Jump to content

Welcome to Rune Tips, the first ever RuneScape help site. We aim to offer skill guides, quest guides, maps, calculators, informative databases, tips, and much more to help you get the most from the Massive Online Adventure Game, RuneScape, by Jagex Ltd © 2009.

Report Ad

Welcome to Forum.Tip.It
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The Controversial Thread


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#41
Nenga
[ Display Name History ]

Nenga

    Ice Giant Melter

  • Members
  • 4,187 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:where ever the hell i feel like
  • Joined:24 June 2006
  • RuneScape Status:Retired
Abortion is morally wrong. No, why would it be? It should be up to the woman if she wants the child, or even if she wants to give birth to the child. And on that note, why shouldn't she be able to give up the child she was going to abort anyway to science so it will do some good? Abortion is a highly emotional issue, women arn't just going to say "Get me pregnant so I can get some quick cash."

George Bush and Tony Blair ought to be trialled for war crimes.
No opinion

Meat eating ought to be banned.
No, I love my meat, just because someone doesn't agree with something doesn't mean everyone should have to follow their rules.

Anonymity on the internet should cease to exist.
The internet is a good place for people to express themselves, when they feel like they can't do so in real life, stopping anonymity on the internet will stop that. Anonymity is a good thing, you're more yourself when nobody's watching, even if being more yourself means being a complete [wagon].

Animal testing should be banned.
Then medications would have to be tested on humans, even when they might be dangerous. But we wouldn't know that because we couldn't test them on other things.

Not all people should have the same rights.
If they've proven they can't be trusted to have the same rights as others. If you have serial arsonist that just got out of jail after being convicted of the crime, why would you give him a match?

Killing in self defense is still manslaughter.
It's a natural feeling to try to save yourself, laws to prevent us from doing something we naturally do are stupid.

Assisted suicide shouldn't be discouraged.
I'm all for if someone is in pain that they should have the right to end it. I'd rather someone just kill me than I live as a vegetable, not being able to move or do anything on my own, that's not living and it'd be the worst type of torture.

Not saving someone's life should be a criminal offense.
I should be charged the same as a guy with a shotgun shooting some guy because I didn't rush at the guy with the shotgun with my bare hands?

Healthcare should be charged based on lifestyles
Yes but not on all pre-existing conditions. If someone had lung cancer because they smoked for 15 years, and still do, then they should have to pay more based on how much they're putting their own health at risk. But I didn't do anything to give myself cancer, I was born with it, why do I have to pay for something beyond my control?

#42
marcustullius
[ Display Name History ]

marcustullius

    Unicorn Horn

  • Members
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:30 March 2011
  • RuneScape Status:None

Not saving someone's life should be a criminal offense.
I should be charged the same as a guy with a shotgun shooting some guy because I didn't rush at the guy with the shotgun with my bare hands?


Jesus people, come on :wall:

#43
TrueBeaver
[ Display Name History ]

TrueBeaver

    Unicorn Horn

  • Members
  • 172 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:19 September 2010
  • RuneScape Status:None
  • RSN:TrueBeaver
  • Clan:Red Blade Hunters
So many posts to read :(

Some of these don't warrant multiple-word answers in my opinion, but I'll try to explain my stance somewhat and will elaborate upon request.

Here's mine:

Abortion is morally wrong.
Abortion as a birth control is morally wrong and should be illegal.

George Bush and Tony Blair ought to be trialled for war crimes.
No. I could go into this but from the posts I read this doesn't seem to be very controversial.

Meat eating ought to be banned.
Stop vegetable cruelty, convert to meatatarianism.

Anonymity on the internet should cease to exist.
I'd like people to be forced to be accountable for their actions on the internet but no.

Animal testing should be banned.
No. If we don't test on animals then dangerous products will enter the market meaning it will be people going blind rather than rabbits.

Not all people should have the same rights.
Agree. Felons should not own guns. Students in a classroom should not have the same rights as students at home who should not have the same rights as students at the mall. Most rights are circumstantial.

Killing in self defense is still manslaughter.
No. I don't think this is even that controversial. If you are in imminent danger or it can be reasonably assumed you may be in danger (by which I mean the castle doctrine) I have no problem killing in self defense.

Assisted suicide shouldn't be discouraged.
In a perfect world assisted suicide should be up to the patient. However, permitting it would open up a pandora's box of circumstances that would be up to the courts to decide. (ie Doctor encourages patient to accept assisted suicide because they won't recover. Is the doctor liable?)

Not saving someone's life should be a criminal offense.
Much like the above, I would love to say yes but any law that reasonably addressed the various situations would be effectively insignificant in practice.

Healthcare should be charged based on lifestyles
Yes. Getting good grades, not receiving tickets, and not getting in accidents all help lower your car insurance rate I don't see why health insurance should be any different. I do agree with the clause in the Affordable Care Act that prohibits health insurance companies from denying insurance to children with pre-existing conditions, they should (unfortunately) have to pay more, though.
"The chief duty of the government is to keep the peace and stand out of the sunshine of the people." - James A. Garfield
"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today." -Thomas Sowell
"Profits are evidence of the creation of social value, not deductions from the sum of the common good." - Kevin D. Williamson

Posted Image

#1 Warring 90+ Clan. Awesome Community. Click to join.
Posted Image


#44
Nomrombom
[ Display Name History ]

Nomrombom

    Moss Giant Whipper

  • Members
  • 2,736 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:US
  • Joined:28 June 2006
  • RuneScape Status:None
  • RSN:Nomrombom



Not saving someone's life should be a criminal offense.
I should be charged the same as a guy with a shotgun shooting some guy because I didn't rush at the guy with the shotgun with my bare hands?


Jesus people, come on :wall:


?
PM me for fitocracy invite

#45
Shiny
[ Display Name History ]

Shiny

    Combo Breaker

  • Members
  • 4,935 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Joined:1 September 2007
  • RuneScape Status:Semi-Retired
  • RSN:Hellsrider7
Sure, honour and all that, and if it is feasible to save the person (which I suppose in many cases it is) but self preservation tops preservation of others everytime. I could understand if it was a loved one, or something along those lines.
Posted Image

#46
marcustullius
[ Display Name History ]

marcustullius

    Unicorn Horn

  • Members
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:30 March 2011
  • RuneScape Status:None




Not saving someone's life should be a criminal offense.
I should be charged the same as a guy with a shotgun shooting some guy because I didn't rush at the guy with the shotgun with my bare hands?


Jesus people, come on :wall:


?


OP OBVIOUSLY didn't mean jumping into a freezing river or trying to take a gun from someone.

#47
michel555555
[ Display Name History ]

michel555555

    Varrock Guard

  • Members
  • 1,447 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:alberta, canada
  • Joined:9 October 2007
  • RuneScape Status:P2P
  • RSN:michel555555
  • Clan:fealty stars
George Bush and Tony Blair ought to be trialled for war crimes.
Bush yes. It doesn't matter that he was sitting in the big fancey chair. He authorized the use of torture!

Assisted suicide shouldn't be discouraged.
If someones life is so messed up that they are considering suicide (ie. stuck in a hospital bed on a resperator for the rest or their life or other similare things) then they will probably try to kill themselves if they have help doing it or not. The least you could do for them is make sure they go painlessly and maby get them to donate their organs and help someone els out.

Not saving someone's life should be a criminal offense.
Being a lifeguard i'm fine with how the law here is in Canada. The way it works here is if you start cpr you can't stop until parametics arive or another person trained in cpr takes over for you. But you still have an option to not help someone if you forget your mask and gloves and you are concerned if the other person has HIV or other seriouse diseases.

Quebec actually does have a law similare to what you are saying. If you are trained in cpr and see someone in danger then you are legally obliged to help them. Which i know myself and alot of other people are against because it means putting your own life in danger and having two victims instead of one.

I heard about that law a few years ago though so i'm not sure if quebec has changed it yet.

Only ones I have much of an opinion on.

michel555555.png

click you know you wanna

#48
Nomrombom
[ Display Name History ]

Nomrombom

    Moss Giant Whipper

  • Members
  • 2,736 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:US
  • Joined:28 June 2006
  • RuneScape Status:None
  • RSN:Nomrombom

George Bush and Tony Blair ought to be trialled for war crimes.
Bush yes. It doesn't matter that he was sitting in the big fancey chair. He authorized the use of torture!



Prove it
PM me for fitocracy invite

#49
Leonard12440
[ Display Name History ]

Leonard12440

    Unicorn Horn

  • Members
  • 212 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Joined:23 January 2005
  • RuneScape Status:Retired
Abortion is morally wrong.

This depends on the situation, but it usually isn't. It's not a decision that is taken lightly, and generally, it will only be done if it's in the benefit for the mother or the family in general.

George Bush and Tony Blair ought to be trialled for war crimes.

I agree.

Meat eating ought to be banned.

No. Meat is delicious. :)

Anonymity on the internet should cease to exist.

Disagree, people have the right to not be spied on unless they've committed a crime.

Animal testing should be banned.

I don't really care about this one. We kill animals for food, so testing things on them shouldn't be banned either.

Not all people should have the same rights.

No. Everyone is equal for the law, without exceptions.

Killing in self defense is still manslaughter.

It depends on the situation. The victim shouldn't be punished if he or she had no choice. Otherwise, it's manslaughter.

Assisted suicide shouldn't be discouraged.

People have the right to kill themselves. If they want to do that, so be it.

Not saving someone's life should be a criminal offense.

That depends on the situation. If you're capable of saving someone's life without endangering yourself or others, you should do so. But I'm not sure if it should be mandatory.

Healthcare should be charged based on lifestyles

I don't think people should be charged for healthcare to begin with. Everyone should have access to healthcare regardless of economic background, lifestyle, and so on. Instead, there should be additional taxes on things that damage your health, like smoking, fast food etc

#50
Ring_World
[ Display Name History ]

Ring_World

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 5,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Joined:13 October 2007
  • RuneScape Status:Retired
So much for controversy everyone who has posted here has pretty much agreed on 90% of the questions.

However I agree with Sees All these threads that have to do with your values turn to flamefests, because people arent going to change their values over a forum site no matter how compelling an argument for or against a said value.

Values are where you derive your political opinions from and your opinions on the said issues.


It would be more interesting if people list their values, so you can see why they choose the answers the do.

Someone anti-abortion might value life higher then freedom

Someone pro-choice might value freedom higher then life

etc, on all these answers it really comes down to how high do you value personal freedom compared to the said issues here any controversy stems from people not understanding why one values one value higher then another

#51
marcustullius
[ Display Name History ]

marcustullius

    Unicorn Horn

  • Members
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:30 March 2011
  • RuneScape Status:None

Animal testing should be banned.

I don't really care about this one. We kill animals for food, so testing things on them shouldn't be banned either.

Healthcare should be charged based on lifestyles

I don't think people should be charged for healthcare to begin with. Everyone should have access to healthcare regardless of economic background, lifestyle, and so on. Instead, there should be additional taxes on things that damage your health, like smoking, fast food etc


For animal testing, the difference between testing and killing for food is that when killing for food, the kill is quick and clean (at least in theory).


As for health care, heh, sucks to live in places that don't have universal health care

#52
Alg
[ Display Name History ]

Alg

    Troll General

  • Editorial Panel
  • 10,880 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California.
  • Joined:5 August 2006

So much for controversy everyone who has posted here has pretty much agreed on 90% of the questions.

However I agree with Sees All these threads that have to do with your values turn to flamefests, because people arent going to change their values over a forum site no matter how compelling an argument for or against a said value.

Values are where you derive your political opinions from and your opinions on the said issues.

etc, on all these answers it really comes down to how high do you value personal freedom compared to the said issues here any controversy stems from people not understanding why one values one value higher then another

Unfortunately, I doubt that most OT members are mature enough to handle that kind of thing. Not that I don't think it would be interesting, but the last thing we need is for one political/philisophical clique flaming the hell out of people's values because they're different... Which has happened and probably will happen in the future.

If we were all super-mature philosophers, I'd love to see us debate our values, but most of us are mid-late teens/early twenties and pretending to be super-mature philosophers.

#53
Ring_World
[ Display Name History ]

Ring_World

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 5,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Joined:13 October 2007
  • RuneScape Status:Retired


So much for controversy everyone who has posted here has pretty much agreed on 90% of the questions.

However I agree with Sees All these threads that have to do with your values turn to flamefests, because people arent going to change their values over a forum site no matter how compelling an argument for or against a said value.

Values are where you derive your political opinions from and your opinions on the said issues.

etc, on all these answers it really comes down to how high do you value personal freedom compared to the said issues here any controversy stems from people not understanding why one values one value higher then another

Unfortunately, I doubt that most OT members are mature enough to handle that kind of thing. Not that I don't think it would be interesting, but the last thing we need is for one political/philisophical clique flaming the hell out of people's values because they're different... Which has happened and probably will happen in the future.

If we were all super-mature philosophers, I'd love to see us debate our values, but most of us are mid-late teens/early twenties and pretending to be super-mature philosophers.


Well I myself fall into the late teen pretending to be a philosopher catagory myself, and I am just as guilty as anyone when it comes to that. I dont think its age that is the culprit because people in their 30's break down and start acting like children when you ask them questions like these as well. I personally believe its just exposure to why you feel certain ways about certain issues and being able to explain it in a rational way is the way to prevent that.

However it would be pretty cool to see debates over why someone may value life over individual freedom [in the case of abortion] or animal rights vs individual freedom [in testing on animals/eating meat arguments].

But I personally value individual freedom highest out of anything which is why I answer questions the way I do. Im curious what everyone else values and how it drives them to answer questions in a way that they agree with.

#54
obfuscator
[ Display Name History ]

obfuscator

    Tanned Caveman

  • Members
  • 20,231 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:6 March 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Retired

However it would be pretty cool to see debates over why someone may value life over individual freedom [in the case of abortion] or animal rights vs individual freedom [in testing on animals/eating meat arguments].

But I personally value individual freedom highest out of anything which is why I answer questions the way I do. Im curious what everyone else values and how it drives them to answer questions in a way that they agree with.


Society as a whole generally values life over individual freedom, that's why murder is illegal. If you truly "value individual freedom highest of anything" then there's no way you can say murder should still be illegal.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti


#55
sees_all1
[ Display Name History ]

sees_all1

    Ice Giant Melter

  • Members
  • 4,961 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:26 June 2007
  • RuneScape Status:None



However it would be pretty cool to see debates over why someone may value life over individual freedom [in the case of abortion] or animal rights vs individual freedom [in testing on animals/eating meat arguments].

But I personally value individual freedom highest out of anything which is why I answer questions the way I do. Im curious what everyone else values and how it drives them to answer questions in a way that they agree with.


Society as a whole generally values life over individual freedom, that's why murder is illegal. If you truly "value individual freedom highest of anything" then there's no way you can say murder should still be illegal.

Can the argument be murder infringes on another person's right, which is why it should be illegal? Its the same basic argument the non-religious pro-life movement has been making for about forever.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪


#56
Ring_World
[ Display Name History ]

Ring_World

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 5,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Joined:13 October 2007
  • RuneScape Status:Retired




However it would be pretty cool to see debates over why someone may value life over individual freedom [in the case of abortion] or animal rights vs individual freedom [in testing on animals/eating meat arguments].

But I personally value individual freedom highest out of anything which is why I answer questions the way I do. Im curious what everyone else values and how it drives them to answer questions in a way that they agree with.


Society as a whole generally values life over individual freedom, that's why murder is illegal. If you truly "value individual freedom highest of anything" then there's no way you can say murder should still be illegal.

Can the argument be murder infringes on another person's right, which is why it should be illegal? Its the same basic argument the non-religious pro-life movement has been making for about forever.


Society agrees killing a person who has spent 6-9 months [including premature babies here] in a women and then born either naturally or through a c-section operation is a person who has sovereign rights of life liberty and to pursue happiness [among the many other rights an American has].

Certainly someone who has been born has the right to life, and any act to end that life would violate that persons personal freedom. I 100% agree that murder violates their personal rights to life.

However there is no concensious in the general public whether the developing fetus holds the rights of a living being yet. After all birth control [not abortion] prevents life from occuring that otherwise would have, and abortion does the same except after the cells are multiplying. The name of the game at what point is someone considered alive [values life argument] and does that life overrule indiviudal freedom [personal freedom argument].


I personally value personal freedom over "potential" life [as in someone that could develop long enough to be born but isnt already, whether its a fetus or birth control during sex] so I side with pro-choice on the abortion issue. If you believe that potential life deserves rights too then I understand why you are pro-life. I dont agree with it but it makes sense why you would feel that way :P

#57
Assume Nothing
[ Display Name History ]

Assume Nothing

    Ice Giant Melter

  • Members
  • 4,191 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Places.
  • Joined:23 November 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Semi-Retired

So much for controversy everyone who has posted here has pretty much agreed on 90% of the questions.

However I agree with Sees All these threads that have to do with your values turn to flamefests, because people arent going to change their values over a forum site no matter how compelling an argument for or against a said value.

Values are where you derive your political opinions from and your opinions on the said issues.


It would be more interesting if people list their values, so you can see why they choose the answers the do.

Someone anti-abortion might value life higher then freedom

Someone pro-choice might value freedom higher then life

etc, on all these answers it really comes down to how high do you value personal freedom compared to the said issues here any controversy stems from people not understanding why one values one value higher then another


It seems a shame, the posters' principles and values seem to be established to a point where too many people agree and there's no debate, simply because there isn't the other side to argue against. I do agree that this thread is a little cluttered - it's difficult to respond to a post because there's so much going on in it.

I value life over freedom, but I'm still leaning towards pro-choice, because I don't really think two reproductive cells have 'life' yet, until it actually develops some brain waves and functions like a sentient being.

@Leonard; Everyone being equal to the law is irrelevant to the fact that not all people should have the same rights. 'Rights' refers to the human rights here. It may or may not be the most basic human rights, but I think even the most basic rights could still be argued against in a specific circumstance (eg. the right to privacy for convicted sex offenders).

As for free healthcare: That's the current practice in the UK. I don't think it really helps society when people who attempt to exploit the system do indeed exploit the system and the burden then lies on the taxpayer. Chain smokers, Obese people, binge drinkers and drug abusers costs the NHS multiple billions per year (I don't know the figure itself though), on an already overstretched free healthcare service.

I think those exploiting the system ought to be refused treatment, or charged for their treatment because it's just not fair on the taxpayer that they have to pay for someone else's self inflicted illnesses/injuries. If they tried to change their eating/drinking/smoking habits, then it would make a little more sense to treat them, but if they didn't, why should we treat them for free?

Although the idea of taxing harmful substances/food may be a good one, but it's just not very effective. It's proven that the demand for fast food, alcohol and cigarettes are relatively inelastic, thus price changes would barely change the demand for the said goods.

The NHS ought to be a safety net for those in genuine need, a free service for normal people in society, and a barrier to those trying to exploit it.

#58
Ring_World
[ Display Name History ]

Ring_World

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 5,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Joined:13 October 2007
  • RuneScape Status:Retired


So much for controversy everyone who has posted here has pretty much agreed on 90% of the questions.

However I agree with Sees All these threads that have to do with your values turn to flamefests, because people arent going to change their values over a forum site no matter how compelling an argument for or against a said value.

Values are where you derive your political opinions from and your opinions on the said issues.


It would be more interesting if people list their values, so you can see why they choose the answers the do.

Someone anti-abortion might value life higher then freedom

Someone pro-choice might value freedom higher then life

etc, on all these answers it really comes down to how high do you value personal freedom compared to the said issues here any controversy stems from people not understanding why one values one value higher then another


It seems a shame, the posters' principles and values seem to be established to a point where too many people agree and there's no debate, simply because there isn't the other side to argue against. I do agree that this thread is a little cluttered - it's difficult to respond to a post because there's so much going on in it.

I value life over freedom, but I'm still leaning towards pro-choice, because I don't really think two reproductive cells have 'life' yet, until it actually develops some brain waves and functions like a sentient being.


For the same reason I do. A fetus isnt a fully living thing to me or to you, therefor it doesnt deserve the rights of a sentient being. Since the women is a sentient being she retains her rights over the fetus.

A pro-lifer feels that a fetus is sentient enough to deserve rights and I respect their opinions but disagree with them.

#59
TrueBeaver
[ Display Name History ]

TrueBeaver

    Unicorn Horn

  • Members
  • 172 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:19 September 2010
  • RuneScape Status:None
  • RSN:TrueBeaver
  • Clan:Red Blade Hunters

George Bush and Tony Blair ought to be trialled for war crimes.
Bush yes. It doesn't matter that he was sitting in the big fancey chair. He authorized the use of torture!

Did he? I assume you're referring to waterboarding.

What is torture? Let's take a walk. This is a great article about it, which I'll try to summarize: The Geneva Conventions allow torture in certain circumstances so human rights groups pushed for the ratification of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and U.N. Convention Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatments (UNCAT), which were ratified by the U.S. in 1992 and 1994. However, in order to agree to ratify them the Senate added a caveat: CID was to be understood in the U.S. as the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited under the aforementioned Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Section 2340 of the federal criminal code defines torture as a government act "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering" (an exception is made for the execution of capital sentences). In 2004 the Justice Department reaffirmed that the designation torture is reserved for practices causing "intense, lasting and heinous agony" (deferring to a 2002 lower-court ruling) which are so abominable that they stand apart from other condemnable forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

Administered by someone who knows what they are doing and with a medical team standing by (as it was conducted), waterboarding does not endanger the life of the detainee. It is temporary, not lasting, lasting only 40 seconds (which we found out when it was revealed KSM would count to 40 on his fingers to keep track of how long he had to hold out for). It is clearly not heinous as Navy SEALs are subjected to it in their training. It is definitely intense, although it seems like it would be more of an intense fear than agony. But even conceding one of the three parts of the definition of torture it is not clear cut one way or the other which is certainly not enough for a war crimes trial, especially considering the value of the information gathered from its use.

Cliffs: Classifying waterboarding as torture is dubious at best and would not stand up in a war crimes trial.

George Bush and Tony Blair ought to be trialled for war crimes.

I agree.

Why?
"The chief duty of the government is to keep the peace and stand out of the sunshine of the people." - James A. Garfield
"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today." -Thomas Sowell
"Profits are evidence of the creation of social value, not deductions from the sum of the common good." - Kevin D. Williamson

Posted Image

#1 Warring 90+ Clan. Awesome Community. Click to join.
Posted Image


#60
Ring_World
[ Display Name History ]

Ring_World

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 5,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Joined:13 October 2007
  • RuneScape Status:Retired


George Bush and Tony Blair ought to be trialled for war crimes.

I agree.

Why?


Ever find those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

At best we went to war on poor information, at worst President bush wasted 100's of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives on a conflict he himself fabricated, finishing what daddy started.

I think he SHOULD be go on trial but he wont so I wont waste my time here.

Also the patriot act was basically congress pissing on the constitution




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users