing their actions on what they believe reality to be, and then expecting the rest of society to conform to that.

R00k wrote:Do you think the Supreme Court would not be considered a practical court of law because Bush can defy it without consequences?

When are they going to enact their powers and do something about bush's actions? They do, in other aspects of american law, uphold the law by imposing judgement and consequential enforcement on a daily basis so in that respect they are a practical court. However, as long as bush keeps getting away with what he's doing, the practicality of all applical "laws" goes straight out the window. "Naughty, naught bush...*wave finger*" that seems to be all we can do to him.

R00k wrote:

Canis wrote:

R00k wrote: Is your last name Bush? Perhaps Cheney?

Cute. Do you always attempt to belittle anyone who disagrees with you?

I'm not trying to belittle you. I'm just saying that when you said you disagree that a law is a law, you reminded me of both Bush and Cheney. Cheney said almost the same thing in an interview with Chris Matthews Sunday, and Bush said something similar in an interview yesterday.

Your philosophy regarding law is definitely in the Bush camp, where they make their own reality by basing their actions on what they believe reality to be, and then expecting the rest of society to conform to that.

My philosophy about it doesnt reflect what I believe is right, yet that bridge seems to have been formed in folks' arguments against my views. In a similar manner, I'd not expect someone to bash a defense lawyer for fighting for an obvious murder suspect. I dont expect conformation to these philosophies as some inevitable future. I think these views should be seen as facts that should be worked against in a persistent effort to prevent anarchic efforts from gaining any ground. In that way I'd hope for a persistent effort towards order and productivity.

The "bush camp" is taking advantage of this situation I've been describing, and I am against such actions. However, I see it as an inevitable strive of anyone of influence, especially those in politics.

If Democrats come out of the elections with a majority in both houses of Congress, and impeach Bush, and he is actually tried for some of his high crimes and misdemeanors - then will it turn back into practical law again?

Would you say that they have ever been practical law? The War Crimes Act and the Geneva Conventions?

If so, at what point in time did they become "not-practical" law?

Canis wrote:

R00k wrote:

Canis wrote: Cute. Do you always attempt to belittle anyone who disagrees with you?

I'm not trying to belittle you. I'm just saying that when you said you disagree that a law is a law, you reminded me of both Bush and Cheney. Cheney said almost the same thing in an interview with Chris Matthews Sunday, and Bush said something similar in an interview yesterday.

Your philosophy regarding law is definitely in the Bush camp, where they make their own reality by basing their actions on what they believe reality to be, and then expecting the rest of society to conform to that.

My philosophy about it doesnt reflect what I believe is right, yet that bridge seems to have been formed in folks' arguments against my views. I dont expect conformation to these views as some inevitable future. I think these views should be seen as facts that should be worked against in a persistent effort to prevent anarchic efforts from gaining any ground. In that way I'd hope for a persistent effort towards order and productivity.

The "bush camp" is taking advantage of this situation I've been describing, and I am against such actions. However, I see it as an inevitable strive of anyone of influence, especially those in politics.

This "situation" of "practical law" you are describing is nothing more than a group of people breaking the law.

What you describe here:

I think these views should be seen as facts that should be worked against in a persistent effort to prevent anarchic efforts from gaining any ground. In that way I'd hope for a persistent effort towards order and productivity.

Is called "enforcing the law."


If all you are saying, is that Bush and Co. are breaking the law, and that the law needs to be enforced against them, then why is it so hard for you to simply say so?


On the contrary, what you are saying is that they are not technically doing anything illegal, because if they are getting away with it, then it must not be a real law.