George W. Bush

---

I already put up. You do the research to prove me wrong or shut up yourself.

The problem with the media is not that they're controlled by big business. Of course they are. The problem is that most don't realize their true agenda...to captivate their audience and incite them to devision, anger and all manner of things so that their attention is focussed on matters of little true importance and big business can continue with business as usual, unhindered by public knowledge and opinion of such. If there is anything that is of good news or that puts public fears to rest, you will not hear it in the news. Watergate? Doesn't matter. They'll contrive something just as bad...they have no need for investigative reporting anymore as it no longer serves their purpose. To much of the public already believe whatever they spew.

I'll note that there is some noteworthy reporting still going on...but you have to search to find it. The mass-media (which is all that most folks hear) is what I'm talking about in the above.

> I already put up. You do the research to prove me wrong or shut up yourself.

You put up some nut-job nonsense. Here's the pattern: you make an outrageous claim, put up no evidence, or ridiculous evidence, or a dead link, and then you put the onus on the other person.

That is not how it works. You have nothing, and I am calling you on it. But if it makes you feel better about your politics, hey, who am I to argue.

> The problem with the media is not that they're controlled by big business.

Yeah, of course not. They're actually working against the interests of their corporate owners, and in turn, their shareholders, because, as we all know, that's how capitalism works. All that stuff a out fiduciary responsibility to shareholders is just so much blather, right? Still, as an exercise, I dare you to find a large media outlet that's not owned by a big public company.

> The problem is that most don't realize their true agenda...

Do you realize how often you use the word "agenda"? You are in a very paranoid place, where everyone has an agenda, and most people are conspiring against you and people like you (the real Americans).

> to captivate their audience and incite them to devision, anger and all manner of things so that their attention is focussed on matters of little true importance and big business can continue with business as usual, unhindered by public knowledge and opinion of such. If there is anything that is of good news or that puts public fears to rest, you will not hear it in the news.

What do you make of the fact that Bush's people kept raising the terror alert color every time something embarrassing for the was about to come out? Or that fact that things that are embarrassing always seem to be released at 5 PM on Friday? Do you find Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al to be uniters, not dividers?

> Watergate? Doesn't matter. They'll contrive something just as bad.

"They", huh? Those would be the people who are out the get the Real Americans, right? I assume that you're not saying that the Watergate scandal was contrived.

> they have no need for investigative reporting anymore as it no longer serves their purpose. To much of the public already believe whatever they spew.

Because their purpose is to make money! That is the purpose of a for-profit public corporation! That is their fiduciary responsibility. If they don't do that, then they are subject to lawsuits by their shareholders.

> I'll note that there is some noteworthy reporting still going on...but you have to search to find it. The mass-media (which is all that most folks hear) is what I'm talking about in the above.

I hope you don't rank as noteworthy the conspiracy mongers who are dreaming about WMDs moving into Syria just before the bombs started dropping on Iraq.

You should read things beyond what confirms your cherished beliefs. Read what the Iraqi higher-ups who were captured say. None of them had any involvement with WMDs for many years, and their stories are consistent. They jibe with the findings of the U.N. weapons inspectors, who were still in Iraq when the U.S. was getting ready to attack.

WMDs to Syria, Loch Ness Monster...same thing.

I know Steve...it's tough to swallow something when you've openly believed what you've been spoon-fed for so long. But I think one day you'll wake up and smell the coffee. In the meantime, Syria is sitting on three separate locations where WMD from Iraq has been sitting since before the end of Saddam's reign in Iraq. Syrian ources outside of the current party in power confirm this...you can find their testimoney on the web if you really want to. Personally, I find it amazing that people are so quick to point to Bush and call him a liar, and yet believe what politicians of other countries (like Syria) say when it's obviously in their own best interests to do so. How convenient for those who wish to go on believing what they already do...what the mass-media has fed them.

Just because you don't like the mainstream media doesn't automatically mean that the alternative is true.> Bush and call him a liarBush said that Iraq had no WMDs. Are you calling him a liar? He went to war based on weak itelligence; he already had the intention to invade Iraq (are you familiar with the Downing Street Memo?).> and yet believe what politicians of other countries (like Syria) say when it's obviously in their own best interests to do so. How convenient for those who wish to go on believing what they already do...what the mass-media has fed them.You seem to be completly unable to understand why proving the negative is invalid. Do you remember when Joseph McCarthy called people communists, and it was up to them to prove that they're not?It's not up to the Syrians to prove that they don't have Iraq's WMDs. How could they? Prove to me that you don't have Iraq's WMDs.I can asure you that if there were a story there, news outlets would be vying to break the story. It would get them a lot of attention, a lot of viewers, and thus a lot of advertisers and a lot of money for their shareholders.

If this so-called evidence is so concrete, why isn't bush mentioning it in every speech? Hasn't he already acknowledged that there were no WMDs?

No...that there ARE no WMDs. We know that there certainly WERE WMDs...but with the spin the media has put on everything, we'd have to actually have them in our hands to satisfy the public.

And because he can't prove they're in Syria (without invading them and waving the stockpiles under everybodies noses) anymore than he can prove they were in Iraq when we decided to enter the country, of course he won't mention them. That would be like making the same mistake twice. All Syria would have to do is deny it, the media would jump all over it to make Bush look bad in any way they could, and nothing would be gained along the lines of getting rid of the stuff. But make no mistake about it...we have our eye on Syria.

What alarms me is all the media has to do is say it's true and a large body of people believe it outright. Somebody else says it's not and THEY need overwhelming proof...more than the testimoney of the pilot who flew the airplane, the air-marshall of Saddam himself and the satellite photography of part of "Operation: Stash the WMD". Anybody else see the danger here?

What does the subjagation of Ireland have to do with modern Britain? Nothing. ALl your points based on such piffle is entirely moot.The term UK is not a fallacy. The UK exists. Simple as. I live in it, its right here. Someone disliking it doesnt make it not exist.The topic of the thread was trhe war in Iraq and you used the term "England" for the war in Iraq and no matter what historical arguements you make you cannot chaneg the fact that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern ireland is at war. Personal preference and lieks and dislikes simply do not come in to it, such arguements of yours have no weigth whatsoever. In reply to: You really have no idea the residue of bitterness that has been left here as a result of nine hundred years of imperialist persecution. On this point also, you are very naïve. Your not the first Irelander I've ever spoken too. I am well aware of the emotions surrounding your countries stint as part of the Empire. But its just entirely irrelevant. In reply to: I did not make any comment at that time because it is not my business what way you’d like other readers of this thread to identify England, Scotland and Wales, and because it’s not my business if they choose to indulge you either Its not abotu identity. Its abotu what exists. The Uk exists. Simple. Its there. It has a government. Its on the map. The UK went to war in Iraq. England did not. In reply to: That may be so, I don’t doubt it, but it is also true, and you know as well as I do, that a sizable minority do not Theres hardly a state in Europe that doesnt have seperatost movements. I guess we should stop calling France France so as not to upset the seperatists in Corsica and Brittanny. In reply to: if you add those people together with the millions in Scotland and Wales who also object to such an association, again, where is your unity? Millions? 20% of the opulation of Wales support nationalists parties. Thats alot less than a million. In Scotland its margenally less. In reply to: You just don’t seem (or perhaps want?) to understand that it is totally unacceptable of you to demand of an Irish person that they use terminology which was imposed upon us with the forcible alignment of Ireland, a sovereign island nation, with its Colonialist subjugator for many hundreds of years You are no longer subjegated, you have your state. I have mine. My state is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is not a fallacy. That is simply what it is.I am not stepping over the line by asking you to call my state what it is called. That it is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is indisputable, its a simply a fact and by ignoring that you are burying your head in the ground. Its indisputable that this state SHOULD be called the United Kingdom, no sane nationalist questions that that is the appropiate name of the state, they simply question whether the state should exist, but as long as it does exist it is nothign short of stupidity to call the state "England".Your ramblings about the past and conjecture about modern Britain show that you are in this arguement for the wrong reasons.

In reply to: Are you saying there was no difference between Bush I and Clinton, Bob Dole and Clinton, Bush II and Gore, or Bush II and Kerry? Not at all. As individuals they are very different with very different views. In reply to: Are are you saying that they all just sucked, so it didn't really matter? That's basically it. Ultimately, it really didn't matter all that much to the average American who won. If Perot had won it might have made a difference, or possibly (but not likely) Nader. As it was, for all the vitriol between Dems and Repubs there really isn't all that much difference between them.It's like having a monkey on the back or your bicycle. If you lean one way, the monkey leans the other. Nothing much happens...

We know that there certainly WERE WMDs...but with the spin the media has put on everything, we'd have to actually have them in our hands to satisfy the public.Iraq had WMDs a couple of decades ago. No one denies that. But all of the evidence points to the fact that by the 2000s, they didn't have any more of them, plus or minus some old artillary shells that.If some person with fringe ideas publishes a book or a Web page, it doesn't mean that what they say is to be accepted out-of-hand. Evidence is necessary.> And because he can't prove they're in Syria (without invading them and waving the stockpiles under everybodies noses) anymore than he can prove they were in Iraq when we decided to enter the country, of course he won't mention them.He said there were none. Period. The issue is not proof. It's evidence. He has no evidence to show, or he would have shown it.> All Syria would have to do is deny it, the media would jump all over it to make Bush look bad in any way they could, and nothing would be gained along the lines of getting rid of the stuff. But make no mistake about it...we have our eye on Syria.Yeah, things are going so well in Iraq, and we have Iran so well under control, it's time to invade Syria.> What alarms me is all the media has to do is say it's true and a large body of people believe it outright. Somebody else says it's not and THEY need overwhelming proof...If the media said that Syria had WMDs, they'd better have the evidence to back it up, or they would be (properly) ridiculed.> more than the testimoney of the pilot who flew the airplane, the air-marshall of Saddam himself and the satellite photography of part of "Operation: Stash the WMD".Do you have any of those satellite photos handy? Would you like to share them with us? Have you seen them? I don't know what the pilot saw, or if he had any idea what he was seeing, or if he was having an acid flashback. As far as anyone in they employ of Saddam, most of what they said that had any significance turned out to be false.And I'm still not sure what you mean by "WMD" here.> Anybody else see the danger here?Yes. When people start believing conspiriatoral nonsense, bad decisions are made.Don't believe unsupported outrageous claims just because they fall into line with your pplitical beliefs.

Yes. When people start believing conspiriatoral nonsense, bad decisions are made.I'm sure you watched yesterday the new episode of South Park

Sorry to bring this up again, but it is my thread and I shall cry if I want to!You can look through the statutes and you can look for the law that requires you to pay, and when you do that, you can't identify a law that requires the average person in America who earns a wage and works in private business, to pay an income tax. The Constitution allows for two(2) kinds of taxes: direct & indirect.The Federal Government, in the Constitution, can tax almost anything as long as it apportions the tax if it is direct. All indirect taxes, such as tax on tobacco, must be the same(uniform) throughout all 50 states. The Income tax which is being applied now doesn't fit the criteria for either, direct or indirect tax. The IRS claims that in 1913, the 16th Amendment allowed the government a third form of taxation. This is the perspective that most Americans have on Income tax.In reply to:It's up to the Supreme Court to explain what the words mean.Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916) "the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation"Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) "(a) The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment, and therefore if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the Amendment, it is outside of the Amendment, and is void as a direct tax in the general constitutional sense because not apportioned. (b) As the Amendment authorizes a tax only upon incomes 'from whatever source derived,' the exclusion from taxation of some income of designated persons and classes is not authorized, and hence the constitutionality of the law must be tested by the general provisions of the Constitution as to taxation, and thus again the tax is void for want of apportionment. (c) As the right to tax 'incomes from whatever source derived' for which the Amendment provides must be considered as exacting intrinsic uniformity, therefore no tax comes under the authority of the Amendment not conforming to such standard, and hence all the provisions of the assailed statute must once more be tested solely under the general and pre-existing provisions of the Constitution, causing the statute again to be void in the absence of apportionment. (d) As the power conferred by the Amendment is new and prospective, the attempt in the statute to make its provisions retroactively apply is void because, so far as the retroactive period is concerned, it is governed by the pre-existing constitutional requirement as to apportionment."So it was basically decided that the 16th Amendment did not impose any new taxes and did not change any of the taxing restrictions of the Constitution.There were also several other Supreme Court cases from 1916 up until about 1932 saying this, such as Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe (1918), Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co. (1918) and Burnet v. Harmel (1932). Congress tried to enact an Income tax in 1884, the Supreme Court said that it was unconstitutional.They tried again in 1913 and, as I quoted, the Supreme Court said that "the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation". So if they didn't have a new type of taxation then, and they didn't get it since, then they don't have it. There is no constitutional basis for tax on the wages of Americans living and working in the 50 states of the Union.In a letter from the office of Senator Daniel Inouye, it states that "Based on the research performed by the Congressional Research Service, there is no provisions which specifically and unequivocally require an individual to pay an income tax." There is no law, and to date, nobody has been able to show a law for the average American citizen to pay an Income tax.The definition of income in the constitution was given in the case Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert (1913) as:"the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined"and then again in Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co. (1918) as:"gain or increase arising from corporate activities."In other words, its corporate profit. It doesn't mean wages.The IRS enforces Income tax illegally. Nowhere, even in the IRS Code, does it say that compliance is mandatory."Your income tax is a 100% voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is a 100% enforced tax. The situation is as different as night and day."~Dwight E. Avis Head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division Bureau of Internal Revenue

I'm not an expert on taxation, so I'll let attorney Daniel B. Evan's Web page refute the claims of the "Income Tax is illegal" folks.Didn't the Supreme Court rule against someone (was it Schiff?) who insisted that the income tax is illegal, and the IRS is illegal, and so on? The Supreme Court has the final word; think of the justices as the A2A administrators of the U.S. Constitution. If they rule that the Constitution allows for an income tax, then it is legal, by definition. The only recourse is to impeach the justices and bring another case on the same subject to the Supreme Court.A simpler remedy would be to have Congress repeal the tax laws. They could even dissolve the IRS alogether if they wanted to. We have a conservative Repbulican-controlled Congress that could pass the appropriate bill, and a conservative Republican president who could sign it. They are all elected by the people. Why isn't it happening?Even if the Constitution does give the government the right to collect an imcome tax as it is currently done, nothing says that Congress and the executive branch have to exercise that right.

you forgot..."Iam a mamber of the yale secret society known as scull and bones. we have secret agendas and we realy don't care how many people suffer or die for us to be secessful in are plans."he didn't actuly say that but its a very scary trueth

George Bush supports and impliments the death penaltyNo one can do this and call themselves a christian.I am not one of these, but any true christian, muslim, jew, buddhist, whatever will tell you only the creator can take away a human life.

well I guess if you kill someone then you pay for it with the consequence of your life. if people knew they wouldn't die if they killed others half the country would be gone by now, IMO

That doesn't seem to be the case in other countries. It's also not the case in states that don't have (or don't implement) the death penalty. George W. Bush and Bill Clinton both signed a lot of death warrants as governors, but Bush makes a bigger show of his religious beliefs and their morality.

very true... then again look who we're talking about. It's BUSH! lol he's a very fallible man and needs to go back to school and learn a few things.

Yes, I'm familiar with the Irwin Schiff case. It was presided over by Judge Dawson who in that case stated, "I will not allow the law in my courtroom!" When trying to quote the Supreme Court cases that I listed above, the Judge dissallowed him to make reference to the Supreme Court.

Irwin Schiff: "But the Supreme Court said..."

Judge Dawson: "Irrelevant! Denied!"

Irwin Schiff: "The Supreme Court is irrelevent???"

Judge Dawson: "Irrelevant! Denied!"

And he refused Schiff's ability to defend himself further in his Jury Instructions which said "You must follow the law as I give it to you."

In the case of Gaylon "Whitey" Harrell, a man who refused to pay his taxes for years until the law that said he had to was shown to him, was aquitted by the jury. This occured because altho he was being charged with an Illinois law, the law began with "Anyone required to file a federal income tax return..." The jury asked the judge several times to show them the law that said that Harrell did have to file a federal income tax return, but he refused to do so everytime they asked, saying that that they had everything they needed. So without the law presented to them, they had no option but to find him Not Guilty.

Many people have won cases on this matter because the law has never been presented.

And altho the website you linked me to is interesting, very few of the questions relate to what I stated above, and many of them leave out important imformation, probably unknown to the author. Basically, none of the answers that I read could prove false any of my statements.

"George Bush supports and impliments the death penaltyNo one can do this and call themselves a christian"That's a good point. I am totally and utterly opposed to the death penalty. I really dont get the logic of a legal system that says: 'killing is so wrong that if you do it... we'll kill you'! Where is the example in that??!!

"What does the subjagation of Ireland have to do with modern Britain?"

A lot more than I'd like it to.

"You are no longer subjegated, you have your state."

We are still subjugated precisely because what we must contend with here is the continued partition of our sovereign nation, which has resulted in this state. It is quite baffling that you are stupid enough not to understand that.

"Your not the first Irelander I've ever spoken too"

I'd be pretty sure I was, if indeed that were what I was, since "Irelanders" don't exist anywhere outside your imagination. How curious that you bang on incessantly about your right to have your state titled and recognised as you see fit, yet you can invent terms of reference for other nations and their residents!

I will repeat myself this once since you clearly do not get it: If you are historically and politically ignorant enough not to understand when you are causing offence yourself you have no right to ask anybody else to be considerate of your own views.

Now, you can say what you like after this, I won't be responding again on this particular subject because you have no respect or regard for the 3000+ lives that have been lost here over the last thirty years or the countless thousands that went before that in the name of your puke inducing 'british empire', as the following quote clearly attests:

"My state is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"

You can call a pear an apple all the whole day long; that's not ever going to make it a fucking apple. Six of Ulster's counties are adjoined to Ireland because... guess why? - They're fucking Irish.