Go to Why?
- Add a comment
- Go to Criminals in Power, are Still Just Criminals
Wordwizard,
A little too much confusion in your comment! It is public knowledge that only a minority even vote in an election! So your conclusion that a "majority" voted for Bush and Blair in their own elections is hard fallacy! This creates a "real" problem for your logic! That these two nations are being "ruled" by criminals is has nothing to in common with voting! People vote for the most "responsible" leadership available at the time of an election.
That is not an endorsement of the vetting process, but a statement of "real" fact! "Unless you come from Africa", is an interesting statement? You will have to do better than that to get a response!
posted by
Glennb
on July 13, 2005 at 2:36 PM
| link to this | reply
Glennb
Both Bush and Blair were put there by their respective citizens, ergo, it follows that more than half the people in each of these countries must support 'criminals'.
You keep going on about 'brown' people. Tell me do you think that misery and poverty belong solely to 'brown' people? If so, I wonder what makes you think that?
I have seen people like you turn racist overnight when they have had to go and live in Africa. Suddenly, they see another side. There are always two sides to a story. Unless, you're 'brown', of course, in which case you wouldn't last two minutes. (Unless you come from Africa.)
You don't give any rational explanation based in ethical understanding of what you say. You make statements without any depth of thought.
And for what it's worth, using your own criteria for measurement, probably 99% of humanity are criminals - you and I included. You tell me that you're free of sin and I'll present you to J.C.
posted by
Wordwizard
on July 13, 2005 at 10:37 AM
| link to this | reply
Archiew,
What is your measuring device? You forgot Nixon? And Reagan? Why does recent history seem the foggest? And "W" has committed crimes that will rival any in history!
posted by
Glennb
on July 12, 2005 at 7:21 PM
| link to this | reply
Glennb . .. .
The lead men, as you put it, are more likely to be Democrats. Just one example of many, let's look at all the mobster friends Kennedy had while in office, and before; oh, and let's look at Teddy, while we're at it. Oh, and lest we forget, the Bill Clinton farce of a president; oh and how about FDR's shenannigans? Let's not forget Johnson's roots in crime. Sure, we can name Republicans, too; I am no fan of either party, but there crimes are small stuff compared to Democrats in office; shall I go into Congressmen, past and present while we are at it; the scale tips easily to the Democratic side of the House.
posted by
archiew
on July 12, 2005 at 6:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Archiew,
Criminals are not limited to political parties and affiliations! I want the lead man put in jail! a good place to start!
posted by
Glennb
on July 12, 2005 at 4:59 PM
| link to this | reply
Wordwizard,
Those are the same flowery rational words that "Brown Humanity" has heard over the last century! Of course Bush/Blair will never ride a bus! They have enough surrogates to carry out their mayhem! Attacking and invading a nation to mask your inhumanity is not an innocent mistake! Bush/Blair are criminals with the same method of operation as any in the history of mankind!
Just because you do not have the moral spine to say it, does not make it less so! Save your "chronology of righteousness" for someone who is less serious about reality!
posted by
Glennb
on July 12, 2005 at 4:05 PM
| link to this | reply
Glennb, neither George Bush nor Tony Blair are criminals. They
may be misguided, they may be wise, but quite honestly, nobody knows for sure. The bottom line here is not the leaders of two powerful nations, but the people who put them into power. Every single voter is directly responsible for choosing their leaders. Yet, it's more than that. The bombers are far more vile in their murderous activity than George Bush or Tony Blair could ever be. George Bush and Tony Blair are at least on the side of 'stopping the terror'. And while innocents are getting caught in the crossfire, there is a vast difference between innocents getting killed in a war when they know there's a war, and they know the reasons for the war, than people in a peaceful nation being bombed by terrorists. Be reminded that neither George Bush or Tony Blair started the war. The terrorists did. And war they did start. Call it guerilla tactics, call it unconventional tactics, but it's a war, nevertheless. I think when people begin to blur the lines between those that at least have civilized values (i.e. murder is not an option) and those that deem murder to be perfectly acceptable, then civilisation is on a fast track to oblivion. George Bush is not a murderer. Nor is Tony Blair. Neither went on to busses, trains and killed people on day to day journeys. War and murder are two different things. To begin to blur language in order to propagate irrational statements is not something that I like.
posted by
Wordwizard
on July 12, 2005 at 12:29 PM
| link to this | reply
Agreed . . . .
Criminals are in power, and I will do my best next Congressional election to get as many of those Democrats out of office as possible! Thanks for the reminder . . .
posted by
archiew
on July 12, 2005 at 6:16 AM
| link to this | reply
Kingmi,
I am not a conspiracy theorist, who believes everything is a plot to get Bush/Blair! There is a criminal element in both of these administrations! Their sole duty is to heighten public anxieties for their nefarious purposes! A different way to "rule" without responsibility! Everything that goes wrong is somebodyelse's fault! Have you also noticed the trend in Bush/Blair World?
posted by
Glennb
on July 12, 2005 at 6:09 AM
| link to this | reply
Genn, I think it was Damon who stated that, since the London bombings
occurred during an actual public awareness drill for an emergency, that it was perpitrated by Bush and Blaire. Figure that one out.
posted by
kingmi
on July 12, 2005 at 1:14 AM
| link to this | reply
Cantey 1975,
Thanks for the info! I had heard the name but the bio was helpful!
posted by
Glennb
on July 11, 2005 at 9:47 PM
| link to this | reply
Julianne Malveaux, Ph.D - Economist/Author/Commentator
you would like her. She holds similiar views as yours.
posted by
calmcantey75
on July 11, 2005 at 8:22 PM
| link to this | reply
Cantey 1975,
Do not make me Google that name! Who the hell is that?
posted by
Glennb
on July 11, 2005 at 8:19 PM
| link to this | reply
you remind me of
Julianne Malveaux
posted by
calmcantey75
on July 11, 2005 at 8:17 PM
| link to this | reply