Inaugaration Irony

GuanYin

Did anyone catch Bush's inaugaration speech?

Fantastic how he waffles on about freedom and liberty while 500 yards away protestors are being tear-gassed.

The scaremongering cries of him running for a third term haven't quite registered on my sincerity meter yet but given his performance yesterday, once again I'm left feeling that I've underestimated just how insane the whole situation is.....

uberwolf

I hadn't cottoned on to the irony as regards internal politics. Internationally however spreading freedom and democracy as his policy is hilarious. Actually it's not, it upsets me at this stage how warped the perspective of the country and its regime has become.

They are the worlds most agressive nation protesting to spread peace and harmony. I'm not sure if I'd be more comfortable to think they were smart and just getting away with it. Or stupid and bungling their way through a 21st version of the crusades.

jhegarty

syke wrote:

Did anyone catch Bush's inaugaration speech?

Fantastic how he waffles on about freedom and liberty while 500 yards away protestors are being tear-gassed.

The scaremongering cries of him running for a third term haven't quite registered on my sincerity meter yet but given his performance yesterday, once again I'm left feeling that I've underestimated just how insane the whole situation is.....

sorry, I though those people got a chance to vote last month.... they should be busy out looking for a candidate, who isn't a block of wood , for 4 years time.....

and I presume you are not honestly telling me bush will try and run again are you ?

Hobbes

jhegarty wrote:

and I presume you are not honestly telling me bush will try and run again are you ?

He probably doesn't realise he can't. Although after the crowning of King George yesterday that I saw it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

koneko

syke wrote:

The scaremongering cries of him running for a third term haven't quite registered on my sincerity meter yet

What's this now? He hasn't gone and changed the laws/constitution again has he?

uberwolf

jhegarty wrote:

sorry, I though those people got a chance to vote last month

by that logic the american people should let bush have free reign for next four years. (which he may do anyway). The irony wasn't anything to do with their protesting. But more to do with that as Bush uttered the word liberty one of his fellow citizens was getting pepper spray in their faces as they exercised their democratic right.

jhegarty

uberwolf wrote:

one of his fellow citizens was getting pepper spray in their faces as they exercised their democratic right.

from what the CBS news (who hate bush anyway) said the only protesters who were pepper sprayed were trying to break through a security check point , and trying to destory public/private property.....

uberwolf

jhegarty wrote:

from what the CBS news (who hate bush anyway) said the only protesters who were pepper sprayed were trying to break through a security check point , and trying to destory public/private property.....

TBH that doesn't suit my argument.

Sparks

Irony, eh?

GuanYin

jhegarty wrote:

and I presume you are not honestly telling me bush will try and run again are you ?

I'm not, however, apparently the Bush administrations concession that the 2000 elections were contentious and that he was "appointed" president rather than elected has paved the way for plenty of far-left scaremongering speculation that Bush will declare his 2000 election null and void, making this term his first elected term as president and allowing him elegibility for a "third" term.

If you look atthe 22nd amendment

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. - AMENDMENT XXII, Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.

You'll see that there may be a way around it.

I've stopped setting myself up to being shocked by the Bush administration, so while I don't think its likely, it wouldn't surprise me.

Imposter

uberwolf wrote:

TBH that doesn't suit my argument.

lmfao. That has to be quote on the month so far.

sovtek

jhegarty wrote:

from what the CBS news (who hate bush anyway) said the only protesters who were pepper sprayed were trying to break through a security check point , and trying to destory public/private property.....

I guess that's why the owner of CBS (ie Viacom) pledged his full support for Bush?

Moriarty

syke wrote:

I'm not, however, apparently the Bush administrations concession that the 2000 elections were contentious and that he was "appointed" president rather than elected has paved the way for plenty of far-left scaremongering speculation that Bush will declare his 2000 election null and void, making this term his first elected term as president and allowing him elegibility for a "third" term.

If you look atthe 22nd amendment



You'll see that there may be a way around it.

I've stopped setting myself up to being shocked by the Bush administration, so while I don't think its likely, it wouldn't surprise me.

Rot. He was elected fine, just not with the popular vote. This is plain FUD.

jhegarty

syke wrote:

I'm not, however, apparently the Bush administrations concession that the 2000 elections were contentious and that he was "appointed" president rather than elected has paved the way for plenty of far-left scaremongering speculation that Bush will declare his 2000 election null and void, making this term his first elected term as president and allowing him elegibility for a "third" term.

If you look atthe 22nd amendment



You'll see that there may be a way around it.

I've stopped setting myself up to being shocked by the Bush administration, so while I don't think its likely, it wouldn't surprise me.

you seem to have ignored most of the 22nd amendemnt ....

>>and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once.


no room to get out of it that way.......


plus he wasn't appointed , he was elected, the court just said they should be no more recounts , they did not "appoint" him.....

GuanYin

jhegarty wrote:

you seem to have ignored most of the 22nd amendemnt ....

>>and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once.


no room to get out of it that way.......


plus he wasn't appointed , he was elected, the court just said they should be no more recounts , they did not "appoint" him.....

If you read that quote as it is intended the key part is (and this is why the comma is important) of a term to which some other person was elected .

Thats all that that part refers to. So it doesn't apply here.

Secondly I don't believe he can myself, I'm just reporting what the tin foil hats are saying.

jhegarty

syke wrote:

If you read that quote as it is intended the key part is (and this is why the comma is important) of a term to which some other person was elected .

Thats all that that part refers to. So it doesn't apply here.

Secondly I don't believe he can myself, I'm just reporting what the tin foil hats are saying.

but either he was elected , or someone else was... you can't argure that he was elected , and not elected......

its well coverd by either part..... there is no loophole there...

GuanYin

What exactly are you arguing here?

If it is that the part of the amendment that I left out and you quotes applies to this situation in any way, then I repeat, you are wrong, this is not the case, that applies only to those who take over mid term.

If it is that Bush is not eligable for a 3rd term, then I agree, I repeat, I am merely citing scarmongering that is doing the rounds in the far left democrat circles.

bonkey

jhegarty wrote:

but either he was elected , or someone else was... you can't argure that he was elected , and not elected......

No, the argument is that he was appointed to his first term, but not elected. The Supreme Court (or however high it went) ruled that he was to be appointed President....not that he won the election.

its well coverd by either part..... there is no loophole there...

To be fair, there most probably isn't a loophole, but it isn't covered by either part....as both parts rely on someone being elected, as opposed to someone serving a term of office or someone being appointed to office.

Its legal pedantry taken to its zenith, but remember that we are talking about a nation which has given us the packet of peanuts with the warning "may contain nuts" on it.....

Still...I imagine that even the most rabidly pro-Conservative, Pro-Republican Supreme Court would find it nigh-on-impossible to justify a third term, but were they to adhere strictly to the letter of the law, rather than the clear intention, then there is a scaremongerers-chance that it could happen.

jc

chewy

"sorry, I though those people got a chance to vote last month.... they should be busy out looking for a candidate, who isn't a block of wood , for 4 years time....."

also i bet most of the people up the front pushing the barricades chose not to vote...

Redlancer

I think its great Bush is back in the white house spreading freedom throughout the world.I mean I feel much safer now Saddam has been captured.The biggest problem in Iraq is all of you people who waffle on with your moral attitude and go on about all this injustice.I mean all you silly protestors go mad about Bush but last year the president of Uganda came to Ireland all nothing was said? No body cared it is not fashionable enough for you champagne protestors.

Innocent people been slaughtered everyday in Uganda yet you rather support those cowardly Islam terrorists who just drive cars full of bombs into weddings.I would have loved if some of you rightful sons of b**ches had been jailed during the Saddam regime maybe then I would love to see what your response would be.

Another fact everyone ignores is America does more than any other country in the world.They send troops to every s**thole when there is a conflict.While the UN sits around and does nothing for exmaple Yugoslavia when millions died while the Dutch UN troops stood by in the same town, how pathetic.

Another note how much did the US pledge to the Tsunami affected regions?
How much did Ossama pledge?

Why dont all you wingers go back to concern and earn your €11.40 an hour asking "have you a minute for concern"

SICK IS WHAT YE ARE

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

that is a bloody great idea redlancer. I'm gona write bin laden and suggest that if he really wants to piss the US off he should try to top their asian relief efforts.

The Sweeper

Redlancer, I suggest you study the history and reasons behind some of the most brutal conflicts in the world. There are three factors that I believe are important in this:

1. Who has armed the warring factions? Where did their arms come from?
2. Who is in power in the warring factions? Where are they from? Who supported their move to come to power?
3. Are the conflicts taking place in an area that is a valuable natural resource, or is in the path of delivery of a valuable natural resource?

If nothing else, it may open your eyes a little to the fact that there tends to be a lot more to global conflicts than "the incumbent is a BAD MAN, and America are going to open a can of whup-ass on him, wow aren't they so generous hearted in their intervention".

bonkey

Redlancer has picked up a one week ban for that outburst.

jc

ionapaul

I typed something up earlier but my IE malfunctioned while trying to post it - oh well, here we go...

One of the main problems with the tin-foil hat brigade's arguments is the lack of consistency. On the one hand, Bush is this crafty, evil, manipulating bastard who is scheming to re-interpret the constitution and get elected to a third term as president. On the other, he is an idiot, possibly a chimpanzee, and a puppet of an evil cabal of shadowy figures, sitting around a huge desk with a map of the world in its centre, cackling with glee as their wicked schemes get put into motion by the afore-mentioned idiot.

Now, if he is just an idiot put into power by the evil group of evil-doers, why would they go to the bother of stirring up a hornet's nest of trouble by trying to get him elected a third time? Why not use another idiot - there is even another Bush ready in the wings down in Florida!

There is ZERO chance of Bush running for a third term - his own party would desert him if he seriously suggested it.

GuanYin

ionapaul wrote:

I typed something up earlier but my IE malfunctioned while trying to post it - oh well, here we go...

One of the main problems with the tin-foil hat brigade's arguments is the lack of consistency. On the one hand, Bush is this crafty, evil, manipulating bastard who is scheming to re-interpret the constitution and get elected to a third term as president. On the other, he is an idiot, possibly a chimpanzee, and a puppet of an evil cabal of shadowy figures, sitting around a huge desk with a map of the world in its centre, cackling with glee as their wicked schemes get put into motion by the afore-mentioned idiot.

Now, if he is just an idiot put into power by the evil group of evil-doers, why would they go to the bother of stirring up a hornet's nest of trouble by trying to get him elected a third time? Why not use another idiot - there is even another Bush ready in the wings down in Florida!

There is ZERO chance of Bush running for a third term - his own party would desert him if he seriously suggested it.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Bush is a genius or crafty but I think many suspect he surrounds himself with people who are.

jhegarty

bonkey wrote:

Redlancer has picked up a one week ban for that outburst.

jc

free speech my **********....

do we live in sadam era iraq ?

GuanYin

jhegarty wrote:

free speech my **********....

do we live in sadam era iraq ?

Expressing an opinion freely is one thing.

Using boards as a platform for vitriole and abuse is another.

And who ever said you had free speech here anyway?

jhegarty

syke wrote:

Expressing an opinion freely is one thing.

Using boards as a platform for vitriole and abuse is another.

And who ever said you had free speech here anyway?

the rules for posing to this forum include "Every poster is entitled to their opinion - whether it is ill-informed or not. "

beezkneez

i think redlancer made some good points, also agree that he didnt deserve ban for expressing his opinion.

GuanYin

I think he was banned less for expressing his opinion and more for being insulting and abusive.

sceptre

jhegarty wrote:

free speech my **********....

do we live in sadam era iraq ?

You live in moderator-era non-abusive boards.ie.

The Feedback forum might be a better place to offer your opinion on this matter as it's just hijacking this thread.

Sparks

Redlancer wrote:

Another fact everyone ignores is America does more than any other country in the world.They send troops to every s**thole when there is a conflict.While the UN sits around and does nothing

Anger aside, you're factually incorrect - the EU is the largest contributor of foreign aid in the world, both in total amount and in per capita amount and in terms of a percentage of national income. And you'll also note that the US contributes a little less than 1% of the troops who wear the blue beret.

Why dont all you wingers go back to concern and earn your €11.40 an hour asking "have you a minute for concern"

A worthwhile task, since Concern are currently over in Indonesia, Aceh, Sri Lanka and other places, getting medical care, food and shelter to those needing it. The US were an enormous help in this with the helicopters from the USS Abraham Lincoln, but they're leaving this friday. Concern will be there till the job's done, mind.

Sleepy

I'd also be curious to know how Ireland fares in terms of troop provision for peacekeeping missions. On a per capita basism I'd imagine we'd feature near the top of the tables.

bonkey

jhegarty wrote:

the rules for posing to this forum include "Every poster is entitled to their opinion - whether it is ill-informed or not. "

The rules also state that attacks on other posters will not be tolerated.

Where rules overlap, I would have thought it was obvious that you need to comply with both.

This side-discussion is now closed. If anyone has anything they wish to add, they can take it to the "Discussion about the Rules" thread stickied at the top of the forum, or to Feedback as Sceptre suggested if they feel it is not merely an "internal" issue.

jc