First Questions the Propaganda Team Must Ignore!

Crakeur, you are nothing new with all the other guys who have to repeat to save your interests who failed Judge Judy's courtroom and every other just system. Clear questions were asked you guys and you come back claiming the rights for credible discussion while willfully ignoring them. THESE QUESTIONS, IF KEPT CONCEAL WILL COST LIVES.

Did you answer the clear questions that I gave you? Why do you people constantly demand that we must accept your IQs when you spit on your own IQs so much? Are you the people that actually existed before America that were the standard of the word TYRANNY?

We know that acts of war even called TERRORISM existed ever since. Did you phase this fact in with what I am constantly asking? Why did you miss the questions over and over and over again?

Let's try it again so you can ignore it again and feed the big bad ol' CONSPIRACY THEORISTS that TERRORIZE you:

The Fourth Reich propaganda teams tells us that terrorism is now here. They claim that, unlike all the other presidents before, President Bush is the only president who takes the most effective approach to deal with terrorism. President Bush therefore "concocts" the Patriot Act that comes directly from the Inquisitions and which were already well in practice by the Communists and Nazis for SECURITY. He says that the Patriot Act is CONSTITUTIONAL and that it is a VITAL LAW.

1. If it is such a VITAL LAW, how come we never needed it before President Bush. We now marvel that there were no more terror attacks FOR FIVE YEARS since President Bush failed us, and the propaganda team insult their own IQs telling us we must reward a president who fails us. HOW COME TEN, TWENTY, FIFTY YEARS UNDER THE TENURES OF OTHER PRESIDENTS MADE THIS NEVER A CONCERN FOR US: We were never under the threat of government snooping nor being arrested and detained without due process on a mere accusation from a President who fouled up so many times and made so many mistakes, the Propaganda Team tells us Michael Moore is such an embarrassment!

2. If the Patriot Act, according to Bush, is "CONSTITUTIONAL," why are his Fourth Reich propaganda supporters telling us that the issue of TERROR, that you lie daily telling us was always with us as it is being pushed today, makes it "outdated?"

3. If the Fourth Reich propaganda team tells us that the reason 911 took place was because President Bill Clinton failed to protect us because HE HAD LAXED POLICIES ON TERRORISM, HOW STRONG WERE THE POLICIES AGAINST TERRORISM OF ALL THE OTHER PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM??

I'll leave it just there for now and challenge the IQs of the Propaganda team. We ask that you move no further UNTIL YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS CLEARLY AND CONCISELY, especially since lives depend on them.

But the biggest summup of the question:

4. IF PRESIDENT BUSH TAKES THE MOST EFFECTIVE STANCE AGAINST TERROR BY USING THE PATRIOT ACT COMING FROM PRINCIPLES STRAIGHT FROM THE INQUISITIONS, HOW WOULD THIS COUNTRY HAVE BEEN SINCE THE BEGINNING IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE SUBJECT TO ARRESTS, IMPRISONMENT AND DETAINMENT ON AN ACCUSATION WITH NO DUE PROCESS FOREVER FROM A PRESIDENT WHO FAILS TO PROTECT THEM?

[edit on 15-6-2006 by tmac100]

How would America have spent its 200 years already used if the principles of the Patriot Act from the Inquisitions were always around to combat what the propaganda team is telling us is the issue of TERRORISM that was always around?

How come Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and all the other forefathers of America didn't understand that the most effective way to combat the issue of TERRORISM the propaganda team tells us was always around was to revert back to the Inquisitions?

Why did Benjamin Franklin then tell us that they who consent to submit a measure of their liberties for security deserves neither liberty nor security?

Was America founded on Bush policies to reward presidents who fail to protect the American people and becomes proud of his failure?

Don't come back with a repetition that the issue of TERRORISM was always around. Come back with answers to these clear questions for the saving of lives!

[edit on 15-6-2006 by tmac100]

4 years and relection is bad. Impeachment is good if the people had more say. Lets say we have presidents as our leaders until they die, lets just say Regan was the next president, wouldnt he still be president? Lets just say that disease never happened to him. He was so popular, everyone probably would still like him. Unless we get tired of the guy and dont like him anymore. But that didnt happen very often with Emperors, Kings. So what Im saying is that sometimes having leaders run for too short times can make things go bad. G. W. B. wouldnt be in office if we had rulers lasting untill they die. No one can make bad decisions if we get a good leader. And the people have more say in to impeach a bad one for we can eventually have a good one. And dont accuse me for my spelling and punctuation, I dont really care or feel like doing it the proper way right now.