Seen In A NY Subway

[kpete]

http://www.woostercollective.com/2009/03/dupicity.html

[SalviaBlue]

1. Love it!! knr

[pleah]

2. K&R

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[The Traveler]

3. I gotta get me one of those! (n/t)

[QueenOfCalifornia]

4. Lucky #13 recommend!

Most excellent... :)

[windoe]

5. K&R! Drumbeats getting louder....

these guys are not going to get off. If not us the Hague.

[garybeck]

6. I think the UN may be our only hope

the US government is too concerned about covering their own asses.

[glinda]

27. Did you hear? New Admin is NOT off the hook on this. They really need to address this asap.

I mean, the New Admin will be involved IF they don't address it but instead will be PART of it.

[garybeck]

75. what do you mean "did you hear?" you mean John Turley talking on Olbermann?

he said if they don't prosecute then they are a part of it. But he also said he highly doubts there will be any prosecution. bottom line... we need to look outside the US Justice system if we want any justice.

[emlev]

7. Send it in to signspotting.com. n/t

[indepat]

8. Is not duplicity ignored complicity?

:shrug: :P

[jtrockville]

9. We need more of these. How can we get one in the DC metro?

[Greybnk48]

10. K&R !!

[Gedankenaustausch]

11. Am I the only 1 that thinks this is a bad idea?

Yea, I think what these two accomplished (if I can use such a word) represents the greatest lost of personal liberty the U.S. has ever experienced, but I think it's time to let this stuff go and move on. All issues like this do is become fodder for conservatives. I mean, do you really expect for the United States to comply with something like the Hague? Do we really expect that these two are going to submit to be tried? I'm getting really tired of this going back to Bush thing. Our economy is crumbling down around us, many we know have lost their jobs, yet the issues we are putting out time into is prosecuting Bush and Cheney for treason or some other charge. Come on people. It would be better to focus on the issue at hand than going back and attempting to do something that we all know will never happen. I mean when in the history has something like this ever happened? I would be shocked to know if a country has acted alone and put to trial someone for reasons such as this. If anyone can recall an instance I would greatly appreciate you laying the knowledge on me.

[Vickers]

13. Your concern is noted.

:patriot:

[no limit]

14. A million people dead as a result of this administration and we should all just move on?

Tell all the orphans and widows in Iraq and back here at home that. I'm sure they'll understand.

[FailureToCommunicate]

21. Yes, Gedanken...whatever, MUST be new here! You said what I wanted to

say. The war dead surround us and wait for us to DO SOMETHING about the criminals that caused the war...
The real problem is the economy??! He should ask the gold star moms if
that's what we should "focus on".

[Gedankenaustausch]

33. Is this from the Republican Playbook?

Please don't bring up images of blown up orphans and widows, it's unbecoming to the status of the other DUrs. I will take your phrasing and show you what I mean. The sentiment of a pro-Busher when all thinking human beings were calling for an end of military operations in Iraq, "Thousands of people dead on AMERICAN SOIL and we should just move on? Tell that to the orphans of the innocent lives taken on 9/11. Tell that to the widows of the fireman who gave their life in the line of duty." I could go on... but maybe you get the message. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just stating that trying to strike a sympathetic note when presenting your point is not the way to go.

[no limit]

48. So now you are trying to say Iraq had something to do with 9/11?

I see you are still one of the 40% of americans that believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11. You should probably start reading up before you post back here, you are starting to sound like a real fool.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush had everything to do with those million people dead. There is quite a difference and because of that your argument lacks any kind of reason.

[Gedankenaustausch]

49. you misunderstand

apparently you are the foolish one. I was taking your statement and showing you how people use dead people to justify all kinds of crazy things.... like iraq having something to do with 9/11. Read the posts next time. I know Iraq had nothing to do with it.

[no limit]

51. I read the post perfectly well, it is you that doesn't understand.

You think that because the right wing lies by trying to claim Iraq and 9/11 are linked that means we can't blame Bush for the million people that he actually killed?

Your arguments lack any kind of reason, what exactly are you trying to prove?

[Gedankenaustausch]

53. Reading Comprehension skills tutoring available

If you would read what I was "Trying to prove" it was that using sympathetic words, phrases, and stories does nothing to further your point of view. Your tone attacks your argument, because you aren't arguing, you are trying to rally someone's feelings to become more convincing. The same tactic was used by repub's and neo-cons to support the war in iraq. The same thing is used by those people who are against abortion say that it is the same thing as lynching and the holocaust or put the images of the cut up fetuses after the abortion procedure. Doing this attacks your argument. Instead of trying to rile up someone's emotions by using statements like you did, it would be better to argue something like, "I believe Bush should have to answer for the millions of deaths that have occurred in Iraq since the American invasion." Which actually states your intent, not your feelings.

My argument is very reasonable, it is you who is unreasonable. Tell you what, let's wait a year, or heck however long you want to wait, and see what happens to Bush and Cheney and the others. In that length of time if they are ever punished for crimes committed I will concede that my argument was unreasonable, but if nothing happens to them, you have to say that you were being unreasonable. Or in case we don't live that long, just think about it logically, don't use feelings, or *faith* and tell me what you think will happen to Bush and Cheney. I mean really think about it. If you are a logical thinker, which I would hope you are because you are on DU, I'm sure you will see what I'm "trying to prove."

[no limit]

60. After all those words you continue to miss the point, but I understand your concern

The thing you continue to miss is that Bush is in fact responsible for making those kids orphans and those wives widows. You can not dispute this, in fact you haven't. Saddam is not responsible for 9/11, he never has been. Bush is responsible for a million people dead.

So I can in fact dispute that Saddam wasn't responsible for 9/11. Just as I can dispuite that abortion is the same as the holocaust. Nobody can dispute that Bush was responsible for those million lives lost. So again I will ask you, what are you trying to prove? You don't dispute that Bush was responsible for the deaths of a million people do you? That means you agree with the fact that Bush is responsible for the fact that those children are now orphans and those wives are now widows. So again, what the **** are you trying to prove with your irrational posts? Facts are facts. Lies are lies. You seem to have trouble telling the 2 apart because of this dumbed down DLC logic which is that we should all just play nice. It's bullshit (excuse my french).

[Gedankenaustausch]

61. .....ok we need to do some tutoring

I believe that I have stated that before but, if not, here you go "Bush is responsible for the deaths in Iraq." You are totally correct I have not disputed that. Saddam was not responsible for 9/11 (I don't know where that comes in but ok). I'm going to post once more on this thread, and If you can't get it, then you are lost. What I said to you basically was "STOP USING EXAMPLES LIKE ORPHANS AND WIDOWS BECAUSE IT IS UNBECOMING OF LOGICAL THINKERS."

While your statement was true, and yes I can tell the difference between truth and lies, it does nothing to your argument. I, for one, think it harms your position instead of forwarding it. I guess you haven't had a debate class so I will have to tutor you. When debating in a public forum and you are trying to influence those who are of slightly lower logical capacity than you, you should use examples that are likely to stir up the feelings of the people you are talking to. This is why the Republican party thrives in un-educated areas such as the rural south (where I live) when they use statements like "Think of the fire fighters that died in the line of duty, think of the wives and children of those who were innocent on 9/11" to justify the US involvement in Iraq. When Iraq actually had nothing to do with 9/11, people were unable to logically connect that like you and I were, instead they went by emotion. If you were forced to hear people mindlessly say things like that ad nauseam you would probably not use them in an argument. Stirring up emotion is not debating, nor is it logical unless you want stupid people to support you. Thats what I was saying... I will summarize in case you missed something.

STOP USING EXAMPLES LIKE ORPHANS AND WIDOWS BECAUSE IT IS USED TO GET STUPID PEOPLE TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION.
Logical thinking people rely off of facts, not feelings when making decisions, therefore I believed your position was compromised when you resorted to extreme examples.

Also, as far as the DLC comment is concerned. I'm not advocating "dumbed down logic" it seems that you are. So it looks as your bullshit comment goes back to you.

[Shakespeare]

65. "I guess you haven't had a debate class so I will have to tutor you"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Jesus, you're funny.

[tanngrisnir3]

67. You appear utterly unacquainted with the concept, let alone the application of, logic

For someone who uses 'unbecoming' and 'logic' in a rather flailing attempt at cognitive equivalence, you have zero business even mentioning arguing on the basis of emotion.

Logically, you epitomize the cognitive disconnect that you so, shall we say, bracingly bemoan.

[Gedankenaustausch]

68. Sorry, I don't understand

How does using unbecoming and logic mean that I have no business arguing on the basis of emotion? I do not see how "logically" i epitomize the "cognitive disconnect" that I bemoan? b.t.w. great thesaurus usage. You sound very..... wait i know.. logical.

[tanngrisnir3]

74. Actually, no. I doubt very much that if something actually did sound logical

that you would recognize it as such.

[no limit]

72. Those widows and those orphans exist, I'm sorry you don't like to think about them

they are the reason Bush is a murderer. I'm sorry you feel those words are too strong for you, I certainly understand your concern, and believe me, I'm sure everyone else here does too.

But it seems you continue to miss the point. Bush is directly responsible for over a million dead. Saddam was not responsible for 9/11. So when the right wing says "think of the widows from 9/11" to justify staying in Iraq they are doing what they always do, lying out of their collective asses. However, I would be more than happy to justify prosecuting Osama Bin Laden by using the argument that there are plenty of orphans and widows as a result of his actions, these are simple facts. Which is why I'm perfectly happy to use this argument against Bush since the simple fact is there are orphans and widows as a result of his actions. I tried to dumb this down for you as much as possible since you seem to have a very hard time with simple logic, if you still can not understand this you are the one that might want to seek some tutoring; I'm doing just fine but as I said certainly understand your concern.

[NewJeffCT]

16. You move on from this

and the same criminals will come back in 2017 - Rice, Feith, Wolfowitz, Gonzo, etc.

We moved on from Nixon, and ended up with a lot of the same folks causing Iran-Contra under Reagan.

We moved on from the crimes of Reagan (which were also impeachable, but Tip O'Neill thought it was too soon after Watergate to do it again...) and got a lot of the same people with Bush.

[noiretextatique]

17. yes, you are the only one

war criminals don't get a pass :nuke:

[lob1]

18. If they murdered your kids, would you be so quick to forget it?

If you're in a bad fix, they probably helped put you there. They ruined this country, and I can't pretend not to see it.

[Webster Green]

19. Yep! You are the only one in this area of the tubes.

There is no "moving on", if there is no longer any rule of law.

If there is no rule of law, then I can do whatever the fuck I want, right? :wtf:

[dana_b]

25. all issues like this do is become fodder for conservatives?!

I don't care what they think anymore. Those treasonous snakes need to be prosecuted and it can happen if enough people get behind it instead of telling everyone else how "it will never happen".

[Gedankenaustausch]

35. I agree.

However, that number of "enough people" is a considerable number of people. This isn't a movie where the good guys win and bad guys get what they deserve. This is real life. I think that it should happen, but the truth is no matter how much i shout, or we shout, or all of Democratic underground shouts for them to be brought to justice it simply will not happen. We all know this. But please don't paint me as a nay sayer. I think sometimes we all get a little too caught up in politics as if it were actually a exercise of fairness, when we all know that it is not. Politics is all theatre. If you don't realize it you will be a pawn in their game, forever running after false illusions of what you think is right.

[EFerrari]

39. There is no other way to get what you think is right than by going after it.

[onlyadream]

42. False illusions?

They are not off the hook!
IMO, if we don't prosecute them, that shows future leaders that they too can get away with shredding the constitutions & committing war crimes. This (past) administration BLATENLY ignored the law and put themselves above it. Eventually, as the papers come out and are released, people (not us DUers) will see and eventually there will be investigations.

[Gedankenaustausch]

56. EXACTLY!! Thank YOU

Eventually, eventually, this is the point. Right now we can't waste our time in trying to convince some international tribunal to try him. Putting up signs in the NY Subway will get nothing accomplished. We must wait until the US can try him. Then it will actually mean something. But as for right now, we must wait and stop these stupid attempts. This does nothing to bring people into our line of thinking. Most who saw the sign shoved it off as whimsical and unnecessary. No moderate person saw this and was instantly committed to trying Bush for war crimes. If it had any effect on the moderate person it was "Stop complaining" or "Will they ever stop whining." This puts Mr./Mrs. Moderate at odds with our position. We must wait until the time is right and until what we can do is effective to act.

[tomp]

26. even if there were millions of you with this idea....

...it is a completely wrong-headed and, i believe, supremely dangerous idea. to advance such an idea is to proclaim your foolishness and indicates faulty thinking or absence of thinking. to oppose the rule of law is to be my enemy, in that i consider the promoting of your idea a direct threat to the world. the rooting out of corruption in the government is my number one priority. and i seriously mean above all else. it is the problem from which all other problems gain traction. it is the problem that has always shown to lead to more of the same. can you actually be proposing more of the same? what you are supporting is exactly what is wrong with america. you become what is wrong with america.

[Gedankenaustausch]

55. no you are what is wrong with the Dem Party

by getting stuck in these exaggerated idealistic crusades against republicans and Bush, jeez man he isn't the president anymore. I know it's hard to find another punching bag, but you have to. The way the political system is now the way it will always be. You are not going to change it. I applaud you for your attempt to but no group of people will ever change it. We must learn to operate within the broken system to fix it. You are proposing a great thing, and I would stand behind you; however, we would be entirely unsuccessful in our pursuit. Yes you can look back at your life and say "I tried to do the right thing" but there is a difference in trying to do the right thing and actually doing the right thing. We have to toss up these haute ideals.

I am not foolish because I choose to operate within the broken system, and it is not faulty thinking. But, man seriously, "your idea a direct threat to the world" jeez, come on. We need to get off our high horse and realize there are things we can do and things that we can't. Right now we cannot try Bush for war crimes. What we can do is operate within the system to make sure it doesn't happen again. Even attempting to prosecute him would marginalize his supporters, and force them into a corner, by forcing them to accept things they don't believe. I really don't want to be around when that happens. What I would rather do is tone it down for a while, and slowly work towards a cooperative understanding that EVERYONE can believe in. Then everyone can say that what he did was wrong because of these reasons.

What you are calling for is extremism, and will not help your country or your beloved rule of law. You are advocating for a position to be forcibly fed to every American, and every American is not ready for it. I don't know how old you are, but I know that I will never see Bush brought to justice, it is a simple fact; however, if we relax and look at the thing logically, we can live to see the day that everyone believes he was dead wrong.

[Fedja]

28. Poorly argued

When Milosevic was put on trial for the Balkan atrocities, it was clear to many that he would not live to see his sentencing. The process itself was not futile because of this, it was a public statement by the world that what he did was wrong.

There's still a strangely prevalent conflict of opinions in some places on whether the 2000/2008 admin committed crimes against humanity and treason. A court process, regardless of practical consequences (even a trial in absentia for example), is a vital way for society to purge itself of doubt and relative stances and simply dare to admit to itself that what they did was criminal and despicable.

[Gedankenaustausch]

32. I have purged myself of doubt, you have purged yourself of doubt..

Everyone on this website has purged themselves of doubt. Everyone reading this knows that they are guilty of the things that we have accused them of for so long. I'm sorry, but there will be no trial in the Hague, no one will be brought up on war crimes, nothing will result from this. Some may say that Milosevic and Bush/Cheney/others are all guilty of the same thing, I would definitely agree; however, you must realize that there is a league of difference between Milosevic and Bush. Milosevic was not the leader of the defato hegemonic world power. The United States will never try its own president for such things. The United States will also never allow a president to be subject to a ruling from the Hague. It would not accomplish anything except for a strong sentiment of "I told you so." This would be screamed pompously from every democrat and liberal and would do nothing but add fervor to the Neo-Con movement. Bush would be resurrected as some sacrificial lamb and it would blow up in the Dem's face, and go down as one of the worst political moves EVER. The trial would be futile, it would do NOTHING. Bush will never pay for the crimes he committed. It sucks, and it's a hard pill to swallow, but it's the truth. We can pine on DU all day for justice to be served, and fancy ourselves as better because we think that it should, but it will never happen.

[Marr]

30. Good evening, Mr. Cheney.

lol

[bjobotts]

31. They "move on" from Reagan's contra and Nixon's watergate.That's how we got this group in power

[JJ]

34. Is that you George?

[Gedankenaustausch]

37. JJ, I wish I was that lucky.

I only wish that I could be so lucky as to know that what I did was wrong and not care, to know that the whole world knows what I did was wrong and care less, but most importantly to know that there is nothing they can do about it and laugh about it while down at the ranch.

[Starlight]

59. I assumed the poster was Granny Barb, trying to keep her criminal offspring out of prison.

[Gedankenaustausch]

63. ouch!

thats a low blow lol. Barb Bush, really. Come on buddy everyone knows apes can't use a computer.

[NYC Liberal]

38. "If anyone can recall an instance"

YOU name ME an instance of a president and administration committing the kinds of crimes that Bush and his gang did, and then you may have a point.

Nixon: Name me an instance when a president resigned because of corruption and criminal activity. Never happened before, so I guess Nixon should never have resigned.

[Gedankenaustausch]

54. I asked first. Childish but true.

[acmavm]

40. Nah, you're not the only o ne. You've got bush** and cheney and rice

and powell and feith and armitage and yoo and rumsfeld and perle and wolfowitz and the rest of the thugs to keep you company.

[leveymg]

44. Yes.

Watergate - a second-rate burglary. Iran-Contra - nothing to see here, move along. S&L Ripoff - couldn't happen again. 9/11 - Get over it.

Sure, it's time to let this stuff go and move on.

[Mother Of Four]

45. There are many arguments against going after -

the former admin. However, there is one very simple and conclusive reason we should. One that trumps any angst about what might happen, or what precedent may be set. This issue, the one of holding the former admin accountable for it's actions, is just as important as any other issue we face.


Through our history, there have been more chestbanger politicians/citizens than can be counted talking about inhumanity in other countries around the world. We cannot, and SHOULD NOT ever hold the world to a standard we ourselves aren't willing to follow. Wanting to be the "Leader of the free world" comes with responsibilities. One of those is policing our own. We are ultimately responsible (The american people) for keeping our politicians in check.

We failed.

So, do we tuck our tails- sing Que sera sera and hope that the world forgets what was once a shining beacon of freedom and prosperity is now tarnished with torture, loss of rights/privacy and needless death, all the while trying to paint a glowing rainbow over what is 8 years of pustulant history? Written in blood no less, blood and oil.

Or do we do what our true responsibility is, hold our heads up and state that no one is above the standards we hold the rest of the world to. That we refuse to compound our mistakes by sweeping this under the rug and crossing our fingers. We can't afford to let this go, not now- not ever. If we allow this to pass, there will come a day that we get another like B* in the office. The next time we might not be so lucky, we may get a puppeteer instead of a puppet. The next time we may have the misfortune that they are savvy and are willing to take B*'s example a dozen steps further.

This, above all other reasons, is why it must be done.

I for one, refuse to trade eight years from now for today. Short term thinking is what got us into this mess to begin with.

[Mad_Dem_X]

46. I wish I could recommend this post.

"We cannot, and SHOULD NOT ever hold the world to a standard we ourselves aren't willing to follow."

AMEN!

[Mother Of Four]

47. ...

:hug:

[Shakespeare]

50. Yes, you are.

They committed crimes; there should be an investigation, followed by proper punishment.

It really IS that simple. Oh, and we're capable of doing more than one thing at once in this country, so your "should focus on other things" argument fails utterly.

[Gedankenaustausch]

57. no you utterly fail

Scream from the highest hilltop that bush should be brought justice, that we should punish him. And lets see how many people you convince. Your extremism utterly fails, just like Bush's. Your position will ultimately fail because you know and I know that we can pine all day on DU and we can go out and hold signs, but we both know your position will utterly fail because nothing will ever happen to him. Stop putting stock in your illusions of grandeur. And yes, Shakespeare, I know we can multitask. We're doing a dang good job of it right now. But if you notice what our dem leaders are not focusing on, then you realize that your position utterly fails again.

[Shakespeare]

64. LOL--no, I don't.

And there's nothing extreme about my position--perhaps you should try saying the same thing to the multiple congress people who are planning to form investigative committees. So, yes, Congress is keeping an eye on the matter, too.

"Illusions of grandeur?" You have a poor grasp of the English language, and a poorer grasp of basic rhetoric.

I don't think I've ever seen somebody get so worked up in favor of inaction since...since...oh, I don't know--Hannity?

[Gedankenaustausch]

69. good point

it kinda makes sense.....but yeah not really, wrong usage.. i should have used pipe dream, thats more of what I was going for. I think there should be action, but only action by the united states. If you look at my original post all I said was that the trial by some legal body like the Hague would be completely ridiculous. I would love it if the US would do it. Which is what I have said on other posts, but you haven't seen them probably so thats OK. But, in lieu of underlining multiple, I will underline PLANNING (but since I don't want to switch to HTML I will put it in CAPS).

But, I would highly doubt it if Bush is ever 1. brought up on charges, 2. found guilty. I would love it if he was, but he's not. And I don't see how you guys get caught up in things that are politically dead issues.

[tanngrisnir3]

66. You seem to be experiencing some rather exquisite cognitive fuckwittage....

The position that there have been actions and events that warrant further investigation, to say nothing of trials, formal judicial proceedings, etc...., is in no way extreme, but rather the epitome of reasonable inquiry into possible illegality of actions on the part of the last administration.

That you would label it as something other than that makes me question your motives; that you alliterate so much and overuse the verb 'to know' makes me think you have no intention of actually addressing the matter with any degree of seriousness.

[Gedankenaustausch]

71. True

That is in no way extreme, and that was not his position. Yes that is the epitome of a reasonable inquiry. Thanks for agreeing. I did not label it as anything else. Can you point out my alliteration? I did say highest hilltop, which is definitely an alliteration. But, was I using too much. Please show me. Also I think that using "to know" (since we are now indicating verbs by their infinitive form) doesn't take away from "addressing the matter with any degree of seriousness." DU needs a lexical forum so you can vent your exquisite linguistic ability while discussing etymological foundations and critiquing Grimm's dictionary and such things that you "know" about, but since they don't lets tone the "I studied under Noam Chompsky" attitude.

I'm not posting anymore on this thread, unless you insult me, because this is dumb.

B.t.w. if they ever convict him I'll give you 10 bucks, I promise.

[tanngrisnir3]

73. Your promises are likely as good as your rhetoric, so keep the $10. You'll need it.

[Starlight]

58. It's so obvious. I can't believe anyone would even suggest stopping investigation of serious crimes.

Unless, of course, they know they or their family/friends will likely be indicted.

[DireStrike]

70. Laws broken - serve justice. That's all there is to do. Everyone is subject, even the powerful.

[BrklynLiberal]

12. Cool! Hope there are lots more of those around.

[burning rain]

15. Great stuff!

I can hear the whining, "Waaaah waaaah, Manhattan's not the real America...."

[Muttocracy]

20. happy to add another rec

[Stuart G]

22. me too

[upi402]

23. Bush and Dick on a NY subway

Who'd a thunkit?

[malaise]

24. Perfect

K & R

[earcandle]

29. This is some classy advertising.

love it!

[1776Forever]

36. A blast from the past from Neoblues - DU - 2005 - Take a look>>>>

Powerful stuff from back in 2005!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x19480

[tclambert]

41. The Cheney water torture ought to get them a conviction for war crimes at least.

The Cheney water torture--like the Chinese water torture, except instead of just annoying the victim, you come as close to killing him as you can.

[peace13]

43. Be still my heart! n/t

[mlevans]

52. Any notion as to whereabouts of this?

I'd love to ask my sister to go take some photos, but I can't just tell her "go to the subway," know what I mean?

[Renew Deal]

62. I haven't seen those ads yet.

I wonder if that's a one off, or an ad campaign.