Author
|
Topic: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread (Read 68895 times)
|
Ivan Ivanov
*Smell* controller
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 296
Internet Piracy
|
Goddamn Luk, I am greatly impressed by your patience. Ever thought of becoming an ambasador? Or maybe helping resolve the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis?
I'm gonna call you Saint Lukipela from now on.
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.
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.
Ah... going back to faith again. You're sure that that he did a similiar filter, yet you have no proof to it.
You think that D999 wouldn't be satisfied unless Bush got rid of death penalty, but that's because you don't understand the argument. It's not the question of wheter death penalty is right or wrong, we all have our own opinions in that matter.
The question is, should the innocent be executed, and I think we all can agree that the answer is no. Every action that is going to assure us, that the soon to be executed person is guilty, should be encouraged, not opposed. If there is doubt, there shouldn't be an execution.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Your bruises are reminders of naivete and trust
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Ivan is correct. The reason I brought up the Truth Project is to point out that it provided ample evidence that many people on death row are in fact innocent. This suggests that further efforts to determine the guilt or innocence of death row inmates would be fruitful.
In the absence of such demonstration, Bush's position would be kind of reasonable. Given that they have all too frequently succeeded, his dogmatic insistence on the infallibility of an all too fallible judicial system is fundamentally inexcusable.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 15, 2004, 08:41:34 pm by Death_999 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gonsen
Guest
|
in defense of bioslayer
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.
ive read this forum tread thing and i have not seen where boislayer says anything about inspectors let alone calls them incompetent. saying he did something when he didn't is called lying.
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.
he also had a standing offer of asylum to asama bin ladin. so bin ladin was part of his own "little" cult?
Ah... going back to faith again. You're sure that that he did a similiar filter, yet you have no proof to it.
do you have proof that he didnt?
Goddamn Luk, I am greatly impressed by your patience. Ever thought of becoming an ambasador? Or maybe helping resolve the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis?
I'm gonna call you Saint Lukipela from now on.
seems the other way around here.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
1: the 'you' referred to Americans. This is consistent usage since Luki is not American.
2: note how Bin Laden kept turning him down on it. Or did you not know that Bin Laden had put a rather large bounty for the assassination of Saddam Hussein?
3: we do know that he didn't set up a second round of guilt verification as other states did upon discovering so many innocent death row inmates. Basically, they got their appeals and that was it. Note that the extra filtering process in other states was outside of the regular appeals process -- and there was no real beefing up of the appeals process in Texas to compensate. So yeah, we know.
4: Saint bioslayer, giving people the friendly advice that they can be killed for criticizing American foreign policy in some areas, while defending said policy. Sure, not a direct threat... but not exactly a candidate for canonization as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JonoPorter
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 656
Don't mess with the US.
|
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.
there were no north korean hijackers on 9/11. that as good as proof as any.
As for Africa you first say the war in Iraq is not justified by stoppage of mass murder, and then you want America to invade Sudan to stop mass murder? Make up your mind.
Also I have not seen you beloved UN make any move to stop the mass murder in Sudan, in fact they have done the opposite. (See previous posts)
Very close to hyperventilating instead of answering a question.
it was sarcasm.
Beta. Yes. 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.
? ? ? ? ?
So I am a monster if I believe it’s wrong to kill innocent Iraqi civilians? I guess we do live in very different worlds. 
I do believe its wrong to kill innocent civilians, but contrary to what you seem to believe terrorist are not civilians and the Coalition did not put hospital, schools and nursing homes on their target list, in a attempt to kill as many women and children as possible.
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.
But it implies that they did have weapons, when they were not suppose to have ANY.
Indeed. Once again this is something you believe rather than something substantial.
My “belief” is based on previous examples in history. Even though you may disregard it; this is a very real example.
When did the Japanese first know the USA had nuclear weapons? When one fell on Hiroshima.
Also sentences in captial letters, especially bold ones are considered yelling.
I increased the font size, because I thought you might have been having trouble reading the smaller size, and for emphasis.
You never said, but the way you take his statements as concrete evidence indicates so.
Because he speaks the truth, unless his statements are based on inaccurate intelligence, which most of the time they are not. He does not outright lie like Kerry does.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 16, 2004, 07:48:32 am by BioSlayer »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Culture20
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 917
Thraddash Flower Child
|
aaaand I'm back. Me too. 
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.
If I recall correctly, the U.S. didn't comment on their competancy, but instead on their efficacy, which was dependant upon Saddam's willingness to comply with them. If you'll allow me to use a bad analogy: Finding the Queen of Hearts is easier in a game of "Three Card Montey" if the street-dealer doesn't get to move the cards around. We knew the game was a scam, so we punched the dealer out. 
When did I say that? That is so far from what I said that makes me wonder about a great many things.
I believe he was referring to this, which sounded like an exageration on your part:
these words are all it would take to make alot of poeple in america start thinking of ripping your heart out, specicficly in New York. since you are obviosly making reference to 9/11.
So I am a monster if I believe it’s wrong to kill innocent Iraqi civilians? I guess we do live in very different worlds.
Luki obviously mixed up the yes/no in his sentence. We primary speakers of english do that too, and we generally cut each other some slack when it occurs.
I'll make a wager less bet with all of you. The bet is that that conflict [palestinian,/iraeli - Ed. C20] will not be resolved until 7 years before the end of the world.
Good thing it's wagerless considering you have to wait until the world ends to count the years.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
And progress is being made. Well, at least somewhat.
To begin with, I'd like to thank gonsen for joining the discussion. The more the merrier I always say. Feel free to actually contribute to the thread by stating opinions and beliefs rather than just nitpicking. I trust however that all your points (well, except the last possibly) has been met to satisfaction?
Then, I'll make it my business to continue C20:s analogy a bit further. You know the card dealer is crooked, so you punched the dealer out. However, you still can't find the Queen of Hearts. It's not on his table, nor in his coat. Sure, he might have slipped it to one of those other dealears close by, but since he isn't at speaking terms with several of them it seems unlikely. And now that you're going through his coat you are getting lice. Oh, and all the other rich kids are laughing at you.
In short, you may well be correct considering the competence vs. effiacy thing, though I do seem the word incompetent floating around at the time. However, the reasoning works just as well with that. You invaded, so that you could go anywhere, into any house or facility to look for WMD's. Hellofalot more efficent than having to wait for permission. Yet still nada.
And you are obviously correct, I mixed up my sentence.  However, I'll restate it for Bio's.
Beta. Yes. Now as a counterquestion, do you believe it is wrong to kill an innocent Iraqi civilian? Rememebr, answering NO will mean you're a monster and answering YES will mean you're against the war. And since it's not a complicated question, I demand you answer either yes or no.
And I was referring to the entire invasion. If you seriously believe that invading an entire country with military force can be done with out even one regular civilian dying then you need to spend more time with your soldier buddies. To clarify, I'm not talking terrorists here. I'm talking regular people caught by stray gunfire, or by a smart bomb mising it's destination by a house or so. It doesn't matter if you didn't mean to kill them, or specifically targeted them, they're still dead.
Again Bio, I see you're applying your pick'n mix style to the debating. Well, as I have no choice I'll go with that.
No North Korean's no. With the risk of turning up a red face once more, I'll claim that all the terrorists were Al-Qaeda members, and thus not Saddamites? Meaning that'd be proof enough Saddam had no terrorists according to your logic. If I've missed somethign here, feel free to point it out.
Ok, lets straighten this UN thing out once and for all. It's not my beloved UN. I don't think the UN works very well at all at the moment. I think the UN hasn't worked that well for quite a while, yet it's the best we got. I think the UN could be vastly improved, or scrapped and rebuilt, yet the political will is lacking in many countries. As an example, the country that was extremely late with all their membership fees a few yeasrs back. Yeah, yours.
What I am trying to point at here does not consider the UN per se though. I'll try to spell it out simply.
If you want to make the claim that you "are making the world a safer place", or that you "are bringing peace and democracy" then you need to do it all the time in order to look like you're telling the truth. You can't just go "Well, this troubled country we'll fix, but the rest can rot." When you do that, people start looking for hidden agendas. "Why that country, and no other?" they wonder. Normally, everyone would look to the UN for guidance. And while not perfect, most of the time the UN does work partially. However, if you choose to ignore the UN, and make claims to being a saviour, then you must be so everywhere. Otherwise you are but a petty country protecting your petty interest, no better than the Soviets invading Afghanistan, or Finland for that matter.
For the benefit of gonsen, you once more refers to americans.
Regarding sarcasm, it's one of the harder tools to use on the internet. To me it simply looked like someone avoiding a question while accusing the opponent of being anti-american and hoepless. But fine, you used "sarcasm" instead of actually answering the question.
And again, the quote implies that they had weapons that were being disarmed, which is what you need to do with weapons so that they cease to exist. It does not imply that they wetre resisting disarmament, just that disarmament was happening. Which is a good thing.
Quite the surprise for the Japanaese yes. I'll accept that as a fair enough example, yet I'd like you to remember that just beacause you had the ability to drop that bomb, it doesn't automatically mean that Saddam had the ability to blow up Denver. Al-qaeda possibly. Again there is a difference.
I'll assume this is sarcasm again as I've not implied anywhere that I have trouble reading anything. And if you want to go against custom behaviour, don't be surprised to notice that people misunderstand you. The analogy would be sticking out the tongue at someone when you meety them abnd then explain, "I thought you might be blind, and licking someones face is my way of saying hello". It may well be, but it's not what the rest of us are used to.
And you take his statements as fact because he speaks the truth? That's what the Soviets said about Stalin as well. "Well he tells the truth, surely communism will win out! We just gotta have some trust!"
Again, I see you missed the pesky torture thing, so I'll just assume that my premises were correct.
I'll also assume that I guessed your correct stance on WMD ("I believe"). I'll even go as far as to imagining that you finally understood the whole reasonable doubt thing, though that is going out on a limb.
And as no links to other security organistaions talking about huge amounts of WMD seem to magically have appeared I guess you forfeit that as well.
And as you've failed to reply to the argument on how a little information could have relieved US pressure in the torture scandal I'll just assume that you still believe that "it might have saved someone but they're not even giving out vague details that could get them, out of the boiling water cuz that's just not what they do".
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 16, 2004, 04:11:32 pm by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
JesusWChrist
Guest
|
there were no north korean hijackers on 9/11. that as good as proof as any.
I don't think there were any Iraqi hijackers either. That means you just proved there's no connection between Iraq and Al-Quada!
My “belief” is based on previous examples in history. Even though you may disregard it; this is a very real example.
When did the Japanese first know the USA had nuclear weapons? When one fell on Hiroshima.
You make a good point. Any country that is not an ally may actually have WMD and may one day decide to attack the Forces of Good! They should be "liberated" in a pre-emptive action. Better safe than sorry.
And maybe then do the allied countries after all. Just in case. We know some of them have nuclear weapons.
(Also see this)
Because he speaks the truth, unless his statements are based on inaccurate intelligence, which most of the time they are not.
Amen.
He does not outright lie like Kerry does.
Right on! Like that time when he... erm... said one thing and changed it later. Evil! Because Bush is on a mission from God, so he knows that everything is either Good or Evil, Truth or Lie. And Kerry isn't. So he is Evil, and a Liar!
I should go into politics. This is so easy. I think I hear the Voice of God too. Many Voices of God in fact. This is so much fun. Kittens Good. Sharks Evil. Nucular weapons Evil. Nucular weapons when I have them Good. Britain Good. China Evil. Russia... Pootie Poot is my Friend. Friends Good. Russia Good. I hear you God!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
