QueenZone discussion #908467

.DeaconJohn. wrote: link I've nothing interesting to say about this; I just wanted to use the 'how's it hanging' pun...

Lisser wrote: Bush isn't up for re-election this month or infact at all. This is his 2nd and final term.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: CMU History Girl: To get Bush that little edge in the upcoming elections. Why else was it announced today? The worst part is, Bush had been in such a hurry to get him tried before the elections, that he hasn't bothered to get Saddam a legal court. The trial he has had is illegal. It is specifically forbidden in the Geneva conventions for an occupying power to create such a court, and, even worse, influence its decision-making process so much. The US has been too involved, replacing judges and all. But in my personal opinion, the greatest miscariage of justice is the fact that the appeals court will have to rule on its OWN legitimacy. Can you imagine?!! A judge will have to decide whether HE HIMSELF is in charge of a LEGAL COURT! If THAT is not a mockery, nothing is!

<font color=red>Flash! wrote: Owwww! That sexy Saddam is well-hung! :P

Serry... wrote:

Lisser wrote: Bush isn't up for re-election this month or infact at all. This is his 2nd and final term.

Caspar talks about elections of Congress' members. It's more than just obvious why that "news" came today... Like in very cheap TV show...

Lisser wrote:

Serry... wrote:

Lisser wrote: Bush isn't up for re-election this month or infact at all. This is his 2nd and final term.

Caspar talks about elections of Congress' members. It's more than just obvious why that "news" came today... Like in very cheap TV show...

No matter who is in Congress or who has the majority, nothing ever gets accomplished. Even if the Democrats gain the majority in the Senate or the House, Bush can veto and things get held up. It's a moronic system that never works unless the President is the party affiliation as the majority in the House and Senate.

Zeni wrote:

Lisser wrote:

Serry... wrote:

Lisser wrote: Bush isn't up for re-election this month or infact at all. This is his 2nd and final term.

Caspar talks about elections of Congress' members. It's more than just obvious why that "news" came today... Like in very cheap TV show...

No matter who is in Congress or who has the majority, nothing ever gets accomplished. Even if the Democrats gain the majority in the Senate or the House, Bush can veto and things get held up. It's a moronic system that never works unless the President is the party affiliation as the majority in the House and Senate.

Some studies show that when there is a split in poltical parties in government(ie President is a Republican, Congress controlled by Democrats), more gets accomplished. Bush could not afford to veto everything, neither could a Democratic-controlled Congress pass whatever it liked.

<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: He should rot in jail, execution is too easy.

Zebonka12 wrote: I always knew Saddam was a swinger.

Lisser wrote: Bush isn't up for re-election this month or infact at all. This is his 2nd and final term.

<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: double..

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: @ CMU: As far as I'm concerned, the US states which still enforce the death penalty have no right to call themselves part of the civilized world. Same goes for Japan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and the likes.

Zebonka12 wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: @ CMU: As far as I'm concerned, the US states which still enforce the death penalty have no right to call themselves part of the civilized world. Same goes for Japan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and the likes.

Can't forget Singapore! They offed one of our citizens not so long ago.

Mr.Jingles wrote: I think forcing Saddam to listen to Kevin Federline's new album would be a better punishment.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:

Lisser wrote: Bush isn't up for re-election this month or infact at all. This is his 2nd and final term.

Ever heard of House and Senate? They're up for election tomorrow, and their election is pretty much a popularity-poll for Bush.

Zebonka12 wrote: Haha, but all swinging, swaying, dangling and hanging jokes aside... execution is *the* most useless way to deal with a criminal. The death penalty is a hangover from when people thought there was a God that would do all our big punishing for us. Hence, you send the guy to Hell, he gets what he deserves. There is no Hell. With the death penalty you're just releasing these assholes into some kind of freedom - an escape from what they should be getting, which is a lifetime of utter misery in a tiny cell.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: @ CMU: Saddam should have been tried at the International Peace Court in the Hague. That's where an ousted dictator belongs. There is no way Saddam was worse than Milosevic, and the latter got EXACTLY what he deserved in the form of a trial in the Hague. That's what Saddam should get. In fact, that's also what Rumsfeld and Bush (him being commander-in-chief) should get for war crimes. And in general: there is NEVER an excuse for a death sentence. It is neither civilized nor just, nor sensible. It will achieve two things: martyrdom for Saddam and increased insurgence. Neither one is any good to anyone. As far as I'm concerned, the US states which still enforce the death penalty have no right to call themselves part of the civilized world. Same goes for Japan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and the likes.

¼Microwave wrote: You anti-US and anti-Bush people are so stupidly funny.

¼Microwave wrote: You anti-US and anti-Bush people are so stupidly funny. Yeah, its because tomorrow's election day!!! What a bunch of morons.

¼Microwave wrote: and he's allowed a fair trial because why? Did he give out fair trials to the people he butchered? If the US and Bush were really that evil, why not just go over and shoot him dead in the whole they found him in? And then promplty leave the country to fend for itself. You anti-US and anti-Bush people are so stupidly funny. Yeah, its because tomorrow's election day!!! What a bunch of morons. But now that your man Kerry's is DONE, what else have you left to sling? Democrats keep giving the elections to the Republicans. Just like they have done here.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: CMU History Girl: To get Bush that little edge in the upcoming elections. Why else was it announced today? The worst part is, Bush had been in such a hurry to get him tried before the elections, that he hasn't bothered to get Saddam a legal court.

¼Microwave wrote: Correction, this was the knee jerk. and it all started flowing after that. I agreed with your original point.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: CMU History Girl: To get Bush that little edge in the upcoming elections. Why else was it announced today? The worst part is, Bush had been in such a hurry to get him tried before the elections, that he hasn't bothered to get Saddam a legal court.

My laughing at the idiocy of some people who believe George Bush is THAT powerful is not at all knee-jerk.

Serry... wrote: Fucking hell, you bombed Iraq because there was Saddam, you knew that he's a bulls**t and motherf**ker for over 20 years, you hated him for the decades, all his crimes were proved for the hundred times (how else you could started the war if you weren't sure if he's good or bad?!) and then there starts trial to prove it all again. Trial goes for one year and finished in very-very-very right time... C'mon man instead of calling people morons just think again about it! It happens everywhere, politicians make their business only in the right time. In USA, in Russia, in Kenia, in North Korea even.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: But what I was refering to was your "You anti-Bush and anti-US people"...in a very accusatory tone on your part. And since when did Kerry have anything to do with this conversation? Sounds a bit knee jerky and ranting to me.

¼Microwave wrote: If Clinton would've been able to run again and win, he would have had to do something about Saddam as well.

Donna13 wrote: I think this might be a theory worth considering, Serry, if it weren't for the other factors. Saddam's trial makes for good TV (for some people - not me), but the trial outcome is not what most Americans have been worried about. Nobody knows what is best to do (from this point forward) and nobody has a good feeling about democracy being possible in the middle east anymore. This is what Americans have to consider when going to vote, not Saddam's verdict.

Serry... wrote: Oh man, I don't have any fucking care who's in White House - Clinton or Bush, there's President of USA and that's the end of story for most people of my country (as well as you probably don't care about our President and who he is). And I said nothing at all about what Saddam deserved for his crimes. I said about time then trial was over.

¼Microwave wrote:

Serry... wrote: Oh man, I don't have any fucking care who's in White House - Clinton or Bush, there's President of USA and that's the end of story for most people of my country (as well as you probably don't care about our President and who he is). And I said nothing at all about what Saddam deserved for his crimes. I said about time then trial was over.

Yes, exactly! It doesn't matter who's President. Clearly, agendas aren't going to agree with everybody. I thought that somebody needed to shut the blame game up and have a discussion on what to do about it, which is what we've ended up doing. Didn't mean to anger or upset y'all. But any attacks on US Policy I have every right to defend. Now if you guys have a brother in Iraq, then you'd probably understand my reasonings better. He's not risking his life for some sort of Republican conspiracy. He's doing what he, and everyone in his entire family agrees, is the right thing to be doing.

Mr.Jingles wrote: Of course, he's risking his life to make Halliburton richer. There's no better sacrifice than putting the life on the line to make the wealthy even wealthier than before.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

¼Microwave wrote: You anti-US and anti-Bush people are so stupidly funny.

Serry... wrote: "Calm down, dude. You're from Russia and have no room to talk about political corruption. What is your government doing about the cancer epidemic due to the Chernobyl fallout." That's why I "have room" to talk about it. Because I know how it works and because I have seen it. I'm not wearing pink glasses anymore. And by the way MY government said nothing about Chernobyl, simply because Chernobyl, let me tell you, IS NOT in Russia. Maybe you mean Soviet government, so yes - they were not *good* boys. And people of USSR blamed them for it. But I can't see how does it explains faults of modern US government (or do you want me to come back to the times of cowboys and indians, slaves etc. in American history as an arguement of different faults and bloody mistakes?)... I can't see logic in discussion if discussion goes in the way "look at yourself better!". "But to blame Bush and the US for Saddam's disposition? If Clinton would've been able to run again and win, he would have had to do something about Saddam as well." Oh man, I don't have any fucking care who's in White House - Clinton or Bush, there's President of USA and that's the end of story for most people of my country (as well as you probably don't care about our President and who he is). And I said nothing at all about what Saddam deserved for his crimes. I said about time then trial was over. "And to tie in the elections to this verdict? Tell me that's not moronic. C'mon Serry... tell me..." That's moronic. But trial was over because of elections, not vice versa... C'mon, Microwave, do you really think that Magic Tour have started without purposes to sell more of AKOM albums? Do you really think that Muslims burn flags of country and dancing around when Septmeber 11th came without any *back* (I don't know how you call it on English, sorry) thought? And who's naive here then?

Donna13 wrote: Nevermind.

Mr.Jingles wrote: Keep playing the patriotic card with us, it won't work. That whole trick of claiming that anyone who doesn't support Bush administration is anti-American is so 2003. It seems like your mentality is 3 years behind everybody else's.

Lisser wrote:

Donna13 wrote: Nevermind.

Donna I got your point and I agree with you. :)

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Welcome to talking with 90% of Americans...they don't know the difference between Russia and the USSR. And they don't even know Russia exists unless Rumsfeld is going to talk bad about the "anti-democratic" stuff that Putin does. Unless Americans actually go out and search for the information on the rest of the world, it isn't there.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

¼Microwave wrote: You anti-US and anti-Bush people are so stupidly funny.

Anti-US and Anti-Bush are two very different statements. Although we know for sure that Caspar is both.

¼Microwave wrote:

Serry... wrote: Fucking hell, you bombed Iraq because there was Saddam, you knew that he's a bulls**t and motherf**ker for over 20 years, you hated him for the decades, all his crimes were proved for the hundred times (how else you could started the war if you weren't sure if he's good or bad?!) and then there starts trial to prove it all again. Trial goes for one year and finished in very-very-very right time... C'mon man instead of calling people morons just think again about it! It happens everywhere, politicians make their business only in the right time. In USA, in Russia, in Kenia, in North Korea even.

Calm down, dude. You're from Russia and have no room to talk about political corruption. What is your government doing about the cancer epidemic due to the Chernobyl fallout. But to blame Bush and the US for Saddam's disposition? If Clinton would've been able to run again and win, he would have had to do something about Saddam as well. And to tie in the elections to this verdict? Tell me that's not moronic. C'mon Serry... tell me...

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

¼Microwave wrote: You anti-US and anti-Bush people are so stupidly funny.

Anti-US and Anti-Bush are two very different statements. Although we know for sure that Caspar is both.

Excuse me? Are you by any chance a fucking retard? Do I need to point out to you that roughly half of my relatives are of American nationality? I hate fucking reactionaries (ie. republicans, rednecks and those who are both), not Americans. Would I be studying American History at university if I were anti-American? Grow a brain next time you try an pin something on me, ass.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

¼Microwave wrote: You anti-US and anti-Bush people are so stupidly funny.

Anti-US and Anti-Bush are two very different statements. Although we know for sure that Caspar is both.

Excuse me? Are you by any chance a fucking retard? Do I need to point out to you that roughly half of my relatives are of American nationality? I hate fucking reactionaries (ie. republicans, rednecks and those who are both), not Americans. Would I be studying American History at university if I were anti-American? Grow a brain next time you try an pin something on me, ass.

A reactionary would be a type of Republican, however, a Republican is certainly not a type of reactionary. You have your squares and rectangles mixed up.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:

¼Microwave wrote:

Serry... wrote: Fucking hell, you bombed Iraq because there was Saddam, you knew that he's a bulls**t and motherf**ker for over 20 years, you hated him for the decades, all his crimes were proved for the hundred times (how else you could started the war if you weren't sure if he's good or bad?!) and then there starts trial to prove it all again. Trial goes for one year and finished in very-very-very right time... C'mon man instead of calling people morons just think again about it! It happens everywhere, politicians make their business only in the right time. In USA, in Russia, in Kenia, in North Korea even.

Calm down, dude. You're from Russia and have no room to talk about political corruption. What is your government doing about the cancer epidemic due to the Chernobyl fallout. But to blame Bush and the US for Saddam's disposition? If Clinton would've been able to run again and win, he would have had to do something about Saddam as well. And to tie in the elections to this verdict? Tell me that's not moronic. C'mon Serry... tell me...

Need I point out to your fascist self that Saddam got into power by your 'great government' itself?

Mr.Jingles wrote: It's been requested that during Saddam's execution they'll play a Queen song... 'Hang on in there'.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I'd love to argue in this thread, but the post order is getting fucked up (again), so it's not worth the hassle... Edit: I'll just throw in, as a response to TQ, that the vast majority of both Democrats and Republicans lie in the middle, and are more or less rather indistinguishable.