I completely agree it *was* thier job to do only this. Until we collectively bastardized the whole system.

In addition, I'd like to add that the USC is *****not***** a "living document" in the sense that phrase is used today.

It *is* changeable but only through a constitutional ammendment. In this way, it's living (capable of being changed) but IMO as someone that can read English, the courts do not have the legal authority to interpret it to fit what they think is best. Whats even more irritating now is that the USSC is now using European law for guidance!

The point is lost on the fact that there doesnt seem to be any workable solution to bring us back where we should be. The road back would lead us into an America no one would even recognize, but many of us would greatly appreciate.

Ha, ha, Undertoad watches CNN!!

All communication between humans is subject to interpretation. Even "no" can mean "yes". Words have multiple, sometimes broad definitons, and when you string them together, the potentially different meanings goes up exponentially. Given that all the people who wrote the inital document are dead, <i>someone</i> has to decide which interpretation we go by.

I disagree with your specific notion that the USC needs to be interpretted Ju. You already knew that though.

If there was an ammendment that said " you have the right to wear blue shoes" would that need interpretation?


Many words have changed meanings, yes. Many things mean precisely what they say though.

In any case, your still a cool dude (for a guy with long hair) and I dont challenge you to a duel for holding your beliefs.

The fuckin' English gave us a faulty language. If the Constitution was translated to Esperanto, we wouldn't have this problem.


In all seriousness, I'm not too worried. He can't go much lower, I gather--they did get rid of the last guy, after all, and if Arnold sucks more, wouldn't he be removed even quicker?

The way I see it, the only reasonable outcomes are:

a) Arnold kicks ass, and everybody loves him for his political skills.
b) Arnold does nothing notable, isn't re-elected, and life goes on.
c) Arnold sucks, and comedians the world over are given an infinite supply of jokes for a few months to a year.
c.2) Voting is reworked to prevent stupid things like this from happening.

I'd be fine with any of the above, with a bit of a leaning toward a) or c.2), as I don't have a TV anymore. (I miss Jon Stewart. -sniff-)

Thanks. :)

90% of Americans also think you're full of crap. Of course, I pulled that number out of my ass, but why stop now?

(I'm sure it's much closer to 98%).

Actually, yes. The Constitution also says we have the right to bear arms. Not so cut and dried, is it?

We were discussing just this sort of thing at home the other day when our phones were making odd noises (no, not the Constituion...the Constitution makes Radar make odd noises).

What if Raptor caught you saying "President Bush is da Bomb! I live in terror thinking that he might not be re-elected, and I swear to Allah that I'll kill myself if he isn't!?

Maybe if everyone posted, emailed and telephonically spoke this phrase over the next few weeks, we could bring the automatic monitoring systems to their knees?

Nowhere have I threatened the president. I have suggested an appropriate punishment for a military deserter who later commits treason and endangers the entire world, has Americans killed, or turned into mercenaries, attacks our civil rights, violates the Constitution, etc.

Show me the word "interpret" in the duties of the Supreme Court. The Constitution doesn't require interpretation. It was written in simple English. It isn't ambiguous or vague and it means exactly what it says without exception.


The door is quickly closing for any kind of a peaceful solution. But hopefully we'll be able to return America to a Constitutional republic before blood must be spilled. But either way, America will be returned to a Constitutional government that defends our rights and doesn't attempt to limit them or overstep thier limited authority.

It's extremely cut and dry. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do some people have a problem understanding? How about "congress shall make no law"? Some don't understand that either. Gun ownership is a RIGHT, not a privilige. It's something we're born with. The government doesn't give us rights or have the authority to limit rights. It is only here to defend those rights we're born with.

I like elpsode's plan, and find it funny. It would be nice to get some kind of email campain where people just sprinkle words like "jihad", "allah", "bomb", "nuke", etc. into thier emails, and phone conversations. Or if we all start checking out books about terrorism, bombs making, etc.

OK:

What part of "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. " do you not understand?

Article 3, Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ...
Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;...

The courts have the power to Judge. Seems pretty cut n dried.

English is not simple, and is always open to interpretation.

What about deadly, radioactive shoes that do nothing in a 2 foot radius, but in a 10 foot radius after that cause terminal cancer? If I painted them blue, should I have a right to wear them? What about millions of little boxes that have a small button on them that, if pressed, would blow up Utah? Should millions of Americans have a right to own those? Should we all have a right to own nuclear missles?

In fact, I'd say that "The right to bear arms" is usually interpreted as, "The right to own muskets, or weapons of similar power". Because there is no way in hell that the founding fathers would ever have wanted every American to own a nuclear weapon. You see, we are interpreting what they meant based on their knowledge at the time.

[necessary rant]The further we get, intellectually, from the revolution the more control government will assume. The counter-revolutionary document of 1787 left people remarkably free by todays standards but it was a far cry from what was fought for. In the intervening years we've chosen government power over freedom countless times, like it or not the Constitution became a living document and its original amending process was supplanted by more responsive (to whom?) democratic processes with predicted and predictable results. This is all to get to the point that the revolutionaries would be appalled by the Bill of Rights restrictions but the reactionaries would be proud of their work. What do you suppose the smuggler Hancock would have thought about the idea that his merchantman could only carry muskets? I suspect folks like Hamilton would be very pleased with America as a global mercantilist empire with a stable sheeplike electorate but a visionary like Jefferson might have cause to feel shame for a people who neglect hearth and home to serve our masters view of freedom.[/rant]

I feel better now. :)

I understand every part of that and Bush is guilty of treason. He has aided our enemies. Let's not even discuss the 40 million he gave to the Taliban 3 months before the September 11th attacks.

Bush has empowered the enemies of the United States through his violations of the Constitution by starting an unprovoked war against a non-threatening, sovereign nation, that had no affiliations with anyone else who had attacked us and he knowingly lied to the American people to do it. Bush has also levied war against the American people and our civil rights. He has placed Americans in danger and violated his oath.

But even if you don't consider this treason, Bush clearly fits into the definition of "traitor", and "military deserter" which are:

Traitor - One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.

Deserter - To abandon (a military post, for example) in violation of orders or an oath

The founders wanted the American public to have each and every single weapon at thier disposal that the government had. They wanted the people to ALWAYS be able to outgun the government to keep them in check. They would still want it now.

Sorry, that's wrong. If everyone had a nuclear weapon, the human race would be extinct. Unlike you, the founding fathers would be intelligent enough to understand this.

When you interpret words, you have to consider the intent of the author.

Unlike you, I'm not interpreting words. I'm reading them for their actual meaning. And the founders were clear on their intent to ensure that the government could have no weapons that individual citizens couldn't own WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

So we we don't think people should have nukes, we should take them away from the government.

Some people say, "Everyone is more polite if everyone has a gun". Just imagine how polite people would be if everyone had a nuke.

The principles behind the desire to have the American public be able to outgun the government are every bit as fresh, important, and valid now as they were back when the weapons were muskets.

I, unlike you, comprehend the principles that drove the founding fathers to write the Constitution in the specific language in which it was written. The founders were very intelligent, like me, and understood the true meaning words like "freedom", "liberty", "justice", and "responsibility".

Those who try to put words in their mouth because they don't understand these principles are violating everything great this country stands for. It wouldn't matter if we had muskets, or disintigrating ray guns, the principle still holds true. Government must never have more physical force than the general populace.

Wow! Radar quote of the day:
honorable mention:

Reading isn't "interpreting" genius.

And I stand by the second comment.

Now is that

Reading isn't "interpreting" genius.
('Cause you know there *are* some brilliant writers out there.)

or Reading isn't "interpreting", genius.
('Cause then I'd argue that, yes it is an act of interpreting if you are able to build any meaningful understanding at all out of the cluster of letters.)

You cannot read words without interpreting them. It's impossible.

Also, in your fantasy-land where the government has no nuclear weapons, there is no American government, becuase it was destroyed by the Soviets 20 years ago, who do have nuclear weapons.

William S Burroughs has a great thought on Language.

"Language is a Virus....We must find out what words are and how they function. They become images when written down,
but images of words repeated in the mind
and not of the image of the thing itself."
- W.S. Burroughs

RADAR says:
Nowhere have I threatened the president. I have suggested an appropriate punishment for a military deserter who later commits treason and endangers the entire world, has Americans killed, or turned into mercenaries, attacks our civil rights, violates the Constitution, etc.

Ahem

You don't think lying to the American people to gain support for an unconstitutional use of our military in a war against a sovereign nation that has never attacked America, poses no threat to America, and has no connections with anyone who has attacked America doesn't merit impeachment? I think it merits execution for treason.

And then

Wrong A-G-A-I-N. The President is a public servant. He answers to ME.
:rolleyes:

Oh, you don't have to go through all that. He directly threatened the president's life in the "Happy Tax Day!" thread. He's just forgotten about it.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; So, Radar, as I recall you were either about to get married or had just gotten married?Either way, how's that workin' for ya?

xoxoxoBruce: You have failed to prove I have threatened the president. I've said he richly deserves to be executed for his crimes against America and I'd even volunteer to pull the switch if given the opportunity, but that is not a threat. Just wishfull thinking.

That is an outright lie. I have not now, nor have I ever threatened the life of the president. I wish for it, hope for it, know he deserves it, and would gladly volunteer to carry out his execution if the courts gave him the punishment he deserves, but I have never threatened him. He will be remembered among names like Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Ghengis Khan, Saddam Hussein, etc.

The considerably large amount of paperwork is finished. The wedding date has been scheduled for February, and I will be traveling to Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City) to marry her soon. Luckily I've been working at Boeing and making a decent living so I will be able to afford a nice wedding. Only 200-400 of my closest strangers.

We'll go to Thailand for the honeymoon, and then it will take me another 6-8 months before she can come to America so we can get started on the family thing. in the meantime we've been visiting each other every week on the webcam, email, letters, and phone calls. Thanks for asking.

No it's not. It's a cold, hard fact.

Also, Bruce was right. So that makes twice now!

I see, so this whole affair is being paid for with profits generated by W's warmongering.;)

Well, let's see:

<b>the people</b>: Who are "the people"? Does this include 4-year olds? Prison inmates? Cop killers?

<b>keep and bear</b>: Does this mean I can mount a machine gun on a turret to the roof of my truck, and drive around town? Can I bring it into a high school, day care, or airport?

<b>arms</b>: What sort of arms? Apparently you seem to think this includes thermonuclear warheads. Most people don't.

To make it clear, I have no interest whatsoever in what your answers to these questions are, because I could probably figure that out myself. I'm just illustrating that a seemingly simple phrase can have vastly different meanings to different people.

Whether or not the word "interpret" was actually used in the Constitution, the simple fact is that any words written by humans are open to interpretation.

<i>(Edit: typos)</i>

When exactly did Bush do this? I need a general timeframe, as well as the specific orders or oath he violated.

Prove it.

No, I work in Commercial Sattelite (Electron Dynamics) part. Not the military part.

"The People" are the same people referred to in every other part of the Constitution when "the people" are mentioned.

Why not? I don't see anything wrong with any of those. You're having or carrying a gun doesn't endanger others regardless of where you have it.

Any arms the government has access to.

Roughly 1971-1973

If you would like actual copies of letters written by his commanding officer regarding his desertion from the military and a list of which specific orders he violated in the UCMJ feel free to visit this website.

http://www.awolbush.com


He has also violated his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution because he has violated the Constitution more than all previous presidents combined. He championed the single most unconstitutional piece of legislation in the history of the United States (The Patriot Act), he created a new unconstitutional part of government (Homeland Security), he started an unprovoked war even though our military is for DEFENSE only, etc.

That's a rather amusing site you've found there. I didn't have time to wade through all of it, but it seems that its argument is contained entirely in this letter.

Unfortunately, it contains no record of desertion. His commanding officers "can't remember" seeing him at drill, decades after the fact. That's hardly what any non-biased person would call proof.

It also states his being a citizen of Texas as "proof" that he didn't drill in Alabama. But as I'm sure you well know, since you've done so much research in this area, you are not required to be a citizen of the state you attend drill with.

Try again. The letters I'm talking about were written at the time. Not afterward. These records not only have an undeniable record of his desertion but also contain actual copies of the letters written by his commanding officers during the years in question.

This time read the following:

Suspended from flying August 1972...

Annual Officer Effectiveness Report, 5/2/73: "Not Observed" from May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973...

In June of 1973, Air Force HQ asks for more information...

...and in November, Major Rufus Martin tells them he has none to give.

And you can also check out other documents relating to the Military records of George Walker Bush HERE

I don't know you personally, but if this is your attitude, I'm glad I don't.

I couldn't read any of those links.:rolleyes:

First link exerpt:Second Link exerpt:The other two links are a request for info, and a reply that: "Report for this period not availible for administrative reasons". Nothing was mentioned about the equivalent service in Alabama either way.

In other words, you've got nothing at all to indicate desertion.

He left his post without permission and didn't come back. He went to another state to work on his political career and never reported for duty elsewhere. In other words he is a deserter.

Item #3


Item #4

From his Suspension from flying...


There are other supporting documents like penalties for poor attendance, discharge papers, the days in which he was credited, etc. proving that he was indeed a military deserter. He was also a coward and still is one. Daddy got him out of the Vietnam war. It's out of the question for him to go to war, but it's just fine for him to send others to die in a war, even when it's an unconstitutional use of our military. He's a hypocrite, a mass murderer, a coward, a military deserter, an idiot, and a lying weasel. He thinks when he used drugs it's a "youthful indescretion" but when others do it they should go to jail.

He wants to promote peace by starting wars, balance the budget through record setting deficit spending, help the economy by costing us jobs, defend our freedom by attacking our civil rights, uphold and defend the constitution by completely ignoring it and violating it at every turn, etc.

Is there any way to verify that he didn't serve in Alabama? Obviously, it isn't likely that there is a report saying "George Bush didn't show up today", but is there a report that should exist but doesn't?

Why would he be in Alabama? He wasn't stationed there. He wasn't transfered there. His assignments are listed on one of the forms and it says from November 30, 1969 to October 1, 1973 he was assigned to Ellington Air Force Base in Texas.

Another one of the forms is a request for transfer by Bush, and another is when his transfer was turned down.

He left anyway and didn't come back.

I'm just pointing out the weasel area. People will claim that he wasn't AWOL if the document saying "A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama." is true. I was hoping there was evidence that he was actually NOT "performing equivalent training" when the author thought he was.

Me too. But I think the reports were sugar coated due to the political connection of GWB. He wouldn't have even gotten into the Air National Guard if it weren't for daddy's influence.

Because YOU would never do such an evil thing as avoiding conscripted service?

You've still got nothing to indicate he's a deserter. The most you've got is that

1) He missed a physical. This is not desertion

2) One part of the military thought he was in one place when he was in another. This, too, is not desertion.

I'm obviously against conscription, though I wouldn't avoid it. But George Bush is all for it. He doesn't mind sending other people to die, but when he's the one who has to fight, forget it.

1) He missed a physical and his commanders didn't know his whereabouts.

2) He was assigned to a base in Texas.

3) He applied for a transfer.

4) The transfer was turned down.

5) He stopped showing up in Texas and his commanders THINK he might have finished his service in Alabama even though there is no evidence to support it. This is known as AWOL - Absent without leave for a certain period and becomes desertion after 6 months.

6) Even if he did go to Alabama, he did so without a transfer and violated his orders, his assignment, etc. and was absent from the location he was assigned to which is still AWOL at the very least and technically becomes desertion (even if he's still on a military base) after 6 months.

There isn't one shred of evidence to suggest he finished his duty in Alabama but there is actual proof that his request for a transfer was denied.

George W. Bush is a corrupt, theiving, military deserter, a hypocrite, a coward, an idiot, a liar, a mass-murderer, an imperialistic tyrant, and a traitor who has violated his oath to god and the American people, and has endangered not only Americans, but the rest of the world through his irresponsible decisions and behavior. He is an enemy of America every bit as much as Osama Bin Laden although Bush is more dangerous to America than Bin Laden and Hussein combined.

You must be confused in your terminology. Conscription means involuntary service, i.e. being drafted. No one who has died in this war was drafted. Every one of them volunteered for service.

You say you wouldn't avoid being drafted. So if the Bush administration instituted a draft tomorrow, and your name was called, you would show up? Oh, wait, you think this war is unconstitutional. So I guess your political stance against the war would probably excuse you from service, in your eyes.

As far as all your documented proof of Bush's desertion, none of it comes anywhere near proof that he did any such thing. Do you really think that if those papers meant what you're reading into them, none of the doves running for president would have made an issue of them?

No, they realize something you don't, or at least what you pretend you don't. These papers don't mean a thing. If anything, they show that record-keeping in the military is horrible at times.

I am supposed to receive an Officer Evaluation Report once a year, but that hasn't always happened. But I have never missed a drill. If someone years from now requested my OER, they would probably get the response "not rated during this period due to administrative reasons". That doesn't mean shit. It's a CYA response from some admin who didn't file his paperwork properly.

The more of these documents I read, the funnier it gets!

I like the one labeled Document 23, Penalty for Bad Attendance. Taken out of context, one would assume it means Bush had bad attendance. I'm not sure whether you actually believe this, or know the truth but like to use its vagueness because it supports your agenda.

This doesn't mean his attendance was unsatisfactory, it means he was counseled on the possible consequences of poor attendance. You sign dozens of these papers when you sign up. It's so someone can't go AWOL, and then later on say "well I didn't know that wasn't allowed", because they have proof that you were indeed told.

So Radar, I'm curious.. how much military experience have you got under your belt? You seem to be pretty naive on what exactly all these papers mean, so of course you'll excuse anyone's hesitation at accepting your interpretation of them at face value.

The documents seem to indicate this chain of events: he applied for transfer to Alabama. The Alabama unit approved it, but AF HQ denied it for reasons I can't figure out (I think they're saying a National Guardsman can't be reassigned to a Reserve unit). So he requested a temporary transfer for three months to a different Alabama National Guard unit instead.

Again, none of this means a thing. People have stuff that comes up all the time, and making such exceptions is routine. The National Guard and Reserves try very hard to keep employers happy whenever possible, because they recognize the sacrifice employers make when reservists are called up. Your suggestion that it was "sugar-coated" because of "daddy's connections" is absurd.

No, I'm not. And I never claimed those who volunteered to DEFEND AMERICA and are taking part in this unconstitutional war were drafted. They were sent to take part in a war by a lying weasel who wouldn't do it himself.

Wrong. It proves it perfectly.

I was in and out in only 2 years. They had a special program back in 1987 called "Sea College". You get in, get college money and get out with no time in the reserves. I hated every second of it. Nothing but a bunch of idiots. But I'm sure you must be a special case....cough

Your suggestion that it was anything else is ludicrous. You can't be so stupid as to think Bush's father didn't have anything to do with him being assigned to a air national guard post while everyone else was being sent to die in a war we shouldn't have been involved in. Or can you? Hopefully you won't compound that ignorance by suggesting that even though all the paperwork points to the fact that Bush is a military deserter that it was just a clerical error. Please tell me you're not so I can sleep better tonight.

He'll be tossin' and turnin', tossin' and turnin'............:D

Thanks for that well-thought-out and articulated reply. I notice you have managed to completely avoid commenting on any of the specific flaws I pointed out in those documents and what you're trying to prove with them.

So, for this military idiot, please spell out exactly how any of this proves that Bush was a deserter.

I've already pointed out how it proves beyond any doubt that Bush is a military deserter. Your argument amounts to "Nuh uh" by making laughable claims that it was a clerical error, or that he wasn't transfered but just showed up at another base even though there is no record of him at the other base.

I've shown that he applied for a transfer, was denied the transfer, and he stopped showing up and never came back. You claim he went to a base in Alabama because his commander said he thought it might have happened, with NOTHING to substantiate it.

So again, I've proven perfectly that Bush is a military deserter and you've proven NOTHING. You haven't pointed out a single flaw in my argument as you claim. You haven't proven that he showed up at another base. You haven't proven anything and all the evidence points to the fact that Bush is a military deserter.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Hey Tob, I was wondering what you thought about George Sr. pulling strings to get him in the Guard and away from the draft?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I admit, I don't have any links to the story, I kinda thought it was common knowledge. For all I know you don't believe that happened. I read about it in the paper in Dallas while Bush was running for Governor. As I recall, GW got moved from the 57th slot to the top of the list after Dads phone call. This means that someone else that earned the spot got bumped.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Anyway, this bugs me, but I've never served in the military. As a guy that just got the sand out of his boots I was wondering what your opinion was on just that. Leaving out the desertion thing entirely, of course.

To be honest, I have never looked into that aspect of it much. If someone has a link to some substantive information, I'd appreciate it.

If those allegations are true, then yes, I agree it was shirking his duty and using connections to get special treatment. It doesn't, however, reduce my faith in him as my current commander-in-chief.

You must have me confused with someone else; my boots are still very much filled with sand! I'm just at a camp that has interent connections now.

OK, one more time:

1. He requested transfer to an Alabama Air Reserve unit, 24 May 1972.

2. The Alabama Air Reserve unit accepted him, 26 May 1972.

3. However, Air Force HQ, upon learning of the request, informs him that it is not possible to transfer from Air National Guard to an Air Reserve unit, here (date unreadable)

4. So, on September 5, he requests temporary transfer to an Air National Guard unit instead.

So, unless you're hiding some documents from the Alabama National Guard unit showing that he didn't show up, you have nothing.

Since I can pretty much assume you're not going to post anything constructive in that regard, what about my reply to your implication that he was punished for poor attendance? Do you still think that happened, or do you admit you were misrepresenting the meaning of that letter, or do you plead ignorance as to the true meaning of the letter?

If you have any faith in George W. Bush as a commander-in-chief or even as a decent human being, you're an idiot.

And for the record, nobody in Iraq is defending America. Not one. In fact they are doing the opposite. They are putting America in danger, costing America billions of dollars, violating the sovereignty of another nation, violating their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, committing murder, and oppressing people who were starved to death, kept from medicine, and attacked by America for 12 years. Every single American and Iraqi person who has died in this war rests on GWB's head. He alone started this illegal war. You can tell that to anyone with sand in their boots and tell them I said it and I'll say it to their face.

What part of "his transfer request was turned down" do you not understand? He did not have a valid transfer to Alabama even if they said they'd take him. I've seen no proof that he did show up in Alabama and you haven't presented any. It wouldn't matter if he did show up in Alabama, he was assigned to Texas and he didn't show up there. Even if he's on another base, it becomes desertion if he doesn't show up at his assigned base for 6 months.

He is still shirking his duty to the American people. He's a traitor and should be executed as one.

As far as penalties for poor attendance, I could hardly read the document and posted based on its description. It doesn't detract from the fact that his transfer request was DENIED so it doesn't matter if he took up Alabama on their offer, he's still a deserter because he deserted his assigned post without permission.

Do you understand the difference between National Guard and Reserves? Do you understand the difference between a permanent transfer, and a temporary transfer (i.e. "split training")?

He requested two different transfers. Even the website you reference acknowledges this. The transfer to the Reserve unit was denied, but you don't have any information regarding his temporary duty with the other unit.

Split training is so common in reserve (lower-case "r", meaning Reserves or National Guard) units that it is often not documented. It simply shows up as a different job code on the pay stub. You are completely misinterpreting these documents because you have no administrative military experience whatsoever.

Please, call all the national newspapers with your proof; I'm sure they'd love to get some good dirt on the president. Call Howard Dean or Joe Lieberman or Wesley Clark. They would love to have your "proof". I know you don't agree with these guys either, but your loathing for Bush is obviously so deep-seated that I'm sure you'd love to see him smeared.

I don't need to contact the media, it's common knowledge. Yes, you're right, I have extremely limited military experience and maybe I'm wrong about the paperwork having not seen any since 1989. Maybe you're right and I'm wrong about the military desertion. Anything is possible. The site seems convincing to me though.

But even if he's not a military deserter. He used his father's political influence to avoid the war, and now he's sending other people to die in a war that he personally started with a country that poses no threat to America. He personally championed the single most unconstitutional piece of legislation in American history. He personally lied to the American people of his own accord to support this illegal use of the military even though the CIA told him specifically that Iraq was not involved in 9/11 and they posed no danger to America. There are still no WMD's and Americans are still dying because GWB sent them into someone else's sovereign nation.

America has no authority beyond our own borders. Neither the UN, nor America has any authority to tell any sovereign nation what weapons they may or may now possess. America is not the boss of the world or the police of the world. And the only valid use of the American military is to DEFEND against eminent attacks on American soil. Not for humanitarian aid missions, not to stabilize other countries, not to overthrow foreign "regimes" we don't like, and not to train the military of other nations. It's not even for defending our allies.

I have great reason to hate George W. Bush. He has earned it and richly deserves it. He is as anti-American as it gets. We would have been better off even wish a scumbag like Gore. Hell if Bin Laden himself were appointed to the office of the President by the Supreme Court like Bush was, even he couldn't be more anti-American than Bush.

Bush is against everything America stands for. We were created to escape from imperialistic tyranny and oppression, and now we're practicing it thanks to people like him. We had a country that kept religion and government apart, and thanks to people like Bush they're coming together.

I sincerely believe that Bush is a worse president than any random heroin addicted homeless guy.

I dunno, I think bin Laden might be worse as President with regard to freedoms.