Hey.....

[thinknpositive]

Although comparing Bush and the Pope is like comparing apples and oranges, they both have a great deal of influence and power.

Although it's fun to say they are figureheads becaue it is empowering to us, it's not even close to true.

In reference to me calling Bush the leader of the f-ing free world, name another person that has more power than him.  Name another person that is more influential than him.  Sure he doesn't have the power to unilaterally do EVERYTHING, but it's pretty damn close. 

[mpete80]

HE has no power because his "advisors" won't let him. Hell, they still tell him not to run with scissors.

[jgruber]

In reference to me calling Bush the leader of the f-ing free world

now the question is what constitutes the free world?

[M2]

In reference to me calling Bush the leader of the f-ing free world

now the question is what constitutes the free world?

The free-er or "somewhat free" world would be a more suitable title.

[runnin_skeerd]

First to Catholics and Republicans, I'm sorry, we can't all be perfect.

Second, a better comparison can be made of the Catholic church and the United States under the current administration.

Your current crowned "King of All He Surveys", Lord King W. I, has used the might and power of the U.S. war machine with the mandate to convert to democracy or die.  Sound familiar?  The Catholic Church did much the same thing during the crusades, convert or die. 

I say that such actions constitute war crimes.  I agree with the more than 400 law professors that have called for the impeachment of his royal highness, Lord King W. I.  There is a significant difference between getting a little head in the Oval Office and invading a soverign nation and jusifying same with lies and then covering those lies with more lies.  After impeachment, his highness should be tried before a war-crimes tribunal.

It's absolutely unbelievable that the American public has believed every lie that has spilled from Lord King W. I's mouth.  First the justification to invade Iraq was their direct connection with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.  When the administration failed to establish that connection, the administration justified the invasion by declaring that Saddam Hussain was harboring and aiding Osama and other key members of Al Quida (the organization directly responsible for Sept. 11, 2001).  When that connection failed to be proven, the "Weapons of Mass Distruction" lie was formulated.  This proved to be unfruitful as well.  In the end, the justification for killing untold thousands of Iraqi citizens, placing American troops in harms way resulting in the death of more than 500+ soldiers and the maiming of hundreds, if not thousands more of our troops, was that we have freed the Iraqi people--The ends justify the means.


Lord King W. I, may indeed be the leader of the free world now; however, with any good fortune of the American people that will end January 2005 when John F. Kerry (or whom ever the Democrats nominate) takes the oath of office.


p.s.:  120 but would be reported as 180 after the LSAC was invaded by U.S. Marines to uncover their WMD's.  Of course Halliburton would be given the "no bid" $200,000,000,000.00 contract to print all future LSATs, to supply MREs for test proctors, and supply test takers with pencils for which Hilliburton will bill the U.S. government $150.00 each.

[dandruffy]

On an unrelated but similar note, while studying for the LSAT I'd find myself reading quotes from the administration and just stunned at the logical errors. I'd find myself constructing Logical Reasoning questions out of g to read administration quotes and convert them into LSAT type questions. It's so easy!

For example:

Administration: Jose Padilla can be held indefinitely without legal representation or recourse. This is Constitutional because in addition to Padilla being suspected of planning a dirty bomb attack, he is now also suspected of plotting a string of apartment bombings.

Identify the logical flaw in the Administration's contention that the indefinite detention of Jose Padilla is Constitutional.

[superiorlobe]

On an unrelated but similar note, while studying for the LSAT I'd find myself reading quotes from the administration and just stunned at the logical errors. I'd find myself constructing Logical Reasoning questions out of g to read administration quotes and convert them into LSAT type questions. It's so easy!

For example:

Administration: Jose Padilla can be held indefinitely without legal representation or recourse. This is Constitutional because in addition to Padilla being suspected of planning a dirty bomb attack, he is now also suspected of plotting a string of apartment bombings.

Identify the logical flaw in the Administration's contention that the indefinite detention of Jose Padilla is Constitutional.

I like this post.  This kid is smart and will do well in law school.  Excellent work, kiddo.  Going to Harvard, I presume?

[lexylit]

runnin skeerd, i see your george W 120, but i challenge your use of its vs. it's

[runnin_skeerd]

It's absolutely unbelievable that the American public has believed every lie that has spilled from Lord King W. I's mouth.

lexylit-

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the only time that I used the contraction "it's" in my entire post.  The usage of "it's" as a contraction for "it is" is correct in this context.  "Its" is a possive pronoun not a contraction    

Political Science major, not English soooooooo...   

Best of luck in your law school endeavors lexylit!

[jgruber]

First to Catholics and Republicans, I'm sorry, we can't all be perfect.

Historically the Roman Catholic Church has a lot to answer for and you don't have to go back too far to find it.  But I'm still glad I converted recently.  Did you hear that the Church finally apologized for the Inquisition?



But let's talk about free world.  I often call Bush the leader of the free world in conversations at work, but I mean it to be ironic.  What is the free world these days?  It used to be the world outside the communist block.  Hmmmmm.  Where do we find freedom?  In a place that argues it can imprison people indefinitely without charges or legal representation?