Author
|
Topic: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread (Read 69836 times)
|
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
 Offline
Posts: 109
|
I'm definitely not a fan of Bush but what I see on the 'GovExposed' page seems wildly over the top.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gonsen
Guest
|
I agree with Baltar that site is wildly over the top.
I could refer you to some widly over the top on the otherside, but they are not what i would call, legit sources.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gonsen
Guest
|
also that bbc link lists polls in only 3 countries. that to me is not a true measure of poeples opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3875
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Perfectly on-topic:
The Truth Project is a team of lawyers who go around doing advanced forensic testing to determine whether people on Death Row may actually be innocent. They have overturned dozens of convictions.
Bush opposed the Truth Project as governor of his state, simply stating that he had confidence in the court system to do justice... even after it had amply been demonstrated to frequently err. It shows that either he lives in some fantasy world where actual errors never occur and where conflicting data is concocted by his opponents... or that he considers keeping a little egg off his face to be more important than saving innocent lives.
Either explanation would immediately disqualify him from receiving my vote.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 13, 2004, 04:21:59 am by Death_999 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
JonoPorter
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 656
Don't mess with the US.
|
I found something that SOOO belongs in this tread. 
check out:
http://www.jibjab.com/
and look up
Political: This Land!
trust me you wont regret it.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 13, 2004, 05:38:47 am by BioSlayer »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JonoPorter
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 656
Don't mess with the US.
|
I am still not seeing where you got "Bush opposed the Truth Project as governor of his state."
All I see in those links is tough decisions concerning pardons.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3875
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
It's the way he is in total denial about anyone ever having been executed who was innocent. He doesn't think of the possibility of error. He has FAITH, no need for extensive robust error-checking.
Mocking that woman was not a tough decision, it was gratuitous. Does he have no heart, or does he just have no repression mechanism? That tidbit of evidence seems to point to having neither.
As far as the interaction with the Truth Project, yup, it wasn't him. It was his brother.
I would guess they didn't bother trying with Texas, since he's such a lost cause.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 15, 2004, 02:43:06 am by Death_999 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3875
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
It doesn't matter whether he was technically telling the truth.
Anyone who looks at the success of such efforts as the Truth project and then signs more death warrants than all but four other COUNTRIES, without trying a similar filter first... telling the truth or not is the least of the moral problems he faces.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 15, 2004, 02:41:58 am by Death_999 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JonoPorter
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 656
Don't mess with the US.
|
I personally agree with the death penalty, but think it should be removed for a much different reason then you have stated. The death penalty causes more problems then its worth. Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have gathered it’s actually cheaper to imprison a person for life then to execute them. Also there are other countries that won’t extradite a suspect if they may face the death penalty. I agree with you that the system is flawed, but what system isn’t? The current justice system is the best we can do and saying we can do better is true, in theory, but not in reality.
These are my thoughts, and most likely will not change until tomorrow.
It doesn't matter whether he was technically telling the truth.
Anyone who looks at the success of such efforts as the Truth project and then signs more death warrants than all but four other COUNTRIES, without trying a similar filter first... telling the truth or not is the least of the moral problems he faces.
I’m sure he did a similar filter, but I believe you wouldn’t be satisfied unless he got rid of the death penalty entirely. Also it’s not like bush was the only one who signed death warrants. The death warrants continued even after he left Texas office.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 15, 2004, 01:10:44 pm by BioSlayer »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
aaaand I'm back. Thank god I don't work full time in a bar anymore, 12 hour days are definetly not healthy.
And finally we're getting somewhere!
Lukipela I only have a limited time in which I can form replies and each time I form one you say it’s not enough or that I ignored important issues. It’s that I Just don’t have time to respond to every little point that you believe is important. It’s also hard to look up relevant information when DNS is not working properly on my computer. For the past week I’ve had irritating computer problems. Just try to think what it is like to, at random, have entire Domains not load, and continue to not load.
I am going to try, something new, short less fluent sentences to avoid more confusion.
Also Lukipela we live in different paradigms. Most of what I post is considered common senses where I live, and most of what I see you post, in my eyes, is full of flawed logic
Whiler I think it's silly to try and engage in any debate/argument without enough time to do so, it is somewhat of a reason for your posting habits. Please keep in mind though that it is very frustrating to write a long and thought reply and have your opponent ignore most of it. You want to discuss these things fine, but in that case I suggest you find time to do so properly.
As pertains to common sense, consider this: Imasgine that we had this discussion a thousand years back or so. Perhaps were you live, it's common sense that the Earth is round. However, over here it's well known that the Earth is flat. While you are obviously right, you need to prove it with fact, you can't just tell me, "Well that's what most people believe around here." That equals null and void. Please keep in mind that the only way to convince someone of something is to present unarguable facts. Failing that, logical conclusions would be nice. So far you have presented exactly one fact, the article about finding one empty shell case in Iraq. Your other sources have been the speech Bush gave to the UN, the very facts that are being questioned in your own country as flawed, and facts that were never entirely believed by other countries.
When writing on a board, all we have to judge is your writing. We cannot see any facial gestures, or any hear your tone or inflexions. That being the case, I consider
"becuase bush one day got up and wanted to be called evil, wanted to ruin the name of the US, since every country out there loved America to begin with, especially france, wanted to alienate all other countries, wanted to get oil which he could more easily get from Alaska, by assassinating a few senate members, and ruin the lives of arabs since he is obviously racist" is that what you want me to say? becuase if you believe that load of crap there is no hope for you Very close to hyperventilating instead of answering a question.
Also sentences in captial letters, especially bold ones are considered yelling.
NOW LISTEN TO THESE WORDS:
This thread is about John Kerry, please post accordingly
Unless you were perhaps imitating a CHMMR?
Now then, you've answered the questions a bit out of order, so I'll try and roll with that. You begin with the torture issue.
Fair enough, I missed a "most". To me, it makes your position more alien than before though. So you're saying, it's alright to torture some people as long as you have ten times that amount marching around naked? So it'd be alright to torture and kill a hundred persobns, as long as I have a 900 persons marching around naked, because then most of them were only doing the naked parading? Also, I think you are forgetting the aspect of pschycological torture here. If your cell buddy had been sodomized with a broom last night, how relaxed do you think you'd feel marching along naked the next day wondering if you'd be next on the broom shaft? Equally (and I know this is gonna annoy you, but I really want to try and reach you here) 9/11 was alright because most of NY survived?
And then we apparently have a difference of opinions. You believe that it lessens a crime if one is a bit stressed whilst doing it? I don't.
Also, it seems that you're not quite getting what all of this is doing to your image. I'll try to make an comparison. Imagine a husband who is unfaithful. Now this is obvioulsy a Bad Thing. (Think some bastard dictator torturing people). However, if this husband is a high official of some sort, it is much worse.Imagine he's President! (Imagine it's the US army rather than a shabby dictator). Now imagine that this president or associates attempt to deny the truth, hide facts and squiggle with things like "That depends on your definition of sex" (Think: "Mostly there was just naked parading") Se how this is worse than your average Joe/dictator doing it? The western countries, US included should be the shining light in the darkness. We should bring peace, civilisation, enlightenment. That is why it is MUCH worse when we fail, when our soilders fail their task so fundamentally.
If you want to believe that there are mitigating circumstances, then fine. We're simply having a difference of opinion on wether torture is all bad, or sometimes understandable.
Now, for the WMD. I was waiting for the "big Country" thing, I must admit. Rememebr when UN inspectors made the same claims? "It's a big country", they said. "It'll take time to go through all of it.". And you called them incompetent and invaded. And now you use the very same argument once more. Does that make you incompetent, or does it mean that the inspectors weren't and your invasion was unneccessary? Feel free to think on that.
And yes, I'm sure that in the middle of a bloody war Iraq had plenty of time to ship a whole lot of their militray arsenal abroad. A dictator like Hussein, the first things he'd do in a war would be sending away his weapons. Personally I think the fact that they didn't even fire gas at Israel (like last time) speaks volumes of their ability to do so.
But again, fair enough, we come from different worlds. You choose to believe intelligence that is now being called faulty all over the world. I choose to believe the fact that no WMD whatsoever has been found.
Also, considering the whole "Other countries believed there were WMD's too" line of reasoning, it simply pertains to reasonable doubt. Everyone knew he had had some, the disagreement was on wether the evidence considering what they had now was reliable. Kind of the same way you just don't round people up and put them in prison beacause they might be planning a bankrobbery, you need evidence to do so. Evidence that a judge will believe.
It wasn't bushes fault; the blame, if any, squarely goes on the CIA. Clinton also believed there were WMD in Iraq. Also other Intelligence organizations concurred with the statement.
Yes, the MI5 possibly? I doubt other organizations were as sure, and if they were, feel free to link to official statements... also, the duty of a world leader is also to not trust blindly in one source that has proven itself unreliable in the past, such as the CIA.
I never said bush is infallible. I never said I would kill you for speaking your insensitive words. I never said I believe bush on faith. Where, trust instead of faith, comes in to the equation is all the information bush & company do not release to us. Like how they find out where terrorist are, or that they have discover new information. This requires trust, because in a lot of cases if that information got out people would die. Another place where trust comes in is the decision to act on information. Bush acted on information he deemed true, WMD, for example. He may have been wrong about the WMD, but he acted instead of waiting for, beyond a reasonable doubt, which most likely would have been a chemical weapon going off in a major city.
You never said, but the way you take his statements as concrete evidence indicates so.
Also, the nature of what you wrote made it seem that you were talking about yourself or people you were affiliated. If you were talking about people completely unknown to you, perhaps you shouldn't be judging how ready they'd be to kill me? Or as OXDECODE said:
As someone who knew people who were in the Twin Towers on that day, I'd appreciate it highly if you did not presume to say what I would or would not do to a given person on a given day.
Your trust borders precariously close to faith my friend. While it is obvious that no goveremnt could release details like that, there are things that could be mentioned. A statement such as "While regrettable, the torture of certain inmates at Abu-Ghraib has saved hundreds of innocent lives". That would give away nothing, and yet go a fair bit towards calming the world opinion against the US in this certain case.
Remeber, a certain level of trust equals blind faith. Faith needs no evidence, it is evidence in itself. So it would seem is most of your argument. You believe and trust that your goverement will do the right thing. Fine. But belief in itself will not convert any of us, so maybe you should consider giving up this debate and just declaring belief?
most likely would have been a chemical weapon going off in a major city.
Indeed. Once again this is something you believe rather than something substantial.
Regrading your "evidence" I did read through itr, and almost all of it are things Bush claimed to be true that has yet to be proven
As for terrorists in North Korea, how would we know? That is one closed country my friend. As for Africa, indeed. they're not terrorists so let them die.
Funny thing here is, Saddam may have trained terrorists, but they were part of his own little personal cult. Nothing compared to the islamic madmen that come sweeping out of his neighbouring countries. As you should know by now, Saddam was arabic, but not a moslem. The moslem leaders hated his guts even though the masses loved him for standing against the US.
If I've missed soemthing, feel free to point out.
Now for your questions.
Alpha. Well OXd answered that well. Other than that, god knows why the russians do anything. their every bit as jumpy as the americans.
Beta. NO (SORRY; MIXED UP THE YES AND NO THING HERE AS WELL). Now as a counterquestion, do you believe it is wrong to kill an innocent Iraqi civilian? Rememebr, answering yes will mean you're a monster and answering no will mean you're against the war. And since it's not a complicated question, I demand you answer either yes or no.
Charlie. Any evidence that can be controlled by independent sources and vierified as factual. Not just claims that have yet to be proven correct.
Delta. I refer you to the top of my argument where we discuss reasonable doubt. Most countries do not wish to invade others based on flimsy evidence, this is especially true for Germany.
And your quote actually indiccates that the Minister believed that the WMD process had been successfulyl blocked and that we should continue in the same tracks, possibly make it even harder. Not that we should invade.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 22, 2004, 07:11:14 pm by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
|
