Ten reasons re-elect our wonderful President George Walker Bush. [Archive]

Crossbow

6th October 2004, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
It's a typo.

Just because you are an atheist but it doesn't mean you have to be mean to me because I support Bush and have accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior. You know, it's never too late to come to Him. The Father will grant entrance through the Gates of Heaven as long as you repent to His Son, Jesus Christ.

John 3-16:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Wow! Thanks for the speedy reply.

However, you should know that if you want people to take your prose seriously, then you need to make a better effort at presenting it before berating others.

Also, your religious pretensions may be more than adequate to fool yourself, but they do not impress me. For example, spouting stock platitudes do not mean that I absolve you when you preceed it with stuff like this:

WRONG. Typica liberal lie and distortion. The fact is most of the world supports our war.

Therefore, just because you are so quick to hatred please do not assume that I hate you.

crimresearch

6th October 2004, 06:33 PM

NoneInChrist has got to be the most inept sock puppet ever...in the Religion forum, his posts about the Christian doctrine he supposedly supports were so atrocious that he had to have atheists correct him on his Biible knowledge...
:rolleyes:

Patrick

6th October 2004, 06:50 PM

#11 - Nobody will ever trust America again! They won't be able to do **** with people giving them grief. With Bush in charge, it really will be US against the world.

In some ways, it's been just that for about 60 years!

Edited for breach of Rule 8.

Patrick

6th October 2004, 06:53 PM

There you go, Patrick, Merphie and you other staunch Bush fans. You see who Bush's core constituancy is. Are you sure you want to be in bed with them?

I'm an agnostic, but I've had enough anti-christian bigotry from people like you. And there's all kinds of moveon.org wack jobs against Bush - do you want to be in bed with them?

Patrick

6th October 2004, 06:56 PM

Don't you know anything about topic organization? There is a Forum for the 2004 Election and this thread should have been placed in that location.

EEEYYYYOWWWWWWWW!!!! The anal retentive Category Police strike again!!!!

Tricky

6th October 2004, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Patrick
I'm an agnostic, but I've had enough anti-christian bigotry from people like you. And there's all kinds of moveon.org wack jobs against Bush - do you want to be in bed with them?
Oh, yeah, I'm an anti-Christian bigot all right. I regularly protest in front of the church that my family goes to. I rip up the Gideon's Bibles in my hotel rooms. I burn crosses in peoples' lawns... oops. Sorry, that's not me. That's the Christian bigots. It's so easy to get confused when you're a bigot.

But somehow, Patrick, I didn't think it would bother you at all. I was right.

DavidJames

6th October 2004, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by Patrick
I'm an agnostic, but I've had enough anti-christian bigotry from people like you. And there's all kinds of moveon.org wack jobs against Bush - do you want to be in bed with them? moveon.org are part of the extreme left. The religious right form the foundation of the Republican party. As an agnostic, you are an outsider. You would not be welcome to speak at major Republican functions. As an agnostic I doubt the Republican party would back you for public office, that's assuming they would ever stop laughing long enough to actually speak with you.

No Patrick, 1inChrist is your average Republican and he thinks your going to Hell. You guys should get along just fine :D

Patrick

6th October 2004, 07:18 PM

Oh, yeah, I'm an anti-Christian bigot all right. I regularly protest in front of the church that my family goes to. I rip up the Gideon's Bibles in my hotel rooms. I burn crosses in peoples' lawns... oops. Sorry, that's not me. That's the Christian bigots. It's so easy to get confused when you're a bigot.

Gosh, I'm sorry! I didn't read his post carefully enough! OK, let's take a second look: hmmmmm .... opposes abortion, supports traditional marriage, advocates the spread of democracy, approves capture of Saddam ...... OK! I GET IT! PURE KKK FOR SURE! I promise to be quicker on the uptake next time!

Patrick

6th October 2004, 07:22 PM

You would not be welcome to speak at major Republican functions.

Uh, wrong, there are probably many republican agnostics, and being a libertarian, I don't particularly care to attend their "functions".

The Central Scrutinizer

6th October 2004, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#1: He is protecting America from terrorists.
#2: He is spreading Freedom to other parts of the globe.
#3: He is a religious man.
#4: He protects the lives of unborn children.
#5: He protects the purity of marriage
#6: He combats the materialist fundamentalist (or better known and scientists) that are brainwashing our children.
#7: He captured the most evil person since Adolf Hitler.
#8. He fights against secularism.
#9. He is not a flip flopper.
#10: He is not a lying, cheating trial lawyer.

God Bless America!

:usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa:

I'm wondering how #10 relates to #3, especially in light of #6. Could you explain? I mean, none of them are divisible by each other, except 6 by 3, and as you know, Christ said in Corinthians 3:19, "Though who art the least shall convene to nurture those who stray".

Thanks in advance for your analysis.

corplinx

6th October 2004, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
Sorry, corplinx, but I believe he's the real McCoy. I say this because I know quite a few almost exactly like him... in my family.

What, is it your sock puppet?

I suspected it was a sock puppet but when I saw this exchange:

Vort: Stalin?
1Christ: No Saddam! Don't you know anything about policits?

That clinched it.

1inChrist

6th October 2004, 07:42 PM

I am not a sock puppet.

Marquis de Carabas

6th October 2004, 07:45 PM

Just how much does the Kerry campaign pay you for advertisement like this, 1inC?

1inChrist

6th October 2004, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Just how much does the Kerry campaign pay you for advertisement like this, 1inC?

I am not for Kerry.

Marquis de Carabas

6th October 2004, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
I am not for Kerry.
my point

your head

Dogwood

6th October 2004, 08:41 PM

Tricky

6th October 2004, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by corplinx
What, is it your sock puppet?

I suspected it was a sock puppet but when I saw this exchange:

Vort: Stalin?
1Christ: No Saddam! Don't you know anything about policits?

That clinched it.
No, it's not mine, although I admit that if I were a deceptive person, having such a sock puppet would be a good tactic for embarassing my opponants. I also admit that given the nature of my family, I could probably give a good imitation of 1inChrist, although I would be too tempted to go over the edge. Then again, I'm not sure what I could do more than he has already done.

I suspect 1NC is a very young person, based on his poor grammar and lack of knowledge about any but the last two presidents.

Because even most Republicans will tell you:

1) Osama Bin Laden is the most evil person since Hitler.

2) Ronald Reagan is the best president ever.

I think that all but the most die-hard Republicans are a bit embarrassed by the Shrub, but feel he is better than anything the Democrats have to offer.

And I'm not a die-hard Democrat (I've voted for numerous Republicans, including Republican presidential candidates). If Georgie Jr. wins a second term, it will not be the end of civilization as we know it. But it would be bad. Very bad.

Tricky

6th October 2004, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by Patrick

Gosh, I'm sorry! I didn't read his post carefully enough! OK, let's take a second look: hmmmmm .... opposes abortion, supports traditional marriage, advocates the spread of democracy, approves capture of Saddam ...... OK! I GET IT! PURE KKK FOR SURE! I promise to be quicker on the uptake next time!
No, I guess you didn't read his post carefully enough. He mentions nothing about "traditional marriage", but only the "purity of marriage". That would say to me that he thinks brides should all be virgins.

And he didn't say the spread of democracy. He said the spread of "freedom". You may not believe this, but they are not the same thing. True "freedom" would be no government whatsoever, right?

And he didn't "approve" the capture of Saddam. He captured him. Charged right into that spider hole, he did.

But don't get me wrong, Patrick. I'm very glad you and 1inChrist are out there supporting Bush. I'm thinking of sending your writings to all of my good friends who are Republicans in order to show them how they are being represented. As if they weren't embarrassed enough by Bush himself.

Whose sock puppet are you, Patrick?

The Central Scrutinizer

6th October 2004, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
I am not for Kerry.

You are demon possesed.

plindboe

6th October 2004, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#1: He is protecting America from terrorists.
Wouldn't any president do that?

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#2: He is spreading Freedom to other parts of the globe.
And chaos too.

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#3: He is a religious man.
His religious delusions should be kept out of politics. Ever heard of the Taliban?

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#4: He protects the lives of unborn children.
It's called a foetus, not a child.

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#5: He protects the purity of marriage
And what exactly is that?

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#6: He combats the materialist fundamentalist (or better known and scientists) that are brainwashing our children.
Without science we would be living in caves. It's fun that everything you have in your life is because of science, yet you hate it because of your own ignorance.

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#7: He captured the most evil person since Adolf Hitler.
No, he didn't capture Stalin.

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#8. He fights against secularism.
His religious delusions should be kept out of politics. Ever heard of the Taliban?

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#9. He is not a flip flopper.
Well, actually he is: http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#10: He is not a lying, cheating trial lawyer.
Neither was Hitler.

demon

6th October 2004, 10:01 PM

The Central Scrutinizer:
"You are demon possesed."

What`s that supposed to mean?

Batman Jr.

6th October 2004, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#1: He is protecting America from terrorists.
Not really. The campaign to dismantle Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was superceded by Gulf War II for suspect reasons. In fact, "suspect" isn't even strong enough a word. Intelligence reports from various agencies including the C.I.A. and the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency that were produced before the war belie the certitude with which the Bush administration presented their case for Saddam having reconstituted his nuclear weapons program. The New York Times published in their Sunday paper a detailed, 15-page report revealing the falsehoods and distortions regarding the aluminum tubesâ€”the only piece of physical evidence which supposedly "alluded" to a resumed nuclear arms programâ€”spread by Cheney, Powell, Bush and others from the White House. You should find that report and read it thoroughly.
Originally posted by 1inChrist
#2: He is spreading Freedom to other parts of the globe.
He abandoned Afghanistan for Iraq. As a result, the southern region of the country is in shambles and under the control of powerful drug lords. The makeshift government set up there by the Americans has done a very poor job, and more and more people are siding with the Taliban out of desperation and disgust. Iraq is very unstable at the moment with insurgents practically holding the entire country hostage. Political think tanks predict that the country may in the coming months break out in civil war.
Originally posted by 1inChrist
#3: He is a religious man.
And that's a big problem. He holds some sort of unprovoked enmity against gays and will shoot deer without a second thought, yet will have to seriously ruminate over the harvesting of an EMBRYO which hasn't a brain, arms, legs, a heart, a stomach, or anything. It's just a damn cell! I'm surprised that he didn't already consider making menstruation illegal because the eggs that go in the toilet never get the opportunity to grow up!
Originally posted by 1inChrist
#4: He protects the lives of unborn children.
Please see my response to your third point.
Originally posted by 1inChrist
#5: He protects the purity of marriage
I don't see him condemning divorced people. He's obviously just a homophobe. Anyhow, I don't see how a loving gay couple getting married hurts anyone else.
Originally posted by 1inChrist
#6: He combats the materialist fundamentalist (or better known and scientists) that are brainwashing our children.
Each time you use your computer, watch T.V., drive your car, use a microwave, turn on the light, or utilize anything resultant of the technological accomplishment of the human race, I want you to think of those "crackpot" scientists.
Originally posted by 1inChrist
#7: He captured the most evil person since Adolf Hitler.
Hussein may have been a bad man, but his status as a threat to the U.S. expired about a decade ago. You don't go around playing policeman for the rest of the world when you first have to protect your own country.
Originally posted by 1inChrist
#8. He fights against secularism.
That's very disconcerting to me.
Originally posted by 1inChrist
#9. He is not a flip flopper.
But he is. He initially opposed the formation of the Homeland Security Department and the 9/11 Commission and said in the presidential debates with Gore that he wouldn't engage in "nation building." He also originally said he was against federal intervention to ban gay marriage. He criticized Clinton for not pressuring OPEC to lower gas prices, and now that his administration is witnessing a price-hike in petrol, he is taking the same path of inaction. Going against his free trade policy, he put 30 percent tariffs on foreign steel in March 2002 (he, 21 months later, withdrew the tariff).
Originally posted by 1inChrist
#10: He is not a lying, cheating trial lawyer.
He's not a lawyer, but nonetheless a lie and a cheat. Allegations that John Edwards was duplicitous in his career as a trial lawyer have not held up.

EdipisReks

6th October 2004, 10:25 PM

i agree with 1 inch christ (thanks charlie monoxide, that's gold) that he isn't a sock puppet. he's a pop sucket (pun!).

peptoabysmal

6th October 2004, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
There you go, Patrick, Merphie and you other staunch Bush fans. You see who Bush's core constituancy is. Are you sure you want to be in bed with them?

**shrug**

It beats lying down with dogs and waking up with fleas.

Kerberos

6th October 2004, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by Vorticity
Stalin?
Damn, I was going to say that.:D Oh Well:con2:

Segnosaur

6th October 2004, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by Vorticity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 1inChrist
...#7: He captured the most evil person since Adolf Hitler...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stalin?

In an attempt to derail this very bizarre thread...

I do wonder, Would Saddam and/or Bin Laden really be considered the most evil person? What about the head of the Kymer Rouge, or Idi Amine?

Or does the most 'evil' person really have to be the person that causes the most deaths? What about Desalvo (Boston Strangler) or Bundy? People who may not have been responsible (directly or indirectly) for as many deaths, but who's activities were on average just as disgusting (or even more so) than some of the dictators? (Does the measure of evil have to do only with the resources to carry out the killings, or is there something more to it.)

Patrick

6th October 2004, 11:49 PM

I'm thinking of sending your writings to all of my good friends who are Republicans in order to show them how they are being represented.

I know the kind of "republicans" you're talking about -- liberals who for some bizarre reason, probably explicable only in the realm of abnormal psychology, like to say that they are republicans - kind of like ideological drag queens. :D

Can i play this game? OK, I'm a liberal democrat! Really, no kidding! And I'm, duh, EMBARASSED by Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards, and the like. :D

TillEulenspiegel

7th October 2004, 01:52 AM

Trollin, trollin.trollin,
Keep them laughs a rollin........

Who needs World Weekly News for laffs when we have threads like this here for free!?

And the number one reason ( drum roll please, Paul)

Because he's an idiot and water seeks it's own level!.

TA DA!

AWPrime

7th October 2004, 02:35 AM

#1: He is protecting America from terrorists.
#2: He is spreading Freedom to other parts of the globe.
#3: He is a religious man.
#4: He protects the lives of unborn children.
#5: He protects the purity of marriage
#6: He combats the materialist fundamentalist (or better known and scientists) that are brainwashing our children.
#7: He captured the most evil person since Adolf Hitler.
#8. He fights against secularism.
#9. He is not a flip flopper.
#10: He is not a lying, cheating trial lawyer.

1. And creating new ones while at it.
2. Lets hope that they survive it.
3. Minpoint = bad
4. Even if he has to kill the mothers to do it.
5. What purity?
6. And you think that hte bible teaches people how to make machines?
7. Saddam the diet cola of evil.
8. I want one that can think objectively.
9. Well he is a flipflopper.
10. Yes, he isn't a lawyer.

El Greco

7th October 2004, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
I AM NOT A SOCK PUPPET!

But you are the sockpuppet of God almighty, ain't you ? :rolleyes:

The Central Scrutinizer

7th October 2004, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by demon
The Central Scrutinizer:
"You are demon possesed."

What`s that supposed to mean?

:D

Ipecac

7th October 2004, 07:02 AM

For God so loved the world, that he set up a system in which he personally creates billions of people knowing that they will never believe in him and will suffer eternal torture, and that a privileged few who happen to be born into the "right" religion will avoid this hellfire merely by believing what they were raised to believe, that he gave, for a very brief time, his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him without any proof whatsoever, regardless of their personal behaviour, should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Marquis de Carabas

7th October 2004, 07:27 AM

You left out part of it. :D
Originally posted by Ipecac
For God so loved the world, that he set up a system in which he personally creates billions of people knowing that they will never believe in him and will suffer eternal torture, and that a privileged few who happen to be born into the "right" religion will avoid this hellfire merely by believing what they were raised to believe, that he gave, for a very brief time, his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him without any proof whatsoever, regardless of their personal behaviour, and votes Republican should not perish, but have everlasting life.

shanek

7th October 2004, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#1: He is protecting America from terrorists.

Yes, and quite a sneaky tactic it is, too: the terrorists hate us for our freedom, so he's going to take as much of our freedom as he can and the terrorists won't hate us anymore!

#2: He is spreading Freedom to other parts of the globe.

It'd be much better if he spread freedom around here at home...

#3: He is a religious man.

I thought you were giving reasons TO re-elect him?

#4: He protects the lives of unborn children.

Yes, that rhetoric goes a long way...

#5: He protects the purity of marriage

Half of marriages end in divorce, 60% of husbands and 50% of wives cheat on their spouses, and spousal abuse is on the rise...exactly what purity are you talking about?

#6: He combats the materialist fundamentalist (or better known and scientists) that are brainwashing our children.

Yes, how dare they poison our children's brains with knowledge of how the universe works! THE FIENDS!!!

#7: He captured the most evil person since Adolf Hitler.

And made him Attorney General.

#8. He fights against secularism.
#9. He is not a flip flopper.
#10: He is not a lying, cheating trial lawyer.

Uh..................

..........................nah, I got nothin'.

Useless post. Go back to your lives, citizens...

shanek

7th October 2004, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
George Walker Bush has been the best President ever.

BETTER THAN JAMES K. POLK??????

shanek

7th October 2004, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by El Greco
But you are the sockpuppet of God almighty, ain't you ? :rolleyes:

http://sinfest.net/god_and_devil.gif

Cleon

7th October 2004, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by shanek

#7: He captured the most evil person since Adolf Hitler.

And made him Attorney General.

:roll:

You win "best response" for that, Shanek. LOL!

KelvinG

7th October 2004, 08:01 AM

Everytime I look at the polls and see how well Bush is doing despite his staggering incompetence I'm always stunned. I ask myself "Who the hell is voting for this guy?"

Then I see posts like this one from 1inChrist and it all comes clear again.

Nyarlathotep

7th October 2004, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by shanek

#7: He captured the most evil person since Adolf Hitler.

And made him Attorney General.
[/B]

Best...Reply...ever:D

richardm

7th October 2004, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
George Walker Bush has been the best President ever.

I'd have thought that even the stauchest Bush fan would hesitate before agreeing with that. There have been a lot of past presidents, and some of them were very good.

Personally, I'd put him no higher than "the best President since about 2001."

Patrick

7th October 2004, 08:26 AM

Whose sock puppet are you, Patrick?

What IS it with you people on this site? Someone who opposes tyranny, whether it is Bush or me or anyone else, must be a "sock puppet"! Do you people ever listen to yourselves?

Cleon

7th October 2004, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Patrick

What IS it with you people on this site? Someone who opposes tyranny

I thought you were pro-Bush?

daenku32

7th October 2004, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Vorticity
Stalin?

I don't know who he is talking about. Can't be Saddam because if he was SO evil, we..I mean the GOP..wouldn't have been his buddies back in the 80s.

Kerberos

7th October 2004, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by richardm
I'd have thought that even the stauchest Bush fan would hesitate before agreeing with that. There have been a lot of past presidents, and some of them were very good.

Personally, I'd put him no higher than "the best President since about 2001."
How about best republican president this millenum?

Nyarlathotep

7th October 2004, 09:15 AM

Actually I think we can easily call him the best president of the 21st century!

merphie

7th October 2004, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
There you go, Patrick, Merphie and you other staunch Bush fans. You see who Bush's core constituancy is. Are you sure you want to be in bed with them?

I don't have to like the other people. I have my own reasons.

merphie

7th October 2004, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
I did. I just figured that since YOU condone slavery, you wouldn't like Lincoln, since he wrote that little Emancipation Proclamation. I guess the joke just whizzed right by.

Which only freed slaves in the South. It was a political move.

Vorticity

7th October 2004, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by shanek
BETTER THAN JAMES K. POLK??????
Everybody sing!! :

In 1844, the Democrats were split
The three nominees for the presidential candidate
Were Martin Van Buren, a former president and an abolitionist
James Buchanan, a moderate
Louis Cass, a general and expansionist
From Nashville came a dark horse riding up
He was James K. Polk, Napoleon of the Stump

Austere, severe, he held few people dear
His oratory filled his foes with fear
The factions soon agreed
He's just the man we need
To bring about victory
Fulfill our manifest destiny
And annex the land the Mexicans command
And when the votes were cast the winner was
Mister James K. Polk, Napoleon of the Stump

In four short years he met his every goal
He seized the whole southwest from Mexico
Made sure the tariffs fell
And made the English sell the Oregon territory
He built an independent treasury
Having done all this he sought no second term
But precious few have mourned the passing of
Mister James K. Polk, our eleventh president
Young Hickory, Napoleon of the Stump

You gotta love They Might Be Giants!
http://www.tmbg.com/froMain.html

BPSCG

7th October 2004, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
There you go, Patrick, Merphie and you other staunch Bush fans. You see who Bush's core constituancy is. Are you sure you want to be in bed with them? There you go, Tricky and you other staunch Kerry fans. Are you sure you want to be in bed with Al Sharpton???

There you go, Tricky and you other staunch Kerry fans. Are you sure you want to be in bed with (cue Psycho shower scene music) REE!!! REE!!! REE!!! REE!!! REE!!! REE!!! REE!!! ...Michael Moore???

Go ahead, you liar, tell me you didn't just stick your head in the toilet bowl in a desperate attempt to avoid hurling all over your keyboard. All I want to know is, did you make it?

AWPrime

7th October 2004, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Actually I think we can easily call him the best president of the 21st century!

:eek: :eek:

Will Bush be the only president of the 21st century?

Chaos

7th October 2004, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Actually I think we can easily call him the best president of the 21st century!

IÂ´d prefer to wait and see how the rest of the century works out.

Cleon

7th October 2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Chaos
IÂ´d prefer to wait and see how the rest of the century works out.

At the rate it's going? Not well.

shanek

7th October 2004, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Vorticity
You gotta love They Might Be Giants!
http://www.tmbg.com/froMain.html

Yes, that song's one reason why they're the best band ever...

Nyarlathotep

7th October 2004, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by AWPrime
:eek: :eek:

Will Bush be the only president of the 21st century?

Well, they were calling the Leopold & Loeb trial the "trial of the century" even though we were only 20-odd years into that century. Of course it was later replaced by later "trial of the century"s

So, by that logic, you have to admit, Bush is the best US president to take office in the 21st century so far. Of course, that doesn't mean he won't be replaced by others who can calim the title later.;)

AWPrime

7th October 2004, 10:51 AM

I was thinking in the lines of the extinction of the humanrace.

That would be the only reason for bush being the only american president of the 21st century.

Questioninggeller

7th October 2004, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#1: He is protecting America from terrorists.**
#2: He is spreading Freedom to other parts of the globe.**
#3: He is a religious man.*
#4: He protects the lives of unborn children.
#5: He protects the purity of marriage*
#6: He combats the materialist fundamentalist (or better known and scientists) that are brainwashing our children.**
#7: He captured the most evil person since Adolf Hitler.**
#8. He fights against secularism.*
#9. He is not a flip flopper.**
#10: He is not a lying, cheating trial lawyer.++

God Bless America!

:usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa:

HAHA... this is too funny. Not only is he now (post 9/11) protecting us from terrorists, but he's doing it in such a way that the world likes it and it brings democracy to countries like Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Afganistan, and Iran.

*Liberty should keep religion and government separate.
**Not True. There are too many elements not included in your conclusion.
++ Bush is worse in different ways.

merphie

7th October 2004, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
Not True. There are too many elements not included in your conclusion.

Wouldn't anyone to make claims without evidence on here.

patnray

7th October 2004, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#1: He is protecting America from terrorists.
Any president would take steps to protect America after 9/11. The question we disagree about is are the steps Bush has taken the best, most effective steps to protect America? Some people believe that he has done things that make us less safe.

#3: He is a religious man.
Throughout history, tyrants embraced religion and used religion to further their tyranny.

#4: He protects the lives of unborn children.
A great lie. One of his first acts as president has resulted in thousands more abortions since the funds he withdrew were used to provide birth control counseling to people seeking abortions. He has failed to support complete, fact based sex education, nor has he supported making condoms freely available in schools and youth centers, both of which would reduce the demand for abortions. And he has endorsed military acts and weapons which can not help killing innocent civilians, including children.

#7: He captured the most evil person since Adolf Hitler.
What shanek said (I second the nomination for best response ever! LOL)

#8. He fights against secularism.
The US government is secular. It is an important reason for our rise to greatness.

#9. He is not a flip flopper.
Except when it comes to reasons for war, whether prisoners are to be treated in accord with the Geneva Conventions, deficit spending, protecting social security funds....

#10: He is not a lying, cheating trial lawyer.
We agree he is not a lawyer.

Tricky

8th October 2004, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by patnray

We agree he is not a lawyer.
Well he did go to Law School (though the University of Texas Law School wouldn't admit him because of his grades) but I don't believe he ever took his bar exams.

Or perhaps he skipped his bar exams because he had decided not to be a pilot... uh... I mean lawyer.

Just chalk it up as another thing, (including the National Guard, the Oil Business, the search for Bin Laden), that he started and didn't finish.

Chanileslie

8th October 2004, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#1: He is protecting America from terrorists.

Please explain exactly how he is doing that? Iraq was not a threat to the US, nor was it harboring terrorist (well at least not up until the US invaded it and made it terrorist friendly!). The ill advised war on Iraq has pulled troop resources from places such as Afghanistan, which actually does have terrorist connections, and not a thing has been done about Saudi Arabia, which actually does harbor terrorists. So, exactly, what is Bush doing? Hmmm?

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#2: He is spreading Freedom to other parts of the globe.

He is? I'm sorry, but from what I see, Iraq, the place he supposedly spread freedom to, is a mess and for many people, especially women, is more restrictive than under Saddam's reign. Now, if freedom means not knowing if today, your house, car, family member will be blown up by angry rebels, well then, hey, freedom they have!

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#3: He is a religious man.

Which has exactly nothing to do with this man's worth as president of the United States of America! In fact, he attempts to infuse our government with his religious leanings is in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States of America, and that makes him immoral and wrong. Not to mention, his behavior alienates 15% of the population he claims to serve. Oh yeah, he is a worthwhile President.

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#4: He protects the lives of unborn children.

And yet, does nothing for the children who are already here in this world. So, basically he cares about things that don't yet exist while ignoring real problems? Yeah, wonderful President.

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#5: He protects the purity of marriage

How does attempting to push through an amendment to the Constitution make it protecting marriage? If gay people have the same *right* as heterosexual people to legalize their unions how does that negatively effect heterosexual marriages? My marriage is not based on what John and Joe next door do, it is based on what my husband and I do and how we are devoted to each other. No, he isn't protecting the purity of marriage, he is promoting the purity of hate through his bigotry.

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#6: He combats the materialist fundamentalist (or better known and scientists) that are brainwashing our children.

Yeah, he is ushering in an ignorant generation of children who will be unable to compete in a world market because of their ignorance. He is devaluing science which backs it's claims up with a thing called evidence, for some crap that is based on, "Well, I believe it so therefore it must be true." Not to mention, he is hamstringing our nation and our children by not allowing growth in science and scientific discovery, so we as a nation will be left behind to become poorer than any third-world nation of starving individuals. Yeah, that is a bright move.

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#7: He captured the most evil person since Adolf Hitler.

Osama bin Laden is still at large as well as many other terrorists and nasty dictators.

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#8. He fights against secularism.

He fights against knowledge and understanding and see my response to #6.

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#9. He is not a flip flopper.

Hello, did you even watch the last Kerry/Bush debate? The man flip flopped so much, he looked like a water starved fish!

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#10: He is not a lying, cheating trial lawyer.

No, he is a lying, cheating politician, which is worse.

Originally posted by 1inChrist
God Bless America!

:usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa:

I'm ashamed that I share a country with you.

Kodiak

8th October 2004, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Chanileslie
I'm ashamed that I share a country with you.

And I'm ashamed of your intolerance.

People can and will disagree. It isn't the end of the world.

For every wacko christian rightie, there's a wacko tree-worshipping leftie...

8th October 2004, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak
For every wacko christian rightie, there's a wacko tree-worshipping leftie...

I know a few hundred of the religious right.

I know exactly ONE person who worships trees, and she's moderate to rightist otherwise, opposed to a lot of the things that any real "leftist" might wish for. In particular, the person is an adamant, intense capitalist, and is capable of expressing her contempt for both socialism and communism in 25 cent words, strung together in long, complex sentences. Despite the use of large, polite words, the contempt is obvious.

So I know ZERO tree-worshiping lefties, one sorta-moderate to rightist, and a bunch of way-out religious rightists.

And most of the people I know who are truly far on the left, as opposed to moderates slandered by the present lies of the press and the repugnicans, are, frankly, coocoo for cocoapuffs.

Chanileslie

8th October 2004, 02:30 PM

TillEulenspiegel

8th October 2004, 04:17 PM

Should'nt this thread be in the humor forum?

Lisa Simpson

8th October 2004, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Should'nt this thread be in the humor forum?

All of 1inC's threads should be in the humor section.

TillEulenspiegel

8th October 2004, 05:25 PM

"What's all this fuss I hear about 1976 presidential erections?". MS. Emiliy Latila AKA Gilda.

Thank cheebus we have humor.

Dorian Gray

8th October 2004, 10:47 PM

1inChrist, God spoke to me in a dream and told me to tell you:

I don't exist.

That was all. Maybe you can figure it out.

#1: He is protecting America from terrorists.
Other than on September 11, 2001, you mean.
#2: He is spreading Freedom to other parts of the globe.
For example, Russians are far more free today than they... oh wait.
#3: He is a religious man.
Yeah? So? Osama bin Laden is a religious man, too.
#4: He protects the lives of unborn children.
By putting their lives ahead of 12 year old rape victims, mothers whose lives are in danger, girls raped by their relatives, etc.
#5: He protects the purity of marriage
by not outlawing divorce, which is a much larger threat to marriage than gays
#6: He combats the materialist fundamentalist (or better known and scientists) that are brainwashing our children.
Why should facts and evidence get in the way of Bush's policies?
#7: He captured the most evil person since Adolf Hitler.
Kim Jong Il was captured?
#8. He fights against secularism.
So he fights against the First Amendment?
#9. He is not a flip flopper.
Yeah! Just look at the singular steady reason he has always given for invading Iraq
#10: He is not a lying, cheating trial lawyer.
This one is true. Bush knows absolutely nothing about the law except that he and the Sauds are above it.

TillEulenspiegel

8th October 2004, 11:27 PM

I'm Dorian Gray, and I approved this message.

B.S. You got your money from a 579 . uh or a 911, no a 7-11 ya thats it!

Patrick

8th October 2004, 11:42 PM

#4: He protects the lives of unborn children.
By putting their lives ahead of 12 year old rape victims, mothers whose lives are in danger, girls raped by their relatives, etc.

Don't just include the 1%, add the 99%: By putting their lives ahead of women for whom a child would be "inconvenient", women who really wanted a boy/(girl), women who "aren't ready" for children, women who would rather use their money for new cars, etc, than human beings, women who were too stupid/lazy/unconcerned to use birth control, etc etc.

Dorian Gray

9th October 2004, 10:20 AM

Patrick, considering how *********** stupid you are, I'd think you would be on the side of the 1%.

We would, I mean. Wouldn't we? Yes, we would. We rode the roller coaster, and we all said 'Whee!" Did we? Oui. All of us.

Dorian Gray

9th October 2004, 10:23 AM

By the way, Patrick, do you have any sources that show that the reason for abortion given by 99% of women was what you said? No, you don't. You are a censored-ing censored censored with a capital F.

The Central Scrutinizer

9th October 2004, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Patrick
#4: He protects the lives of unborn children.
By putting their lives ahead of 12 year old rape victims, mothers whose lives are in danger, girls raped by their relatives, etc.

Don't just include the 1%, add the 99%: By putting their lives ahead of women for whom a child would be "inconvenient", women who really wanted a boy/(girl), women who "aren't ready" for children, women who would rather use their money for new cars, etc, than human beings, women who were too stupid/lazy/unconcerned to use birth control, etc etc.

Patrique,

This is easy for you to say, since a man can't get you pregnant. Although we all know you have tried!

TillEulenspiegel

9th October 2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
By the way, Patrick, do you have any sources that show that the reason for abortion given by 99% of women was what you said? No, you don't. You are a censored-ing censored censored with a capital F.

NOW NOW! Dorian! You know you can't pass the automated censor so next time try " schweine bloed" That's german. Next time use afrikaan's if the update catches you or latin or swaheli ye haw!!

Chaos

9th October 2004, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
NOW NOW! Dorian! You know you can't pass the automated censor so next time try " schweine bloed" That's german. Next time use afrikaan's if the update catches you or latin or swaheli ye haw!!

We donÂ´t really use that all that much. Try "strohdumm" or "total bescheuert". "Idiot" and "Troll" are the same as in English.

TillEulenspiegel

9th October 2004, 04:05 PM

HAHAHAHAH!
Your servant Sir.

You know something funny .? I wrote a piece of fiction where I sited Einstein in some German journal of "Physik" one time about where the title was something like "Proposal on the force vector of the molecular friction of rubbing two girl-scouts together" of course I mangled the language but a few German fluent people got the joke..BUT people actually argued about the post! honest to god!.

c4ts

9th October 2004, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
#1: He is protecting America from terrorists.
#2: He is spreading Freedom to other parts of the globe.
#3: He is a religious man.
#4: He protects the lives of unborn children.
#5: He protects the purity of marriage
#6: He combats the materialist fundamentalist (or better known and scientists) that are brainwashing our children.
#7: He captured the most evil person since Adolf Hitler.
#8. He fights against secularism.
#9. He is not a flip flopper.
#10: He is not a lying, cheating trial lawyer.

God Bless America!

:usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa:

Dammit! Now I have to vote for Kerry just to keep this guy's opinion from influencing the electoral college.

Mona

9th October 2004, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak
And I'm ashamed of your intolerance.

People can and will disagree. It isn't the end of the world.

For every wacko christian rightie, there's a wacko tree-worshipping leftie...

Worse than that, actually. While the fundamentalist here certainly is not putting forth arguments I, as a Bush supporter, would make, neither should the left-wing non-theists be so smug that such as he exist. After all, it is not his ilk that killed upwards of 100s of millions in the 20th century.

No, it was "progressive," Ivy-League educated, non-theistic men and women -- many of them highly placed New Dealers -- who pledged themselves to the murderous tyrant Joseph Stalin, and many of these engaged in espionage against the U.S. in furtherance of our hoped for fall to Soviet tyranny. Falling to Stalin is the fate many of the best and brightest, who would never make the gauche arguments this poor Xian does, had in mind for us all. It was these brilliant apologists for, and/or supporters of Stalin, who denied mountains of evidence for Purges, Show Trials, and contrived famines; but they did so in fine prose. (Why, Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer for it.)

And that is just in the U.S. In the UK you had Oxford educated men like Anthony Blunt, Kim Philby, Guy Burgess and many others seeking to deliver the free world to Joe Stalin by passing intelligence to him. Progressive atheists, all.

Intellectuals on the left have a wretched track record. They peddle their monstrous views more articulately and with (usually) greater subtlety and panache, but their goals have often been more revolting than anything these unsophisticated Xian fundies have in mind.

Suggested reading list:

Whittaker Chambers, by Sam Tanenhaus.

Conspiracy of Silence: the Secret Life of Anthony Blunt, by Penrose and Freeman.

Stalin's Apologist: the New York Times's Man in Moscow , by S. J. Taylor.

In Denial: Historians, Communism & Espionage, by Haynes and Klehr.

[edited to correct author's name]

TillEulenspiegel

9th October 2004, 05:33 PM

Very intelligent riposte' Mona. Kudos!

I do however disagree with Your assertion that the left is more responsible then the right in cause distarious policies and behaviors throught the ages or even the last century.

Whereas Existentialism ala Marx gave rise to Stalinism, an ordinary stupid right wing fascist ( who according to Mel brooks was a GOOD house painter ) gave rise to the Holocaust.
Neither side has bloodless hands Mam.

I could also site books that would disagree with Your viewpoint , but as with Your examples no-one would read them. Most of these tomes start with an political point of view. One can hardly call that objective information.

crimresearch

9th October 2004, 05:36 PM

Both the right and the left have quite a bit to answer for.

Mona

9th October 2004, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Very intelligent riposte' Mona. Kudos!

I do however disagree with Your assertion that the left is more responsible then the right in cause distarious policies and behaviors throught the ages or even the last century.

Whereas Existentialism ala Marx gave rise to Stalinism, an ordinary stupid right wing fascist ( who according to Mel brooks was a GOOD house painter ) gave rise to the Holocaust.
Neither side has bloodless hands Mam.

I could also site books that would disagree with Your viewpoint , but as with Your examples no-one would read them. Most of these tomes start with an political point of view. One can hardly call that objective information.

It is really not arguable that Communists killed more people in the 20th century than any other ism, with a lot of support from Western intellectuals. And while you could, indeed, cite books that diagree with my viewpoint about domestic Communists, the great weight of evidence is against them. So much so that even The Nation has seen some recent articles conceding the probable guilt of the Rosenbergs and Hiss -- along with cute musings as to whether one should really use the word "spying" to describe what was really just "sharing of information."

But I'm not saying murderous totalitarianism cannot come from the right. Indeed it can and has, and nothing I wrote implies otherwise. I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian, and I oppose any ideology that is antithetical to classical liberalism, and that includes some of what Bush promotes domestically.

My purpose was merely to take some wind out the sails of those who would point to a clearly poor defense of Bush -- one that is especially going to fail in a skeptics forum -- as a reason all Bush supporters should abandon their candidate. Presumably they would not repudiate FDR and the New Deal just because many members of the Brain Trust turn out to have been espionage agents for one of the worst murderers in history, and FDR was told but refused to believe it. Also presumably, they would not repudiate the abolition of Jim Crow merely because Stalin-worshipping Communists were at the early forefront of that overdue reform.

Skeptics tend to be of above average IQ, and to qualify as intellectuals. It is easy for us to ridicule someone like this 1inChrist, but the oh-so-bright on the left do not have a fine track record, either.

Ideas, political and otherwise, should be examined on their own merits, and not on the sins or lack of sophistication of some who may adhere to them. My suppport for Bush is driven by foreign policy; that fundie Xians put forth defenses of him that I and many here would find, to say the least, unpersuasive, is not a reason for anyone favoring Bush's foreign policy (as a paramount political concern) to reject him.

[edited to correct embarrassing spelling error]

Patrick

9th October 2004, 07:41 PM

By the way, Patrick, do you have any sources that show that the reason for abortion given by 99% of women was what you said? No, you don't. You are a censored-ing censored censored with a capital F.

OK Dopian, how about checking out this table from the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute?
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

It shows that your standard pro-abortion-proganda-for-sub-morons, about the - gasp!- rape/incest running ramapant all over the country is pure fiction, and the actual figure is - 1%. Everyone at this point understands the "mother whose life is in danger" is more abortionist fiction, an event of exceptionally extreme rarity, and that leaves exactly the kinds of reasons I've said.

But you'll find some reason to ward of the facts as you usually do - no matter how many tons of facts are poured onto your vacuum skull, you always end up screaming for facts from somewhere under the tons of facts! :D You are in fact immune to facts, blind to facts, numb to facts, your immune system repels facts - your whole world is a fantasyland playing out in your empty skull, where those unpleasant, disturbing facts can never penetrate. The reason for this is your IQ is given by your avatar. :D

Patrick

9th October 2004, 07:47 PM

Patrique,

This is easy for you to say, since a man can't get you pregnant. Although we all know you have tried!

Edited for breach of Membership Agreement

SezMe

9th October 2004, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by Cleon
And made him Attorney General.

:roll:

You win "best response" for that, Shanek. LOL! [/B][/QUOTE]

What he said.

Dorian Gray

9th October 2004, 10:34 PM

Both the right and the left have quite a bit to answer for. Yes! Screw all those wingers - left, right, ... um ..... Kip. Become a centrist! Why have an us/them mentality when you can have an us/them/them mentality!

It shows that your standard pro-abortion-proganda-for-sub-morons, about the - gasp!- rape/incest running ramapant all over the country is pure fiction, and the actual figure is - 1%. Everyone at this point understands the "mother whose life is in danger" is more abortionist fiction, an event of exceptionally extreme rarity, and that leaves exactly the kinds of reasons I've said.

But you'll find some reason to ward of the facts as you usually do - no matter how many tons of facts are poured onto your vacuum skull, you always end up screaming for facts from somewhere under the tons of facts! You are in fact immune to facts, blind to facts, numb to facts, your immune system repels facts - your whole world is a fantasyland playing out in your empty skull, where those unpleasant, disturbing facts can never penetrate. The reason for this is your IQ is given by your avatar. Okay, Patricia, stop spitting all over everything. You're wrong. I am not personally - personally, that is - pro-abortion. I am with the 80% of America that thinks abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother's health or life. Yes, 80%, and here's a link for you - scroll down to Chart 1: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/library/abortion.htm
While I am a little disgusted at the number of people who do it as birth control, I don't oppose the morning after pill, I hate anti-abortion activists - especially the pro-death penalty ones or ones who hurt or kill doctors - and I think education is the way to go. Having said that, your study was from 1988, it covered Planned Parenthood people only, and it didn't explain the "other" category. Furthermore, since I didn't quote any figures, I couldn't possibly have been misleading anyone concerning them.

And you're still a bag full of vinegar and water, if you get my drift. By the way, your hero Pres. Bush is for legal abortions for the three reasons given.

Mona

9th October 2004, 11:16 PM

While I am a little disgusted at the number of people who do it [abortion] as birth control,

Why are you disgusted by that?

Patrick

10th October 2004, 12:04 AM

I am with the 80% of America that thinks abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother's health or life.

Why don't you think it should be legal in all cases?
If you really knew anything about the history, the REAL history of the conflict, you'd know that the "mother's health" argument is a red herring. Pro-abortion activists fight like tigers to get it in state laws were there are some nominal restrictions, because they know that that clause will de facto change the law to "all abortions are OK". A woman will always find an abortion doctor to certify that the prenancy posed a danger to the women's health, especially where the statutory law is left vague enough on that aspect (which is what they do) so that a liberal judge will say it includes "mental health", depression, etc.

While I am a little disgusted at the number of people who do it as birth control,

Why are you disgusted at them? Either a fetus is a human being, or it isn't. If it isn't, you shouldn't be disgusted; if it is, you shouldn't be making all the exceptions.

I hate anti-abortion activists

Why? They fight to make abortion illegal in the cases you agree with.

especially the pro-death penalty ones or ones who hurt or kill doctors

They operate with consistent logic. In their understanding, abortionists are people who get rich by killing thousands of people every year. And (again in their understanding) those children have been abandoned by the government and deprived of due process. What if you DID think as they do? Is it possible you would do the same? Ah, but you don't agree that fetuses are human beings. But they DO - there's the rub. You oppose them (apparently) with some internal reasoning like "you know those fetuses aren't humans, so you unjustly kill the abortionists!". But they DISAGREE with you on the fundamental facts, and follow consistently the moral imperatives of the facts as they see them.

Having said that, your study was from 1988, it covered Planned Parenthood people only, and it didn't explain the "other" category.

Feeble - the 1% is a well-known stable figure - I don't have time to look everything up for you on the net.

By the way, your hero Pres. Bush is for legal abortions for the three reasons given.

You're showing your ADS - Bush is in no way my "hero", which I've said a few times - he's a "moderate" republican, the lesser of two evils, and you haven't even ASKED my opinion of abortion, while guessing what it is.

Dorian Gray

10th October 2004, 12:09 PM

Why don't you think it should be legal in all cases?
First of all, are you still having trouble with the quote function, stupid?

This is the line I have drawn. You have another line, probably one of extremism, I am guessing.

Why are you disgusted at them? Either a fetus is a human being, or it isn't. If it isn't, you shouldn't be disgusted; if it is, you shouldn't be making all the exceptions. Abortion as birth control is a willing partner being lazy, censoring up, and taking the lazy way out. Rape is one person violating another, so it wasn't their choice and shouldn't be forced upon them. Incest is usually rape of a young female relative, so the same rule applies. If my wife was pregnant and a situation came up where it was either my wife's life or the fetus' life - bye, fetus, without even a second thought. My wife's life is more important in that case.

Someone who thinks a preemptive war against Iraq is ok should be able to make the logical leap.

They operate with consistent logic. In their understanding, abortionists are people who get rich by killing thousands of people every year. And (again in their understanding) those children have been abandoned by the government and deprived of due process. What if you DID think as they do? Is it possible you would do the same? Ah, but you don't agree that fetuses are human beings. But they DO - there's the rub. You oppose them (apparently) with some internal reasoning like "you know those fetuses aren't humans, so you unjustly kill the abortionists!". But they DISAGREE with you on the fundamental facts, and follow consistently the moral imperatives of the facts as they see them. The more you talk for me rather than listening to me, the more I know you are having the conversation in your head.

It is inconsistent to call yourself "pro-life" but think it's okay to kill a doctor or a criminal.

Feeble - the 1% is a well-known stable figure - I don't have time to look everything up for you on the net Saying something is well-known is a form of proof? Everyone knows that Planned Parenthood funds false reports so they can keep getting their money from Santa Claus.

you haven't even ASKED my opinion of abortion, while guessing what it is. You are a hypocrite - you never asked me my opinion either. Furthermore, I am not wrong about your opinion of abortion.

Mona

10th October 2004, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

It is inconsistent to call yourself "pro-life" but think it's okay to kill a doctor or a criminal.

[/B]

First, I don't usually get into abortion debates in any substantive manner, because the issue is intractable and my own position is one of severe ambivalence. But I do have a problem with how some people frame the discussion. Take your point above.

Those who oppose legalized abortion have to have a PR-friendly label with which to identify themselves. So do those who want abortion to be legal. The latter hit paydirt by settling on "pro-choice." But pro-choice to do what? Are all pro-choicers in favor of the Friday nite toker's right to alter his own mood and body? In favor of school vouchers? Not.

Do all self-described pro-lifers oppose the death penalty? No. But then not all opponents of capital punishment opose abortion. There are very many salient differences between these two issues that could cause people to take one position but not the other. (I myself strongly opppose the death penalty.)

Then there is the claim that abortion is always and only a religious issue. Among other things, this argument ignores ardent non-theists such as Nat Hentoff or Christopher Hitchens, who put forward secular moral arguments against abortion. Additionally, just because ethical monotheism addresses particular issues does not thereby transform every addressed issue into a merely religious one. The ethical monotheists do not hold a monopoly in morality.

Finally, many who favor the legality of abortion can also be found saying it is disgusting, or bad, or somehow undesirable, as you have opined. If that is so, then why could not other reasonable people find the elements of abortion that lead you to find it disgusting in some circumstances, sufficient grounds to see it criminalized, at least in some circumstances?

As I said, the issue is intractable, and comes down to the value one places on the entity in a pregnant woman's uterus. Whatever is in there is human, and alive. Is it wrong to kill it? Is it entitled to the metaphysical status of personhood? Opinions vary, and always will. But neither side is demonstrably unreasonable.

Patrick

10th October 2004, 01:27 PM

First of all, are you still having trouble with the quote function, stupid?

I don't LIKE the quote function format, and therefore don't use it. Have I mentioned I don't like the haircuts you get, idiot?

This is the line I have drawn. You have another line, probably one of extremism, I am guessing.

WaaaAAAaaaAAaaatttt??????

Abortion as birth control is a willing partner being lazy, censoring up, and taking the lazy way out. Rape is one person violating another, so it wasn't their choice and shouldn't be forced upon them.

Rape has nothing to do with whether or not a fetus is a human being - nothing. In any case, as I showed you, the rape issue, which is always trumpeted by the pro-abortionists as if it were the whole issue, is 1% percent of the issue. Put that 1% aside for the moment and you have 99% of abortions committed for entirely unconvincing reasons.

Someone who thinks a preemptive war against Iraq is ok should be able to make the logical leap.

WaaaAAAaaaAAaaaaaaaaAAAAAAaaaaatttt??????

They operate with consistent logic. In their understanding, abortionists are people who get rich by killing thousands of people every year. And (again in their understanding) those children have been abandoned by the government and deprived of due process. What if you DID think as they do? Is it possible you would do the same? Ah, but you don't agree that fetuses are human beings. But they DO - there's the rub. You oppose them (apparently) with some internal reasoning like "you know those fetuses aren't humans, so you unjustly kill the abortionists!". But they DISAGREE with you on the fundamental facts, and follow consistently the moral imperatives of the facts as they see them.

The more you talk for me rather than listening to me, the more I know you are having the conversation in your head.

I was trying to explain the internal logic of the people who kill abortionists, that their acts represent the result of a moral imperative based on their perception of the facts - flew over your head at Mach 3.

It is inconsistent to call yourself "pro-life" but think it's okay to kill a doctor or a criminal.

No, it's not inconsistent. Might as well tell U.S. soldiers in WWII they were hypocrits for killing nazis. Most moral systems admit to a just killing, usually in self defense or self defense of the innocent and helpless. In shooting the abortionists, the pro-life shooters in their view are acting the same as a policeman who shoot a mass murderer who they know is about to kill again. Am I getting too nuanced for you here?

Feeble - the 1% is a well-known stable figure - I don't have time to look everything up for you on the net

Saying something is well-known is a form of proof?

The number is well-known and you can find it if you look a little. If you are really interested in the truth, you'll find it is true.

Furthermore, I am not wrong about your opinion of abortion.

You don't have a clue.

Otther

10th October 2004, 05:49 PM

Mona is my hero. :D

Seriously, most enjoyable posts I've read here in awhile.

shanek

10th October 2004, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Mona
First, I don't usually get into abortion debates in any substantive manner, because the issue is intractable and my own position is one of severe ambivalence.

Aha—someone else who feels this way! I was beginning to thing I was the only one.

thaiboxerken

10th October 2004, 06:51 PM

1inChrist, keep up the good work. Spread the republican word and let people know that God and Jesus want GW Bush for President!! I suggest you go door to door with the message as well, and don't leave people's houses until they promise to vote for Bush.

You are truly a model republican!

TillEulenspiegel

10th October 2004, 07:24 PM

Mona , I understand your position, I ,also am a libertarian. Your support I'm sure is more then one issue based but since you demonstrate the concentration by the majority of the electorate ( who may not have as firm a grasp as You seem to have ) on foreign policy I will address that.

I disagree that Bush's foreign policy has been in most ways effective or laudable. He ignored the festering Arab-Israeli conflict for years, he engaged in an arguably useless and unwinable war , he alienated our traditional international partners, his trade polices in re the EU and Canada have developed other open wounds. His insistence on a go it alone policy ( Your either with us or against us ) has enraged the majority of the worlds governments and peoples. The fact is the man's policies are driven by a fundamental Christian belief system that has no place in a secular society.
The position You take via-a-Vie Bush and Iraq is anathema to the way I understand Libertarian beliefs. Being---
That we believe in a standing army to defend our country and do not broadly agree on spending taxpayers monies on projects that are not beneficial to the citizens who pay those monies.

Iraq was not a direct threat to the security of the US. To believe otherwise is to be delusional (as some here are ) . To spend $200B ( actual + projected ) on a needless war in not in line with any Libertarian belief I'm aware of.
I'm not sure how You can reconcile the disparity that exists between stated beliefs and the reality of the Bush white-house's practices.

Mona

10th October 2004, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Mona , I understand your position, I ,also am a libertarian. Your support I'm sure is more then one issue based but since you demonstrate the concentration by the majority of the electorate ( who may not have as firm a grasp as You seem to have ) on foreign policy I will address that.

I disagree that Bush's foreign policy has been in most ways effective or laudable. He ignored the festering Arab-Israeli conflict for years, he engaged in an arguably useless and unwinable war , he alienated our traditional international partners, his trade polices in re the EU and Canada have developed other open wounds. His insistence on a go it alone policy ( Your either with us or against us ) has enraged the majority of the worlds governments and peoples. The fact is the man's policies are driven by a fundamental Christian belief system that has no place in a secular society.
The position You take via-a-Vie Bush and Iraq is anathema to the way I understand Libertarian beliefs. Being---
That we believe in a standing army to defend our country and do not broadly agree on spending taxpayers monies on projects that are not beneficial to the citizens who pay those monies.

Iraq was not a direct threat to the security of the US. To believe otherwise is to be delusional (as some here are ) . To spend $200B ( actual + projected ) on a needless war in not in line with any Libertarian belief I'm aware of.
I'm not sure how You can reconcile the disparity that exists between stated beliefs and the reality of the Bush white-house's practices.

Well, there is a lot there, and here is my attempt to deal with it all. First, foreign policy is creating a huge fissure in libertarian circles. I adhere to the NIoF principle, but do not think we have to wait until the 747s are taking off to crash into our centers of commerce to defend ourselves. Neither do I think force initiated against other peoples should be of no concern to us.

Saddam Hussein was widely believed to have WMDs, a belief he encouraged by denying UN inspectors enough latitude to determine the question. While he actually did not have them, the evidence is that he was biding his time to rebuild those programs. He had tried to assassinate a former U.S. President, and harbored one of the terrorists complicit in the '93 attempt to blow up the WTC. He was killing and terrorizing the Iraqis and the Kurds. It was well past time for the civilized world to take him down.

It is my strong opinion that decades of impotent responses to Islamic terrorism, such as Carter in the face of the Iranian hostages, brought us 9/11. It was widely perceived that America was stuck in a post-Viet Nam malaise in which we could not summon the political will to defend ourselves. That is a very dangerous perception for us to permit, and Bush has largely changed that.

I don't give as rat's @ss if France doesn't like it (Food for Oil?). Australia does, and John Howard just won in a near landslide. What I do care about is that Islamic jihadists, and nation states harboring them, believe there is a cowboy in the Oval Office who will kill them if they misbehave.

After Iraq, next Iran. Islamic fundamentalists are a pathological cancer. They hate the West, and do such quaint things as issuing death sentences on novelists who offend them. The civilized world must let them know we will destroy them if they do not reform their depraved and illiberal religious crusade, which has repeatedly reached out and touched Westerners.

Bush is an evangelical Xian. So? I DO NOT CARE. I don't like his position on gay marriage, but Kerry is forced by public opinion to take essentially the same one, so that is a wash. I see very little threat from Bush's religious beliefs, but a whole lot from Muslims who think I'm the Great Satan and who would wrap me in a burkha, deny me an education, mutilate my genitals and kill me if my chastity were suspect. And who would like to use anthrax, or dirty bombs, or airplanes, to kill us all on the way, doncha know, to hooking up with their 72 virgins.

Nope. I'll take Bush's sedate religioisty any day over the fanatical zealots who want us all dead in Allah's name.

Patrick

10th October 2004, 10:11 PM

Well, there is a lot there, and here is my attempt to deal with it all. First, foreign policy is creating a huge fissure in libertarian circles. I adhere to the NIoF principle, but do not think we have to wait until the 747s are taking off to crash into our centers of commerce to defend ourselves.

A thoughtful post in the midst of the slime of all the anti-christian bigot posts. The essential relevent libertarian principle is effective self defense. The quaint notion held by some that in the nuclear age that means you have to wait till thousands, or millions of your citizens are destroyed is at best anachronistic and at worst irrational. In our interlocked world, a hitleresque dictator like saddam can have severe negative repercussions for us, and when they carry out their megadeath plans in such a strategic part of the world as he did, the terrible implications are clear for anyone with > than half a brain.

Dorian Gray

10th October 2004, 10:17 PM

Mona
First, I don't usually get into abortion debates in any substantive manner, because the issue is intractable and my own position is one of severe ambivalence. But I do have a problem with how some people frame the discussion. Take your point above. Fair enough. My position is for me and mine - as for other people, they can cross their own bridges.

Those who oppose legalized abortion have to have a PR-friendly label with which to identify themselves. So do those who want abortion to be legal. The latter hit paydirt by settling on "pro-choice." But pro-choice to do what? Are all pro-choicers in favor of the Friday nite toker's right to alter his own mood and body? In favor of school vouchers? Not. The problem is that 'pro-life' implies that a person is for all life, or put another way, against killing. Some are for the death penalty, yet call themselves "pro-life". A better name would be "anti-abortion".

"Pro-choice", on the other hand, implies that people should decide for themselves what to do concerning abortion (it is commonly accepted only to refer to this topic, not to something else like drug use as you implied). Technically, I am pro-choice, because I don't think what others do in this area is solely my call. I am an atheist, for all intents and purposes, and I don't think about abortion from a religious position whatsoever.

However, back to my first paragraph and original point, it's inconsistent to call yourself "pro-life" if you are for the death penalty, or you think killing abortion-performing doctors is fine. "Pro-some life", perhaps.

Patricia,
I don't LIKE the quote function format, and therefore don't use it. Have I mentioned I don't like the haircuts you get, idiot?

Edited for breach of Membership Agreement.

Rape has nothing to do with whether or not a fetus is a human being - nothing. In any case, as I showed you, the rape issue, which is always trumpeted by the pro-abortionists as if it were the whole issue, is 1% percent of the issue. Put that 1% aside for the moment and you have 99% of abortions committed for entirely unconvincing reasons. Okay, please, just for a second, pretend like I have indicated that I agree with you on this many times, and that you could just scroll up to verify that. You are arguing with me when we are basically on the same side. I think that most of the reasons given for having an abortion are unconvincing ALSO. Tape your knee down to prevent it from jerking, will you?

I was trying to explain the internal logic of the people who kill abortionists, that their acts represent the result of a moral imperative based on their perception of the facts - flew over your head at Mach 3. Internal logic is highly subjective. I am speaking of the external logic that says a person who kills another person in cold blood is not, by definition, "pro-life."

In shooting the abortionists, the pro-life shooters in their view are acting the same as a policeman who shoot a mass murderer who they know is about to kill again. Am I getting too nuanced for you here? A policeman can only shoot people under certain circumstances. However, this is beside the point. it is the WOMAN who wants an abortion, and if a doctor is killed, she will simply find another doctor. That makes the killing of an abortion-performing doctor a complete waste of time and life. The nuance YOU fail to understand is that I KNOW the rationale, I just don't AGREE with it on logical and moral grounds.
The number is well-known and you can find it if you look a little. If you are really interested in the truth, you'll find it is true. That second sentence is a logical fallacy of some sort. It is really just another way of saying "I am right". Also, if I have to dig to find a number, it really isn't that well-known, is it.

Furthermore, I am not wrong about your opinion of abortion.

You don't have a clue. That is wrong. I have several clues. Your opening the subject in the first place, the numerous times you have portrayed abortion-performing doctors and women in a negative light, etc.

However, since you think I am wrong, please succinctly and briefly state your position on abortion. Unless you can do this, there is no point in debating with you, as you can change your position or move the goalposts whenever you like.

thaiboxerken

11th October 2004, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Patrick

A thoughtful post in the midst of the slime of all the anti-christian bigot posts.

Simply disagreeing with you is not "anti-christian". Fighting for a secular government is not "anti-christian".

The essential relevent libertarian principle is effective self defense. The quaint notion held by some that in the nuclear age that means you have to wait till thousands, or millions of your citizens are destroyed is at best anachronistic and at worst irrational. In our interlocked world, a hitleresque dictator like saddam can have severe negative repercussions for us, and when they carry out their megadeath plans in such a strategic part of the world as he did, the terrible implications are clear for anyone with > than half a brain.

Saddam could have all the plans in the world, the fact is.. he didn't have the means to implement his plans. He had no nuclear capability, he had not "WMD's". The sanctions worked.

crimresearch

11th October 2004, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Yes! Screw all those wingers - left, right, ... um ..... Kip. Become a centrist! Why have an us/them mentality when you can have an us/them/them mentality!
<SNIP>

Spoken like a true hatemonger...heaven forbid that anyone should point out flaws on both sides, they should let you tell them which side is the good side, hmmm?

And who the **** is 'Kip'?

Is that what you rightwing agitators are calling minorities who criticize both the right and the left these days?

Edited for Rule 8.

Dorian Gray

11th October 2004, 10:42 AM

Spoken like a true hatemonger...heaven forbid that anyone should point out flaws on both sides, they should let you tell them which side is the good side, hmmm?
sarÂ·casm P Pronunciation Key (sÃ¤rkzm)
n.
A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1.

And who the **** is 'Kip'? Kip Winger. Founder of the extremely crappy '80s hair band Winger. "Headed for a Heartbreak", "She's Only Seventeen"

pun P Pronunciation Key (pn)
n.
A play on words, sometimes on different senses of the same word and sometimes on the similar sense or sound of different words.

Is that what you rightwing agitators are calling minorities who criticize both the right and the left these days? You have been debating with me for months on various threads. If you have taken away from those debates that I am a "rightwing agitator", you are a moron. I am not even remotely right wing.

libÂ·erÂ·al P Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.

Besides, no right wing nutjob would ever say that his wing was flawed in any way. So you are wrong in a myriad of ways.

myrÂ·iÂ·ad P Pronunciation Key (mr-d)
adj.
Constituting a very large, indefinite number; innumerable: the myriad fish in the ocean.
Composed of numerous diverse elements or facets: the myriad life of the metropolis.

n.
A vast number: the myriads of bees in the hive.
Archaic. Ten thousand.

TillEulenspiegel

11th October 2004, 11:35 AM

Much here also so forgive me if I selectively cut-n-paste. It's only for brevity and not to take You out of context. Your post in toto appears a few posts above , if anyone ants to check.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mona

Saddam Hussein was widely believed to have WMDs....he was biding his time to rebuild those programs..... It was well past time for the civilized world to take him down.

The first point is the thread that won't die. All parties, except those with a tenuous grasp on reality, now agree that there was no WMD, Bush had no real evidence and Saddam was incapable to "re-energize" His attempts at nuclear and CBW. That was imposable under the circumstances. The US and allies controlled 2/3 of Iraq ( at least in the air ) and the inspectors were on the ground. We can site Saddam's end run around sanctions and the Oil for food re-directment of monies ( where many had a hand in the till ), This has been done to death. I don't believe he posed an immediate threat, perhaps You do . If You do then the war expenditures make sense.
From a Libertarian perspective I ( and most of humanity ) believe that this war was pre-mature and Bush, driven by Doctrine and desire, engaged in it too fast and not as his stated " last resort". It's now costing monies better spent elsewhere or not taken by the government at all.

I'm sorry we don't do "Wet Works" anymore at the CIA. A post Watergate effect A $2.00 Teflon coated bullet and a few dollars for the op would have cleared up things nicely. I have no problem with pre-emption , even massively neither does Kerry according to his statements. Afghanistan was a completely legal and supportable action against those who were involved in attacking America and was a clear and present danger

It is my strong opinion that decades of impotent responses to Islamic terrorism, such as Carter in the face of the Iranian hostages, brought us 9/11. It was widely perceived that America was stuck in a post-Viet Nam malaise in which we could not summon the political will to defend ourselves. That is a very dangerous perception for us to permit, and Bush has largely changed that.

Again We disagree Bush is viewed as a loose cannon by the world . Whereas Reagan -During the cold war in a nuclear face off- projected American force around the globe. Where Reagan was a pragmatist, Bush is viewed as a sulking, albeit dangerous, ltttle boy given to fits. Also the picture is not complete unless You mention America's duplicity- involving the SAME players from Reagan to Bush Jr.) who propagated this mess. We are Frankenstein.

I don't give as rat's @ss if France doesn't like it (Food for Oil?). Australia does, and John Howard just won in a near landslide. What I do care about is that Islamic jihadists, and nation states harboring them, believe there is a cowboy in the Oval Office who will kill them if they misbehave.

You say Cowboy, the world sees buck-aroo

After Iraq, next Iran. Islamic fundamentalists are a pathological cancer. They hate the West, and do such quaint things as issuing death sentences on novelists who offend them. The civilized world must let them know we will destroy them if they do not reform their depraved and illiberal religious crusade, which has repeatedly reached out and touched Westerners.

Unless one understands the distinctions made between a raggedy group of criminals with disparate racial backgrounds answerable to no government and the US (or UK or Poland for that matter) as a codified nation with definable boarders and features I.E. Wall Street, White-house, Hoover damn, etc., they cannot hope to grasp of the slimy tenuous thing we are grappling with nor the dynamics of how we must fight them. You seem to be implying the same thing as the Bu(censored) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870531930#rule8)es, that 9/11= Al Quida=Saddam, it is JUST not true.

I see very little threat from Bush's religious beliefs, but a whole lot from Muslims who think I'm the Great Satan and who would wrap me in a burkha, deny me an education, mutilate my genitals and kill me if my chastity were suspect.

Any policy driven or formulated from any fundamental religious belief system is a dangerous and stupid thing for a government to be founded on or run by . Bush is driven by the belief that the second coming will be brought about by Israel being unified and having a contiguous border, if you don't believe me do some research ....or go down to Ashcrofts office ( unless he's busy talking to snakes ) and ask him. Wonder if that why he didn't engage with Israel/Palestine for 2 yrs. after 50+ years of daily engagement by the American government under ?10 presidents. Yes his religious dogma is a dangerous thing because when we elect a president , we also appoint a CEO for the world for the next four years. I want those policies to be driven by intellect, not superstition.

varwoche

11th October 2004, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Mona
It is my strong opinion that decades of impotent responses to Islamic terrorism, such as Carter in the face of the Iranian hostages, brought us 9/11. Or such as Reagan cutting and running in Lebanon?

Regardless, I disagree. It is my sense that the USSR/Afghanistan fiasco is the event that by far played the greatest role in shaping the modern Islamist movement. For this we can credit the commies, with an honorable mention to the US for backing the Islamists.

billydkid

11th October 2004, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
I AM NOT A SOCK PUPPET!

But you are an idiot.

Mona

11th October 2004, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Mona
Fair enough. My position is for me and mine - as for other people, they can cross their own bridges.

The problem is that 'pro-life' implies that a person is for all life, or put another way, against killing. Some are for the death penalty, yet call themselves "pro-life". A better name would be "anti-abortion".

"Pro-choice", on the other hand, implies that people should decide for themselves what to do concerning abortion (it is commonly accepted only to refer to this topic, not to something else like drug use as you implied).

Pro-life is as rightly understood to be imited to the abortion issue as is pro-choice. The only reason the latter implies (really, invokes) a position on abortion is because "pro-abortionists" have been successful in getting the media to adopt the more positive label for them. And in fact, some proponents of school vouchers have tried to claim the label "pro-choice" but it has not been a tenable PR ploy given the co-opting of the term by partisans in the abortion debate.

Pro-choice is not a logically abortion-specific term. It has become seen as such only because of a very successful PR effort. The pro-lifers are entitled to their own prefered descriptor. Pro-lifers need not be vegans, pacifists or anti-vivisectionists any more than pro-choicers need be in favor of legalized drugs to claim their label.

Mona

11th October 2004, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by varwoche
Or such as Reagan cutting and running in Lebanon?

Yes, absolutely. I think Reagan made a huge mistake there. But I also think that had he done what he should have, many who now oppose Bush would have raised a hue and cry against it, and that knowledge factored into his decision. I might have been among those opposing him in doing the right thing.

It took 9/11 to break many of us, myself included, out of the fear of using U.S. military might that Viet Nam engendered.

RichardR

11th October 2004, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Vorticity
Stalin? I think he's talking about Cat Stevens. Yeah, that must be it.

a_unique_person

11th October 2004, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Mona
Yes, absolutely. I think Reagan made a huge mistake there. But I also think that had he done what he should have, many who now oppose Bush would have raised a hue and cry against it, and that knowledge factored into his decision. I might have been among those opposing him in doing the right thing.

It took 9/11 to break many of us, myself included, out of the fear of using U.S. military might that Viet Nam engendered.

So how does Iraq address 9/11, given that Saddam had nothing to do with it.

Mona

11th October 2004, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Patrick
[
A thoughtful post in the midst of the slime of all the anti-christian bigot posts. The essential relevent libertarian principle is effective self defense. The quaint notion held by some that in the nuclear age that means you have to wait till thousands, or millions of your citizens are destroyed is at best anachronistic and at worst irrational. In our interlocked world, a hitleresque dictator like saddam can have severe negative repercussions for us, and when they carry out their megadeath plans in such a strategic part of the world as he did, the terrible implications are clear for anyone with > than half a brain.

I have mixed feelings here. While I do think some can be justly accused of religious bigotry for opposing Bush simply because he is an evangelical Xian, I do not think it is wrong to examine whether his religious beliefs are irrationally dictating his public policy decisions. The operative word there is irrationally. In the absence of evidence for that, the charge of bigotry stands.

If someone could show me that Bush's foreign policy is dictated by an eschatology involving Israel, I'd seriously consider that. But candidate Bush in 2000 abjured foreign entanglements and promised us a "humble" foreign policy. Everything I've seen is that he, like many of us, became a born-again hawk when jihadists killed a bunch of us early in his watch.

Mona

11th October 2004, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
So how does Iraq address 9/11, given that Saddam had nothing to do with it.

He had little if anything to do with 9/11, but plenty to do with other attacks on us and others that we did nothing meaningful about.

I, like, snapped out of an isolationist stupor on 9/11. Al Queda is not the only Islamic threat to the West. I now am willing to play hardball and employ the entire might of the U.S. military to extirpate this insane, religion-driven hatred of Western liberalism that causes these fanatics to kill us, issue fatwas on "blaspheming" Western novelistsand publishing houses, & etc.

I mean, look. France is misguided in disallowing Muslim females to cover their heads in school. But civilized people do not respond by kidnapping and beheading French journalists. Those for whom such actions are considred just and normal, need to be dealt with in a very definitive manner. They are beyond reason.

a_unique_person

11th October 2004, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Mona
He had little if anything to do with 9/11, but plenty to do with other attacks on us and others that we did nothing meaningful about.

I, like, snapped out of an isolationist stupor on 9/11. Al Queda is not the only Islamic threat to the West. I now am willing to play hardball and employ the entire might of the U.S. military to extirpate this insane, religion-driven hatred of Western liberalism that causes these fanatics to kill us, issue fatwas on "blaspheming" Western novelistsand publishing houses, & etc.

I mean, look. France is misguided in disallowing Muslim females to cover their heads in school. But civilized people do not respond by kidnapping and beheading French journalists. Those for whom such actions are considred just and normal, need to be dealt with in a very definitive manner. They are beyond reason.

What other attacks on the US? He did invade Kuwait, for which the US attacked him to repel him. However, Saddam did not attack the US. Saddam was not an Islamist, he ran a secular state.

And is a meaningful act necessarily a violent one? To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Mona

11th October 2004, 09:17 PM

For those who think Saddam would not have eventually rebuilt his WMD program and that sanctions were working, have you read the Dulfeur Report? (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/)

Mona

11th October 2004, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
What other attacks on the US? He did invade Kuwait, for which the US attacked him to repel him. However, Saddam did not attack the US. Saddam was not an Islamist, he ran a secular state.

And is a meaningful act necessarily a violent one? To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Saddam harbored a main strategist of the '93 attack on the WTC, and tried to assassinate a former U.S. President; if especially the latter is not an act of war, what is? I've said all that already in this thread.

But beyond that, I am not concerned only with what he does to Americans. Any people who share common Enlightenment values of individual liberty are antithetical to many Islamic fundies, and also to nominally secular tyrants like Hussein -- who mouthed Muslim pieties to buttress his dictatorship and hold power.

crimresearch

11th October 2004, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
".... You have been debating with me for months on various threads. If you have taken away from those debates that I am a "rightwing agitator", you are a moron. I am not even remotely right wing.

And you have demonstrated your disagreement with liberalism time and time again. As badly as you want to pose as a liberal, there is a lot more to living it in real life.
I'm on record in this forum, (and in real life as an activist in many of these causes)as being anti-war, anti-the current administration, anti-Patriot Act, anti-modern slavery, anti-racism, just to name a few.
The notion that one can debate against these positions, and be a liberal is beyond illogical.

libÂ·erÂ·al P Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
...Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas

You make the same mistake as many others on this forum in the 'No true Liberal' fallacy (or in the case of some, the 'No True Minority' fallacy), by assuming that if I hold a liberal viewpoint on some issues, and I don't lie to cover up other liberal mistakes or untruths, that I am somehow 'not a real liberal' ( or a 'centrist', etc.) because I am 'betraying the cause'.

There is no ******* 'cause'...there is only a desire to see things get better for everyone.

And that is what separates the real liberals who actually do something to make a difference in real life, from pseudoliberals who promote the 'us vs. them' hatemongering that you come across as prizing so highly.

Edited for breach of Rule 8.

Dorian Gray

11th October 2004, 10:29 PM

The only reason the latter implies (really, invokes) a position on abortion is because "pro-abortionists" have been successful in getting the media to adopt the more positive label for them. Hold it right there, lady. You can be anti-abortion and pro-choice at the same time. I am, for example. So "pro-choice" is not a smokescreen label, it's a more accurate one.

Saddam harbored a main strategist of the '93 attack on the WTC, and tried to assassinate a former U.S. President; if especially the latter is not an act of war, what is? I've said all that already in this thread. Speaking of smokescreen, can you name a person who is more than a threat than Saddam that is still at large?

Crim"research"
And you have demonstrated your disagreement with liberalism time and time again. As badly as you want to pose as a liberal, there is a lot more to living it in real life.
I'm on record in this forum, (and in real life as an activist in many of these causes)as being anti-war, anti-the current administration, anti-Patriot Act, anti-modern slavery, anti-racism, just to name a few.
The notion that one can debate against these positions, and be a liberal is beyond illogical. Please quote for me ONE post where I have EVER argued in favor of any of the things you say you are against. You are a complete idiot if you can remotely put me anywhere on the right.

You make the same mistake as many others on this forum in the 'No true Liberal' fallacy (or in the case of some, the 'No True Minority' fallacy), by assuming that if I hold a liberal viewpoint on some issues, and I don't lie to cover up other liberal mistakes or untruths, that I am somehow 'not a real liberal' ( or a 'centrist', etc.) because I am 'betraying the cause'. You are committing the ever-popular Strawman Fallacy. My purpose in posting the definition, which is not in itself an accusation, was to allow you the chance to compare any post you may have read of mine with the definition, noting similarities.

I see that you are still strawmanning the 'us vs. them' bit of SARCASM that I posted earlier. Your knee was jerking so hard, you missed this hypocrisy IN THE SAME POST YOU JUST MADE:
You make the same mistake as many others on this forum in the 'No true Liberal' fallacy
(two sentences later)
And that is what separates the real liberals who actually do something to make a difference in real life, from pseudoliberals who promote the 'us vs. them' hatemongering that you come across as prizing so highly.

Do me a favor. Take your icon and do the honorable thing.

This post has been reported as violating the Guideline: "Advocacy of suicide or of violence to others: If you tell someone to kill themselves, or to harm someone else, you will be suspended without prior warning. Example: "Go kill yourself."". I do not believe that it was an actual advocacy that crimresearch should physically harm himself however this is a "on balance" decision from reading the thread. Any repetition of this type of phrase would result in an immediate suspension.

Patrick

12th October 2004, 12:32 AM

Content deleted, in breach of the Membership Agreement.

You are arguing with me when we are basically on the same side.

You don't KNOW what side I'm on Dopian! Like everything else, you IMAGINE that fact!

Tape your knee down to prevent it from jerking, will you?

Content deleted.

Internal logic is highly subjective. I am speaking of the external logic that says a person who kills another person in cold blood is not, by definition, "pro-life."

An example of your simplistic mind, which is unwilling/unable to recognize such as the "lesser of two evils" moral problem - in this case a person is presented with a choice of not killing an abortionist and thereby permitting thousands of deaths, or offing him and causing one death. The option of an action which results in no deaths is not available to the anti-abortionist (thanks as I said due to the abandonment of the fetuses by the liberal courts) and therefore he chooses the option that preserves the most lives - nothing subjective about it.

A policeman can only shoot people under certain circumstances.

Yes, the circumstance where a killer is going to kill again. Same with the anti-abortionist shooters.

it is the WOMAN who wants an abortion, and if a doctor is killed, she will simply find another doctor. That makes the killing of an abortion-performing doctor a complete waste of time and life.

Not true. Many abortionists have left the field, because it's not worth it to them to have their house and office picketed, their photos put on websites, and the risk of being killed. Part of the decline in abortions since 1990 (see eg http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html) are attributed to the lack of abortionists in many locations.

The nuance YOU fail to understand is that I KNOW the rationale, I just don't AGREE with it on logical and moral grounds.

Uh, I DO KNOW that and said so. I said the difference between you and the shooters is a perception of the relevent facts. Not moral grounds, not logic - facts. I'll try once more with an analogy, repeat: AN ANALOGY to get you to understand how the shooters think (imo). What if there was a movement that parents be allowed to kill their children up to age five. What if the movement was very successful, propelled along by slogans that you thought were stupid, and very little in the way of ethical reasoning.

You couldn't believe that such a law would ever be enacted, but you were confronted with the fact that it was. People trying to stop it went to the courts but were turned down. There was nothing more that could be done LEGALLY to stop it. Is it just barely possible that you might take up arms and go after the killers? There is only one substantial essential difference between this hypothetical scenario and the real one with the shooters killing abortionists: most people think that fetuses aren't live human beings, but five year olds are. The shooters think that five year olds and fetuses are human beings. Everything follows from various perceptions of the key fact as to whether a fetus is a live human being.

However, since you think I am wrong, please succinctly and briefly state your position on abortion.

Hallelujah!- thank you jesus! - thank you allah! He does in post #3479 what he should have done in post #1! Well, better late than never!

My central ideas on the whole abortion issue:

1. Abortion was established as a limited constitutionl right mainly through the efforts of Harry Blackmun in the USSC case Roe vs Wade. Blackmun established this right from whole cloth, pure invention, firstly by imagining a right to privacy and then even more startlingly saying that that implied a limited protection of a right to abortion. This is surely the single worst case of judicial malfeasance in U.S. history - Dred Scott and Plessy vs Ferguson included.

2. The feminist extremists, using what is certainly the most successful political slogan in U.S. history, viz., "A woman has the right to control her own body",
marshalled the votes of millions of women and men behind the abortion movement. This one slogan, which has an almost magical ability to shut down the rational and ethical faculties of millions of peoples' minds, supplanted all possibility of a real debate on the issue.

3. The U.S. should have a REAL national debate on the issue, which will center around one key central fact: Is a fetus a live human being? The REAL debate shall put aside feminist slogans and address the issue with facts and logic from the areas of ethics, philosophy, physiology, biology, and medical science. Currently, it is UNKNOWN by anyone what the answer to this question is, not necessarily because it is unknowable, but because any widespread serious inquiry was swept aside by Roe vs Wade and the feminist political steamroller.

4. Until this debate occurs, since it is a reasonable conjecture that fetuses ARE human beings, if for no other reason that everyone agrees that at least that's what they become, then prudence dictates that certainly the "convenience", "financial" etc type reasons be prohibited as legal justifications for abortion, and perhaps most of the others too, since pending the outcome of a REAL debate on the possible humanity of fetuses, over a million humans may be being killed every year.

This post has been reported. Several parts of this post were in breach of your Membership Agreement and have been edited. Please be warned that repetition of this behaviour may result in further sanctions being applied.

AWPrime

12th October 2004, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by Patrick

Content deleted.

Wow, I never know that you were into rape. You must be one hell of a ##.

crimresearch

12th October 2004, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Crim"research"
Please quote for me ONE post where I have EVER argued in favor of any of the things you say you are against....

Here you go...your own words:

"You have been debating with me for months on various threads. "

And I just listed my clearly stated, easily verifiable positions taken from those threads...
You and anyone else can go back to those threads, and see where I was making the anti-slavery, anti-war, anti-administration, anti-racism posts...

You claim you were 'debating' me on those very topics, the record shows clearly what my position was...so where does that leave you? When you choose to stake out a claim as debating against anti-war, anti-racism, etc., you have chosen the label that fits you...not my problem if you are unhappy with it.

Do me a favor. Take your icon and do the honorable thing.

Is that the only way you can debate? Against dead opponents, so that you can put words in their mouth and paint yourself as a liberal when you aren't?

And don't use the word 'honorable' again, you have no right to smear it with your lips, or your hatemongering lying and bigotry.

Nikk

12th October 2004, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by Patrick

1. Abortion was established as a limited constitutionl right mainly through the efforts of Harry Blackmun in the USSC case Roe vs Wade. Blackmun established this right from whole cloth, pure invention, firstly by imagining a right to privacy and then even more startlingly saying that that implied a limited protection of a right to abortion. This is surely the single worst case of judicial malfeasance in U.S. history - Dred Scott and Plessy vs Ferguson included.

Under english common law abortion was acceptable until quickening i.e. the time when a mother felt the child move in the womb. It was only criminalised in the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

I was under the impression that american colonial law and early post revolutionary law took the same view.

Accordingly modern U.S. law post Roe v Wade, is in effect is simply reinstating and extending the position taken in the post colonial, post constitutional era although it has gone about the job in a rather roundabout way.

Perhaps you can provide citations to the contrary.

Darat

12th October 2004, 07:30 AM

There have been several reports made about posts in this thread. I am locking it until they have been dealt with.

Thread re-opened.

I have made many edits and deletions in this thread to try and get it back in line with the Rules and Guidelines that govern the Forum.

I have tried to keep the edits to the absolute minimum, that does mean there are still posts and comments that are not totally civil. However as the Membership Agreement states we cannot insulate people from every insult or challenge however there was too much baiting and (not relevant to any point being made) personal name calling in this thread. This thread does not represent a good example for the Forum.

Mona

12th October 2004, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Darat
There have been several reports made about posts in this thread. I am locking it until they have been dealt with.

Thread re-opened.

I have made many edits and deletions in this thread to try and get it back in line with the Rules and Guidelines that govern the Forum.

I have tried to keep the edits to the absolute minimum, that does mean there are still posts and comments that are not totally civil. However as the Membership Agreement states we cannot insulate people from every insult or challenge however there was too much baiting and (not relevant to any point being made) personal name calling in this thread. This thread does not represent a good example for the Forum.

Thank you for reopening the thread. I certainly understand that you had to do some clean-up, but some of us were having a civil and productive exchange.

Mona

12th October 2004, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Nikk
Under english common law abortion was acceptable until quickening i.e. the time when a mother felt the child move in the womb. It was only criminalised in the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

I was under the impression that american colonial law and early post revolutionary law took the same view.

Accordingly modern U.S. law post Roe v Wade, is in effect is simply reinstating and extending the position taken in the post colonial, post constitutional era although it has gone about the job in a rather roundabout way.

Perhaps you can provide citations to the contrary.

You are quite accurate in your assessment of common law treatment of abortion, and it was the same in the U.S. which largely inherited the corpus of UK legal doctrines.

During the mid-19th century physicians in the U.S. began a crusade to criminalize abortion because the facts of fetology were demonstrating that "quickening" was an unscientific approach to determining the nature of the entity in a woman's uterus. That was merely a barometer of the ability of the fetus to make itself felt within the thick uterine wall, and not an indication that the entity was inanimate prior thereto.

I once had a book detailing how the AMA lobbied against abortion in the U.S. but lost it long ago. However, I do recall that the citations to the minutes of their conventions revealed language to describe abortionists that would make much rhetoric from the contemporary pro-life camp appear moderate. ("Modern day Herods," "false bretheren" & such.)

thaiboxerken

12th October 2004, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Mona
For those who think Saddam would not have eventually rebuilt his WMD program and that sanctions were working, have you read the Dulfeur Report? (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/)

I just did. My take on it is that Saddam had plans.....but couldn't carry out those plans as long as sanctions were in effect. Imagine that, the sanctions worked.

thaiboxerken

12th October 2004, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Mona
Saddam harbored a main strategist of the '93 attack on the WTC, and tried to assassinate a former U.S. President; if especially the latter is not an act of war, what is? I've said all that already in this thread.

So, some guy picked a fight with me about 5 years ago and I walked away from it. Would it be ok for me to go and beat him up now?

Kodiak

12th October 2004, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
So, some guy picked a fight with me about 5 years ago and I walked away from it. Would it be ok for me to go and beat him up now?

If you do not see the clear differences between what Mona has referred to and the comparison you just tried to draw, it is because you do not want to...

Mona

12th October 2004, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
[The first point is the thread that won't die. All parties, except those with a tenuous grasp on reality, now agree that there was no WMD, Bush had no real evidence and Saddam was incapable to "re-energize"

You say Cowboy, the world sees buck-aroo

[/B]

Nearly everyone believed Saddam had WMDs. Including most who opposed the war in Iraq, many of whom predicted our troops would be slaughtered by all manner of chemical or biological weapon. Have you read the Dulfuer (sp?) report and its key findings?

As to how "the world" sees Bush, I do not care one whit, as long as Islamic theocrats and terrorists see him as willing and able to destroy them. For years, Churchill was widely despised as a war monger when he tried in vain to impress his countrymen that Hitler was a serious menace to the civilized West. Isolationst in the UK and the U.S. were in serious denial, and did not stop the Third Reich early when it would have been less costly to do so.

War-monger Churchill was right. So is buckaroo Bush.

Kodiak

12th October 2004, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I just did. My take on it is that Saddam had plans.....but couldn't carry out those plans as long as sanctions were in effect. Imagine that, the sanctions worked.

You mean those same santions that were being violated continuously by France, Germany, and Russia, and was making Saddam billions of dollars at the expense of his own citizens?!?

:nope:

AWPrime

12th October 2004, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Mona
Nearly everyone believed Saddam had WMDs.

Had and has are two different things.

thaiboxerken

12th October 2004, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak
You mean those same santions that were being violated continuously by France, Germany, and Russia, and was making Saddam billions of dollars at the expense of his own citizens?!?

Yes, despite the violations, they were working.

If you do not see the clear differences between what Mona has referred to and the comparison you just tried to draw, it is because you do not want to...

I know the difference, one is on a political level, the other is on a personal level. It is the same behavior, though.

thaiboxerken

12th October 2004, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Mona
As to how "the world" sees Bush, I do not care one whit, as long as Islamic theocrats and terrorists see him as willing and able to destroy them.

For what reason? Is it so that those same people are more motivated to attack us?

For years, Churchill was widely despised as a war monger when he tried in vain to impress his countrymen that Hitler was a serious menace to the civilized West.

You see how well that worked.

Isolationst in the UK and the U.S. were in serious denial, and did not stop the Third Reich early when it would have been less costly to do so.

I agree that the UK and USA should've joined the war as soon as Germany started attacking other countries. Iraq attacked Kuwait, and we stepped in and stopped it. This time, Iraq didn't attack anyone.

Kodiak

12th October 2004, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Yes, despite the violations, they were working.

So Saddam could violate sanctions to steal billions, but he couldn't violate sanctions to develop WMD?!? :confused:

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I know the difference, one is on a political level, the other is on a personal level. It is the same behavior, though.

So "picking a fight" is on par with an assassination attempt and the harboring of terrorists?!? :confused:

thaiboxerken

12th October 2004, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak
So Saddam could violate sanctions to steal billions, but he couldn't violate sanctions to develop WMD?!?

The facts don't lie.

So "picking a fight" is on par with an assassination attempt and the harboring of terrorists?!?

It's simply a difference of extremity. However, I'll modify my analogy.

If someone tried to kill me 5 years ago, is it ok for me to go and kill him now?

TillEulenspiegel

12th October 2004, 10:10 AM

Wow some of you guys are off the chain...edits, clean-ups and a lock down?
Mona:

I believe there are two specious arguments making the rounds here as well as in the Real World.
The first being a kind of woulda,coulda,shouda ethereal justification so....
He had WMDs at one time, he used them in the past, he Could have hidden them, he had plans to eventually restart his WMD programs and so on. It reminds me of Tolkien's description of Gollum's rationalization to lay claim the ring and explain the murder of his friend. ( in the book )

The second is a kind of doomsday scenario Bush supporters seem to like to paint i.E. "So were suppose to wait till the 747s take off or millions of people die from a nuke" and so on.

That path is ripe with assumptions and false vision. It assumes that Saddam had WMD as it's foundation which as we all know is not true , if you apply the same standard elsewhere like NK or Iran where did the greatest danger lay? Then that's where we should have applied pressure and force. Applying the "well he could give them to Al-Quida" again assumes that he had WMD or was capable of making them. Neither case is true. The other fact is that Saddam and Al-Quida had no overlap, in fact the only place where they touched at all is hatred of the West. The tag line of " attacking Iraq for 9-11 is like bombing Mexico for Pearl harbor " may be trite but wholly descriptive of reality. Then theres the whole history of Rumsfeld and co. from PNAC to today. Actually the skeleton was first fleshed out bu Wolfowitz in a book he wrote in 1982.......

The false vision is a homemade nuke on a el-Kabong rocket to hit America is nonsense, so is the selling of any WMD to terrorists. Saddam had (has ) a fixation on Israel and Saudi Arabia not a fetish for OBL. The real danger is the old Soviet Empire states selling MIRVs to terrorists ala the movie " The Peacemaker". It has happened but was interdicted . That's the one we know about . Though we don't hear about successes as a rule.

So our difference lays in the fact that You believe that Bush's description and analysis of the situation was correct and the war justified. I disagree with that position and I believe if one looks at the history. the moving goalposts, the post war rationalizations, justifications, obfuscations and mis-direction We can, now,in hindsight see that the war was useless, ill timed , ill-conceived, brilliantly executed, and now is the morass Military experts told their commander in chief it would be.

When I said the world views Bush as a buck-aroo, I didn't mean Phrance I meant the world which includes %50+ of Americans
Article from May...The numbers have increased steadily since then ( disagree w/Iraq war decision)

<snip>Less than half, 47 percent, now say the U.S. did the right thing taking military action in Iraq, the lowest support recorded in CBS News/New York Times Polls since the war began.

There are growing concerns about the long-term impact of the war. 41 percent now think the war increased the threat of terrorism against the U.S. 71 percent say the Administrationâ€™s policies have worsened the U.S.â€™s image in the Arab world.
<snip>
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/28/opinion/polls/main614605.shtml

Churchill/WW2 and Bush/Iraq do not co-exist on any stage no matter how the framework is applied.

Dorian Gray

12th October 2004, 10:14 AM

You don't KNOW what side I'm on Dopian! Like everything else, you IMAGINE that fact! Then state your position. State your position, state your position. Are you pro-choice? Pro-life? One of the extreme positions of pro-abortion or pro-life with no exceptions? Why are you so afraid to reveal this? Although, the things you have said so far indicate that either you lean towards extreme pro-life, or you are playing devil's advocate for some trolly reason.

An example of your simplistic mind, which is unwilling/unable to recognize such as the "lesser of two evils" moral problem - in this case a person is presented with a choice of not killing an abortionist and thereby permitting thousands of deaths, or offing him and causing one death. The option of an action which results in no deaths is not available to the anti-abortionist (thanks as I said due to the abandonment of the fetuses by the liberal courts) and therefore he chooses the option that preserves the most lives - nothing subjective about it. You are wrong, and it is you who is simplistic. (side note - that you seem to be justifying the killing of an abortionist doctor is somewhat of a clue as to your position on the matter) By killing an abortionist doctor, two wrongs are committed - one by the doctor, and one by the extremist pro-lifer. The doctor is dead, while the pro-lifer goes to jail. Meanwhile, the patients who would have gone to that doctor simply go to another doctor. The pro-lifer's actions therefore have not only ended a life and a freedom, but have done nothing to prevent abortions.

There is only one substantial essential difference between this hypothetical scenario and the real one with the shooters killing abortionists: most people think that fetuses aren't live human beings, but five year olds are. Then you see the flaw in your analogy.

Hallelujah!- thank you jesus! - thank you allah! He does in post #3479 what he should have done in post #1! Well, better late than never! Then you admit you should have outlined your position earlier. And I was right - you are an extremist pro-lifer.

Yes, the circumstance where a killer is going to kill again. Do you think that we should kill anyone who has murdered, then?

To me, an embryo is a human being like an acorn is a tree. I think abortion up to the end of the first month should be unlimited. After that, however, I go with the rape, incest and danger to the mother position that 80-85% of the country go with. To me, a human can live on its own - survive. An embryo can't do that. A fetus can at a certain point, and that point is getting closer to conception as medicine improves.

The morning-after pill is 100% okay with me under any circumstance. Killing a doctor, who is clearly a human being, is 100% NEVER okay with me under any circumstances.

Crinresearch the spinning monkey:
You claim you were 'debating' me on those very topics, the record shows clearly what my position was...so where does that leave you? When you choose to stake out a claim as debating against anti-war, anti-racism, etc., you have chosen the label that fits you...not my problem if you are unhappy with it. All labels are yours. I said I debated with you on various threads, but it doesn't mean that we were necessarily debating on any of the topics you mentioned. Therefore, it doesn't necessarily follow that we are opposed on any of the topics you mentioned.

So you will have to stop being lazy and making unsupported claims and giving unsupported labels, and go and get an actual quote of mine, like I asked, instead of relying on your obviously compromised generalizations.

Kodiak:
So Saddam could violate sanctions to steal billions, If this is a justification for war, 1) It's about the 25th different one I have seen, and 2) When are we invading Enron?

Kodiak

12th October 2004, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Kodiak:
If this is a justification for war, 1) It's about the 25th different one I have seen, and 2) When are we invading Enron?

Thank you for your comments.

I never said it was a justification for invasion, only that it was evidence counter to thai's contention that the sanctions were working.

Enron was not protected by a standing Army within a sovereign country. We are dealing/have dealt with those responsible for the crimes committed by Enron's leadership.

Now that Saddam has been captured, the Iraqi courts will now be able to deal with him.

Kodiak

12th October 2004, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
The facts don't lie.

Oh, so the fact that he didn't also automatically means he couldn't?!?

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It's simply a difference of extremity. However, I'll modify my analogy.

If someone tried to kill me 5 years ago, is it ok for me to go and kill him now?

Thank you. Now will you concede that there are major differences between the personal level and the political/diplomatic level of your comparison?

thaiboxerken

12th October 2004, 11:51 AM

Oh, so the fact that he didn't also automatically means he couldn't?!?

Could've, would've..where do you draw the line as to who we should go after? Should we go after a 8yr old kid that wants to dominate the world and turn it into his own empire? Who's to say he couldn't do it?

And no, the fact that he didn't, even though he wanted to shows that the sanctions were effective in stopping him from doing what he wanted to do. Enforcing the sanctions and penalizing countries that violate them would've been a better option than attacking Iraq.

Thank you. Now will you concede that there are major differences between the personal level and the political/diplomatic level of your comparison?

I don't see any difference, other than the scale of people involved.

Kodiak

12th October 2004, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Could've, would've..where do you draw the line as to who we should go after? Should we go after a 8yr old kid that wants to dominate the world and turn it into his own empire? Who's to say he couldn't do it?

A ridiculous analogy... :nope:

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
And no, the fact that he didn't, even though he wanted to shows that the sanctions were effective in stopping him from doing what he wanted to do. Enforcing the sanctions and penalizing countries that violate them would've been a better option than attacking Iraq.

The fact that he didn't only shows that he didn't. Can you show evidence that the sanctions foiled his attempts?

Saddam did not abide by the sanctions! The sanctions were not being enforced! The U.N. refused to take action and penalize Iraq for its abuses and violations. In fact. several U.N.S.C. members, two of whom have veto status, were in cahoots with Saddam in bilking the Iraqi people out of billions in the Food-for-Oil scam.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Thank you. Now will you concede that there are major differences between the personal level and the political/diplomatic level of your comparison?

I don't see any difference, other than the scale of people involved.

I can only inform you of your ignorance regarding modern diplomacy and statecraft. I can't fairly criticize you for it.

Thank you for your comments...

thaiboxerken

12th October 2004, 12:47 PM

A ridiculous analogy... :nope:

Your argument was ridiculous, it deserved a ridiculous (but accurate) analogy.

The fact that he didn't only shows that he didn't. Can you show evidence that the sanctions foiled his attempts?

Yes, the fact that he didn't have "WMD's" is evidence. He had them prior to the sanctions.

Saddam did not abide by the sanctions! The sanctions were not being enforced!

They were poorly enforced, but enough to stop Saddam from having and developing WMD's and Nuclear weapons.

The U.N. refused to take action and penalize Iraq for its abuses and violations. In fact. several U.N.S.C. members, two of whom have veto status, were in cahoots with Saddam in bilking the Iraqi people out of billions in the Food-for-Oil scam.

So why not take care of reforming the UN and ousting the conspirators instead of invading Iraq?

I can only inform you of your ignorance regarding modern diplomacy and statecraft. I can't fairly criticize you for it.

So, I guess you can't tell the difference either.

Mona

12th October 2004, 03:47 PM

thaiboxerken: It looks to as if you did not read the Dulfeur Report closely enough; it certainly undermines your claim that sanctions "worked":

"Key Findings

Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

â€¢ Saddam totally dominated the Regimeâ€™s strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraqâ€™s strategic policy.

â€¢ Saddamâ€™s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspectionsâ€”to gain support for lifting sanctionsâ€”with his intention to preserve Iraqâ€™s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.

â€¢ The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdadâ€™s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.

â€¢ By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraqâ€™s WMD capabilityâ€”which was essentially destroyed in 1991â€”after sanctions were removed and Iraqâ€™s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capabilityâ€”in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risksâ€”but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

â€¢ Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi offi cials considered Iran to be Iraqâ€™s principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.

â€¢ Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddamâ€™s belief in the value of WMD. In Saddamâ€™s view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shiâ€™a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.

â€¢ The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them."

billydkid

12th October 2004, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Aha—someone else who feels this way! I was beginning to thing I was the only one.

The problem, from my perspective, is this. Both sides view it as an all or nothing affair. Like many others I find the notion of abortion extremely distasteful. However, the right continues in its lame insistence (insistance?) that a blastula or even a merely fertilized egg is identical to a third trimester fetus. Likewise, the left continues to insist that it is "a woman's body" even when it is clearly "a woman's body" with the body of a not entirely mature fetus inside. Clearly there is a middle ground. My personal feeling is that a woman gets plenty of notice when she is pregnant and would typically have plenty of time to terminate a pregnancy well before the fetus develops to the point where it could reasonbly be called a child. I believe we should decide where that point is and allow terminations up to that point. I believe beyond that point the rights of the child become a consideration.

I realize there may be extenuating circumstances in some cases. However, I do believe that it is a woman's responsibility to decide early if she wants to terminate a pregnancy and should do so not just before the child is a viable fetus, but before the fetus could reasonbly be considered a child.

A fetus the size of a polywog is clearly not a child. At six months it is an unborn child. My not very informed opinion.

crimresearch

12th October 2004, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
<SNIP>
Crinresearch the spinning monkey:
All labels are yours. I said I debated with you on various threads, but it doesn't mean that we were necessarily debating on any of the topics you mentioned. Therefore, it doesn't necessarily follow that we are opposed on any of the topics you mentioned.

So you will have to stop being lazy and making unsupported claims and giving unsupported labels, and go and get an actual quote of mine, like I asked, instead of relying on your obviously compromised generalizations.

An actual quote of yours? You mean like the one above where you refer to minorities as monkeys? Or the ones where you take great delight in making fun of my log-in name, and falsely attribute various mental deficiencies to me?
(None of which are based upon any content I've posted, you've chosen to make this personal, when the ONLY thing you know about me is my status as a minority).

Nooooo , no racists on this forum, no siree...can I run get you a mint julep now Massa' Dorian?

:rolleyes:

thaiboxerken

12th October 2004, 04:38 PM

The report makes alot of bold claims, I'll agree with that.

It seems the "key findings" are about what Saddam wanted to do, and not really what he had capabilities to do. The report, for me, was justification to keep Saddam under sanction and to enforce them while penalizing those countries that would help undermine the sanction.

There were not WMD's or Nuclear capabilities, just Saddam's fantasy of having them.

Mona

12th October 2004, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Hold it right there, lady. You can be anti-abortion and pro-choice at the same time. I am, for example. So "pro-choice" is not a smokescreen label, it's a more accurate one.

No more accurate than "pro-life." Most pro-life groups FORMALLY do not limit themselves to opposition to abortion; the label "anti-abortion" would not be sufficiently comprehensive and thus would be inaccurate.

Pro-lifers have been in the forefront of opposition to assisted suicide, infanticide and decisions like that of of Terry Schiavo's husband to disconnect her life support. They do not accept that a person in a "persistent vegetative state" is dead; they say such people are merely disabled and have a right to life. (I am in descriptive mode here, and nothing I've written should be taken to necessarily reflect my own views on these non-abortion issues.)

Pro-lifers limit themselves, usually, to killing (or allowing natural death, depending on your POV) in medical contexts, but NOT merely to abortion. They are no more to be faulted for that than should be pro-choicers who insist that a woman has a right to control her body in the abortion context, but who decline to assert that she has the same right when it comes to her wish to inhale some cannibas.

thaiboxerken

12th October 2004, 05:43 PM

I'm pro-choice, both on the cannibus issue and abortion, as well as assisted suicide.

Mona

12th October 2004, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I'm pro-choice, both on the cannibus issue and abortion, as well as assisted suicide.

I'm pro-choice on the ingestion, injection or inhalation of anything into one's own body, and pro-choice in the case of a mentally competent person seeking to end their life with or without assistance. (And I take a dim view of pseudo-medical ploys to diagnose any desire to end one's life as being a per se symptom of so-called mental illness.)

I'm also pro-choice when it comes to letting parents decide how to spend education dollars for their kids. IOW, I favor vouchers, if we are going to fund schools.

Mona

12th October 2004, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
The report makes alot of bold claims, I'll agree with that.

It seems the "key findings" are about what Saddam wanted to do, and not really what he had capabilities to do. The report, for me, was justification to keep Saddam under sanction and to enforce them while penalizing those countries that would help undermine the sanction.

There were not WMD's or Nuclear capabilities, just Saddam's fantasy of having them.

I see. In light of that CIA report you have moved from "sanctions were working" to "Bush should have done something about those (France, Germany, Russia) who were destroying their efficacy." Nevermind that these are the same nations heralded as hating Bush for his unilateral action to depose Saddam, which action also, um, destroyed their profits.

Nope. Bush did the right thing.

thaiboxerken

12th October 2004, 07:21 PM

The sanctions were still working, the fact that Saddam had no WMD's or Nuclear program is evidence of that.

Nevermind that these are the same nations heralded as hating Bush for his unilateral action to depose Saddam, which action also, um, destroyed their profits.

If we forced these countries to uphold the sanctions and not violate them, they'd still hate us. However, we'd be doing the right thing and not shunning the rest of the world and the UN.

Mona

12th October 2004, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
The sanctions were still working, the fact that Saddam had no WMD's or Nuclear program is evidence of that.

If we forced these countries to uphold the sanctions and not violate them, they'd still hate us. However, we'd be doing the right thing and not shunning the rest of the world and the UN.

"Force" France, Germany and Russia how?

shanek

12th October 2004, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Mona
I'm pro-choice on the ingestion, injection or inhalation of anything into one's own body, and pro-choice in the case of a mentally competent person seeking to end their life with or without assistance. (And I take a dim view of pseudo-medical ploys to diagnose any desire to end one's life as being a per se symptom of so-called mental illness.)

Well, it's your body. So you have the right to do whatever with it that you wish. The thing about abortion that makes me conflicted is that there's another body involved. To be honest, I don't see the difference between a baby 5 minutes after it's born and 5 minutes before. On the other hand, I don't see much difference between a zygote and any other cell. Since I have no idea where the line should be drawn, I tend to lean on the side of freedom, especially since I know a ban on abortions just won't work any more than the war on drugs.

I'm also pro-choice when it comes to letting parents decide how to spend education dollars for their kids. IOW, I favor vouchers, if we are going to fund schools.

The problem with vouchers is that it's too easy for the government to start attaching strings. That's what they did with public funds for private colleges and universities after a few years, after they got dependent on the money. They're like drug dealers, really. I favor educational tax refunds for anyone who pays for a child's education or home-schools them.

shanek

12th October 2004, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
The sanctions were still working, the fact that Saddam had no WMD's or Nuclear program is evidence of that.

Actually, it seems to me that it's evidence that Scott Ritter was right and that they'd been destroyed soon after the Gulf War and so the sanctions themselves weren't even necessary.

Sushi

12th October 2004, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Well, it's your body. So you have the right to do whatever with it that you wish. The thing about abortion that makes me conflicted is that there's another body involved. To be honest, I don't see the difference between a baby 5 minutes after it's born and 5 minutes before. On the other hand, I don't see much difference between a zygote and any other cell. Since I have no idea where the line should be drawn, I tend to lean on the side of freedom, especially since I know a ban on abortions just won't work any more than the war on drugs.

The fact that another possible life (life meaning person, not simply aconscious biological functions) is involved is ignored entirely by the self-proclaimed "pro-choicers", who are usually only "pro-choice" on this issue.

Even though the democrats are right on this issue, at least to an extent, they can't even formulate an argument that addresses the pro-life one (which in itself is flawed, as you noted, a zygote is little different from any other cell) properly.

Posted by billydkid:
A fetus the size of a polywog is clearly not a child. At six months it is an unborn child. My not very informed opinion.

No, your opinion is very informed-- one of the few with real thought put into it. Both your typical "pro-choice" and "pro-life" crowds resort to ignorance and fallacy and cloud the issue.

Patrick

12th October 2004, 10:03 PM

Well, it's your body. So you have the right to do whatever with it that you wish. The thing about abortion that makes me conflicted is that there's another body involved. To be honest, I don't see the difference between a baby 5 minutes after it's born and 5 minutes before. On the other hand, I don't see much difference between a zygote and any other cell. Since I have no idea where the line should be drawn, I tend to lean on the side of freedom, especially since I know a ban on abortions just won't work any more than the war on drugs.

You were OK up to the last sentence. Since you have no idea where the line should be drawn, you should lean on the side of pro-life. Since a wrong decision one way leads to the death of a human being, and a wrong decision another way leads to the pointless requirement that a woman remain pregnant, which would be the worst way to "lean" wrongly? Also, the drug analogy is bogus because (1) the practice of abortion is much more subjectable to control than say selling crack on the street, and (2) it's like saying states might as well give up on laws against murder because murders (lots of them) have always happened in spite of the laws.

Dorian Gray

12th October 2004, 10:47 PM

Patrick

12th October 2004, 11:08 PM

Your murder analogy is bogus, because some murders are legal - executions, self defense, etc. If you were truly against murder, you'd be anti death penalty, anti gun and ultra-pacifist. But I guess you want to justify having a few exceptions that are meaningless instead of ****** on the side of NO murder.

You're completely confused - murder by definition is an illegal killing - you're confusing murder with killings in general. Consult a good dictionary. And the attempt to lump killings in the case of the execution of convicted murderers with, say, a D&X abortion of an utterly innocent 8-month fetus is just plain silliness.

If you were a woman, well, you'd be a c-word, but also you might be a little more sympathetic to this whole issue.

One of the standard non-arguments of the pro-abortionists, but here let me try: if you were a nine month fetus being subjected to a partial-birth abortion - as the cutting and suction devices came into the womb to cut you apart and suck out your brains, you might be more sympathetic to the pro-life side.

OH WAIT A MINUTE -- NINE MONTH FETUSES AREN'T HUMAN BEINGS! Sorry, I forgot - boy - that was a little scary there for a minute before I remembered! Whew!

P.S.: You have no clue what my opinion is on capital punishment.

Dorian Gray

12th October 2004, 11:20 PM

You're completely confused - murder by definition is an illegal killing - you're confusing murder with killings in general. Okay. Then killing an abortion doctor is murder. and abortion itself isn't.

If you were a woman, well, you'd be a c-word, but also you might be a little more sympathetic to this whole issue.

One of the standard non-arguments of the pro-abortionists, but here let me try: if you were a nine month fetus being subjected to a partial-birth abortion - as the cutting and suction devices came into the womb to cut you apart and suck out your brains, you might be more sympathetic to the pro-life side. I wish you would pay attention. I AM pro-life.

P.S.: You have no clue what my opinion is on capital punishment. I was right before, and I'm right now. You are FOR capital punishment for violent crimes.

Patrick

12th October 2004, 11:27 PM

I was right before, and I'm right now. You are FOR capital punishment for violent crimes.

You're wrong - as usual. I have never been able to make up my mind on that issue (about the only such issue) and for that reason decided that if I were called to serve on a jury where execution was a possible penalty, that I would be asked to be excused for that reason.

Patrick

12th October 2004, 11:33 PM

Okay. Then killing an abortion doctor is murder. and abortion itself isn't.

More brain entropy on your part. I mentioned the legal definition because you brought it up (in a confused way). What's legal is obviously of great practical importance, but the real issue is the moral domain, wherein there is still potentially a great distinction to be made between killing a mass muderer by execution (as for example the abortionist shooters see their actions) and killing a completely innocent fetus

AWPrime

13th October 2004, 01:17 AM

It sounds to me that you just changed your argument.

But how can you be sure that the fetus is or can be innocent?

Kodiak

13th October 2004, 04:38 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Your argument was ridiculous, it deserved a ridiculous (but accurate) analogy.

If my argument is as ridiculous as you claim, how about actually refuting it with something besides some half-a$$ed analogy.

shanek

13th October 2004, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by Patrick
You were OK up to the last sentence. Since you have no idea where the line should be drawn, you should lean on the side of pro-life.

Even though the pro-life "solutions" clearly won't work?

Since a wrong decision one way leads to the death of a human being,

And what would a War on Abortion do? Look at how many people are killed in the name of the War on Drugs.

Also, the drug analogy is bogus because (1) the practice of abortion is much more subjectable to control than say selling crack on the street,

Really? How?

(2) it's like saying states might as well give up on laws against murder because murders (lots of them) have always happened in spite of the laws.

That's patently ridiculous. The argument is NOT that abortions would happen anyway; it's that a War on Abortion would create much more loss of freedom and even death than other solutions, as EVIDENCED by the War on Drugs.

Why aren't these people calling for an elimination to the adoption laws so pregnant mothers would consider that a more viable option?

Why aren't they calling for an end to every unconstitutional function of government so we can get the Income Tax down to a level where mothers would be better able to afford to keep the baby?

And an additional benefit to these is that a child with more active parents is less likely to grow up to have an unwanted pregnancy to begin with. A child that is adopted by loving parents is therefore much less likely to be in a situation to even consider abortion than a child who moves from one foster home to another until she's 18. Same thing with a child who lives in a home where one parent can afford to stay home full-time and be active in the child's everyday life.

But no, no one considers anything like that. It's either ban all abortions, or keep the status quo. Neither "solution" actually works.

shanek

13th October 2004, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by Patrick
You're completely confused - murder by definition is an illegal killing

Oh, by the way, nothing in the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to prosecute murders. That's a state issue.

Mona

13th October 2004, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Even though the pro-life "solutions" clearly won't work?

And what would a War on Abortion do? Look at how many people are killed in the name of the War on Drugs.

Pragmatic concerns also inform my poisition on criminalizing abortion. Of course, it would be feasible to do so after the first trimester, when surgical abortion is complicated. But not feasible to criminalize the use of a simple suction-aspiration kit that could be employed by any well-trained midwife or feminist to end an 8 wk pregnancy, and certainly not with abortion by pill or injection (in the early months) likely to become the rule rather than the exception. Criminalizing pills for any reason would carry all the negative consequences of the WoD.

Mona

13th October 2004, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Okay. Then killing an abortion doctor is murder. and abortion itself isn't.

As a legal matter, that is entirely true. However, people also often use the word "murder" to emphasize the immorality of killing that may have state sanction. For example, few are going to object to saying Hitler and Stalin murdered millions of people, even if under their respective dictatorships it was legal for them to do so. When one believes killing is immoral, the rhetoric will often reflect that.

shanek

13th October 2004, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Mona
As a legal matter, that is entirely true. However, people also often use the word "murder" to emphasize the immorality of killing that may have state sanction.

And how is the Federal government sanctioning abortion?

Tricky

13th October 2004, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by shanek
And how is the Federal government sanctioning abortion?
Don't you know? Our nanny government is like the ants in White's The Once and Future King. "Everything not forbidden in mandatory."

Mona

13th October 2004, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by shanek
And how is the Federal government sanctioning abortion?

Well, I was not addressing abortion in that statement; I went on to discuss Hitler and Stalin's killing of millions. Even there, where the tyrant's word was law, decent and reasonable people will still employ the word "murder" to describe these killings.

The U. S. federal govt, via the judicial branch, has merely invalidated all legal protection up to the moment of birth that any of the 50 states may wish to extend. That is not precisely a "sanction" of abortion, but a person could rhetorically claim they legalized "murder" in the same sense they might say Stalin murdered those who were convicted in his Show Trials. As a legal matter neither is accurate, but most of us know what folks mean they mean when they say it.

Dorian Gray

13th October 2004, 09:07 PM

Mona, I was just wondering how Godwin's Law could possibly be invoked in a thread largely about abortion, and thanks to you, I know.

Mona

13th October 2004, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Mona, I was just wondering how Godwin's Law could possibly be invoked in a thread largely about abortion, and thanks to you, I know.

Huh?I did not even remotely imply that anyone is a Nazi.

Dorian Gray

13th October 2004, 09:49 PM

Godwin's Law:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Mona

14th October 2004, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Godwin's Law:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

First, I have not compared anyone to Nazis or Hitler. Rather, I have accurately pointed out that both Hitler and Stalin legally killed people, and many of us refer to their victims as having been murdered. My discussion was about how people describe what these two men did.

Second, there are instances in which a direct comparison to Hitler or Nazis is valid. If, as is the case, a scholarly book has been written documenting the anti-smoking crusade Hitler undertook and comparing it to contemporary American public policy on that subject, a mindless invocation of Godwin's Law should not foreclose discussion of the book and its subject.

Mona

14th October 2004, 08:12 AM

And another thing, Dorian: While I have not done so, a thread about abortion legitmately does invite direct comparisons to Hitler, due to some history that, again, I have not raised. Hitler had an abortion policy in the context of his irrational and semi-religious eugenics enthusiasms. In its early years, Planned Parenthood was publicly supportive of his goals, unto having on its board the man who wrote the model racial purity law Hitler adopted.

Now, I don't run around claiming that today's Planned Parenthood is a Nazi front group, and agree that those who make that argument are ridiculous. But neither do I think discussions of its early support for Hitler-style eugenics is illegitimate, because those are the historical facts.

TillEulenspiegel

14th October 2004, 09:01 PM

You know Mona the more You speak, the less inclined I am to believe Your self description as a Libertarian.
You believe in the billions of dollars spent on a useless war rather the that money either being spent wisely or not collected at all. You would criminalize abortion. I wonder what are your views on drug use and taxes? The core belief of Libertarians is " Free will" not subjugation.

I think You should just declare Yourself a Conservative and an intrusive one at that , and let the matter go.

Dorian Gray

14th October 2004, 10:14 PM

the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler Involving. Not to, involving. You made a comparison involving Hitler. Therefore, Godwin.

You seem to be the one who 'invited' Hitler to this topic. This is because, in my opinion, you don't have anything more recent, relevant or substantial to offer. Hitler was unmistakably evil, and any comparison involving him will invariably be unfavorable. That is why any comparison involving him, no matter how innocuous-seeming, is a sign of a losing argument. Example:

You should eat an egg. It's good for you.
*Eggs are bad for you. They're disgusting.
No, they are actually high in protein. Just don't eat the yolk.
*Hitler ate eggs.

As bad as this analogy is, it still illustrates my point mightily.

I also agree with what Till has said. You are a conservative. Go to the Libertarian web site and read the platform. Note how you fail to mesh. Admit it to yourself.

Mona

15th October 2004, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
You know Mona the more You speak, the less inclined I am to believe Your self description as a Libertarian.
You believe in the billions of dollars spent on a useless war rather the that money either being spent wisely or not collected at all. You would criminalize abortion. I wonder what are your views on drug use and taxes? The core belief of Libertarians is " Free will" not subjugation.

I think You should just declare Yourself a Conservative and an intrusive one at that , and let the matter go.

Well, I suspect the conservatives would not have me, given my views on drug policy, gay marriage, and other issues. Further, I have repeatedly stated I have pragmatic concerns that preclude my believing in criminalizing abortion in the first trimester, but even if that were not the case, unless you are ready to claim that Nat Hentoff and Christopher Hitchens are conservatives, neither am I. I agree with both, particularly the latter, some 90% of the time (and both are willing to consider criminalizing abortion).

That you think ending the murderous reign of a tyrant who housed terrorists, who had used WMDs, and who was salivating to have them again, and who had not one kind thought for individual rights...that you think I am conservative for approving of ending his dictatorship says quite a bit about your narrow and simplistic understanding of political theory.

Finally, I would refer you to F. A. Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty , including his last chapter "Why I Am Not a Conservative." I agree with him overwhelmingly (but not on the issue of conscription, I oppose a draft for any reason at all). I am a libertarian who is a hawk on the subject of Islamic religious fanatics who wish to kill Westerners as well as Muslim "heretics."

Mona

15th October 2004, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Involving. Not to, involving. You made a comparison involving Hitler. Therefore, Godwin.

You seem to be the one who 'invited' Hitler to this topic. This is because, in my opinion, you don't have anything more recent, relevant or substantial to offer. Hitler was unmistakably evil, and any comparison involving him will invariably be unfavorable. That is why any comparison involving him, no matter how innocuous-seeming, is a sign of a losing argument. Example:

You should eat an egg. It's good for you.
*Eggs are bad for you. They're disgusting.
No, they are actually high in protein. Just don't eat the yolk.
*Hitler ate eggs.

As bad as this analogy is, it still illustrates my point mightily.

I also agree with what Till has said. You are a conservative. Go to the Libertarian web site and read the platform. Note how you fail to mesh. Admit it to yourself.

Dorian: Do you think those who say Hitler "murdered" millions of people should be criticized for using the word "murdered?" Yes or no.

Patrick

15th October 2004, 07:37 PM

Oh, by the way, nothing in the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to prosecute murders. That's a state issue.

You're pretty much wrong there - The Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 gives the federal government the ability to prosecute and attempt to get the death penalty for over 60 offenses, including various specified murders. It's a state AND federal issue.

Mona

15th October 2004, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Patrick
Oh, by the way, nothing in the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to prosecute murders. That's a state issue.

You're pretty much wrong there - The Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 gives the federal government the ability to prosecute and attempt to get the death penalty for over 60 offenses, including various specified murders. It's a state AND federal issue.

Patrick, Shanek is correct. Can you cite the provision of the Constitution that empowers Congress to legislate in all those 60 areas? Let's start with being a "drug kingpin." Where does the Constitution state that Congress has the power to legislate the cultivation, sale or use of mood-altering chemicals, or to impose ANY penalty in that area?

The federal govt has, with the acommodation of courts both liberal and conservative, expanded into areas that would make the founders turn in their graves.

Murder is a common law offense that was, until relatively recently, the purview of the states. Where does the Constitution say it should be federalized?

Mona

15th October 2004, 08:09 PM

Just for general info if anyone cares, I am not now, and never have been, a member of the Libertarian Party. It may be noticed I always emply the lower-case "L" in describing myself as a "libertarian."

If anyone would like to me to expand on the distinctions here, I will do so. But I assume most politically astute individuals understand the difference. In any case, the LP's platform is not necessarily reflective of my own views (tho it very often is), or those of many other libertarians.

TillEulenspiegel

15th October 2004, 08:39 PM

Mona:"That you think ending the murderous reign of a tyrant who housed terrorists, who had used WMDs, and who was salivating to have them again, and who had not one kind thought for individual rights...that you think I am conservative for approving of ending his dictatorship says quite a bit about your narrow and simplistic understanding of political theory."

Simplistic indeed.. You mention Hentoff and Hitchens, both fairly critical thinkers with a jaundiced eye toward all they don't seem to exhibit the political or moral relativism that You seem to demonstrate. Your grasping at a moral imperative for ousting Saddam and Your position regarding Islam and terrorism altho poignant seems to exhibit a kind of confusion best demonstrated by first year Poli-Sci students. That doesn't mean that You don't express yourself well, rather the fabric You attempt to weave in to whole cloth winds up being a crazy quilt with the most reactionary elements of western imperial thought and feminism as amazon.

Theory is crap especially in the "social sciences". Example and practice is the reality.

Speciousness cannot disguise lack of content.

edit to add : I was wrong You demonstrate the attributes of a neocon..apoligies to all true consertives.

Mona

15th October 2004, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Simplistic indeed.. You mention Hentoff and Hitchens, both fairly critical thinkers with a jaundiced eye toward all they don't seem to exhibit the political or moral relativism that You seem to demonstrate. Your grasping at a moral imperative for ousting Saddam and Your position regarding Islam and terrorism altho poignant seems to exhibit a kind of confusion best demonstrated by first year Poli-Sci students. That doesn't mean that You don't express yourself well, rather the fabric You attempt to weave in to whole cloth winds up being a crazy quilt with the most reactionary elements of western imperial thought and feminism as amazon.

Theory is crap especially in the "social sciences". Example and practice is the reality.

Speciousness cannot disguise lack of content.

edit to add : I was wrong You demonstrate the attributes of a neocon..apoligies to all true consertives. [/B]

Um, ok.

Mona

15th October 2004, 11:02 PM

Whew, I'm not a "true conservative." TillEulenspiegel had to "apologize" for suggesting I was, others insist I am.

Myself, I just go along opposing those who would kill, fine, or imprison those who have not directly harmed another human being.

Dorian Gray

15th October 2004, 11:28 PM

All other reasons aside, I don't think preventing Saddam from killing people in Iraq is a good reason for us to invade, in the sense that there are many dictators in the world who are killing their own people, some with nukes, and we don't invade those countries. Or put another way, once Bush has been stripped of his resolution justification (because Bush later relegated the UN, meaning he used it to benefit him when it suited him but ignored it once it didn't), his WMD justification (because there aren't any) and his grave threat justification (because there weren't any WMDs), all you're left with is removing a dictator who kills his own people. Nothing makes Iraq particularly important or pressing in that regard relative to another country, such as Somalia, Sudan, Iran, China, etc.

Also, if you reread your last sentence carefully, you have to admit that you oppose Bush, since he has imprisoned people who have not directly harmed another human being.

Dorian Gray

15th October 2004, 11:30 PM

(None of which are based upon any content I've posted, you've chosen to make this personal, when the ONLY thing you know about me is my status as a minority). How the hell would I know what race you are? It's the internet.

Now that I DO know that you are minority, unless you are lying which I haven't ruled out, it's nice to know that when faced with adversity, you immediately play the race card rather than offer an argument of substance.

You are one person. Not "minorities". I can, and did in fact, refer to you and you alone as a spinning monkey.

I made fun of your name, which I freely admit. I felt it was ironic that you have the word "research" in your name when you seem to avoid research like you avoid arguments of substance. However, I did it once, so there aren't "ones", there's one.

I attributed mental deficiencies to you, which I also freely admit. Not falsely. Officially, they are rhetorical hyperbole. Unofficially, they are true, and they are also based on content you have posted - what else could they possibly have been based on?

Mona:
Most pro-life groups FORMALLY do not limit themselves to opposition to abortion; the label "anti-abortion" would not be sufficiently comprehensive and thus would be inaccurate.

Pro-lifers have been in the forefront of opposition to assisted suicide, infanticide and decisions like that of of Terry Schiavo's husband to disconnect her life support. Honestly, you are not helping your case here. I generalized the term "pro-life" to include pro-all life, and asked how someone could be anti abortion but pro-death penalty. You chided me for using the term "incorrectly". However, your argument here seems to indicate that my generalization of this term was correct. Therefore, my question stands.

"Pro-choice", on the other hand, has almost exclusively been applied to abortion.

Dorian: Do you think those who say Hitler "murdered" millions of people should be criticized for using the word "murdered?" Yes or no. I sense a trick. Technically, Hitler probably didn't murder very many people - his underlings did. But as for semantics, I don't really see your point. He, through his orders/policies/speeches/etc. can be said to have "murdered" people and I have no problem with that. But you see, I am looking at the situation through my value system.

Shanek:
Actually, it seems to me that it's evidence that Scott Ritter was right and that they'd been destroyed soon after the Gulf War and so the sanctions themselves weren't even necessary. I disagree. I think the sanctions were preventing Saddam from building up the programs. In fact, I think that Saddam somehow simultaneously wanted the UN to think he had no weapons and his country to think he did. Externally, to the UN, his lack of WMDs would mean that sanctions would be lifted and he could move freely and make money. Internally, in Iraq, his possession of WMDs would cow the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds like a foot on the throat, an ever present threat that allowed Saddam to maintain power.

What I think happened is that he did the internal part so well, with the help of Iraqi scientists, that he fooled people outside Iraq as well as inside.

Patrick

16th October 2004, 01:27 AM

Murder is a common law offense that was, until relatively recently, the purview of the states. Where does the Constitution say it should be federalized?

Since you appear not to be one of the Lurch Lower Lifeforms infecting this place, I'll take your question seriously. I am actually bothered whenever the federal government gets into these areas. The LLLs are of course hypocritical: eg they became born-again states righters when the USSC intervened in the florida 2000 presidential vote, but applauded when it overturned texas state sodomy laws. (Note to idiot gallery: I'm speaking here about federalism - all libertarians agree that homosexuals can screw themselves silly if that's what they want.)

The federal government may have a constitutional leg to stand on, since most of the crimes are such as killing the president or a high federal official - the effective protection of the federal officers established in the Constitution may be view as an implied power.
In any case, at least the Act was passed by congress, which gives it a democratic if not constitutional imprimatur. Contrast this with the actions of the USSC, which as I 've said for thirty years has ignored the constitution, from the Free Religious Expression clause, to the second amendment, to the Equal Protection Clause, etc, whenever it suits their personal ideology, or maybe even their mood. Anyone sincerely concerned about the decline of the rule of the constitution should focus their attention squarely there - everything else is peanuts.

shanek

16th October 2004, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by Patrick
You're pretty much wrong there - The Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 gives the federal government the ability to prosecute and attempt to get the death penalty for over 60 offenses, including various specified murders. It's a state AND federal issue.

An act of Congress is NOT the Constitution. The Constitution only allows for three Federal crimes: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. Anything else is left to the states.

shanek

16th October 2004, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Mona
Just for general info if anyone cares, I am not now, and never have been, a member of the Libertarian Party. It may be noticed I always emply the lower-case "L" in describing myself as a "libertarian."

If anyone would like to me to expand on the distinctions here, I will do so. But I assume most politically astute individuals understand the difference. In any case, the LP's platform is not necessarily reflective of my own views (tho it very often is), or those of many other libertarians.

Or even many Libertarians. You should have seen the discussions we had this past convention when we rewrote the platform...

shanek

16th October 2004, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by Patrick
Since you appear not to be one of the Lurch Lower Lifeforms infecting this place, I'll take your question seriously. I am actually bothered whenever the federal government gets into these areas. The LLLs are of course hypocritical: eg they became born-again states righters when the USSC intervened in the florida 2000 presidential vote, but applauded when it overturned texas state sodomy laws. (Note to idiot gallery: I'm speaking here about federalism - all libertarians agree that homosexuals can screw themselves silly if that's what they want.)

Federalism does allow for restrictions on the states by the Constitution. Article I Section 10 and the 14th Amendment are just a couple of examples of this. In particular, the 14th Amendment says that "[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." States cannot infringe on your basic liberty.

In any case, at least the Act was passed by congress, which gives it a democratic if not constitutional imprimatur.

We're not a democracy. We ARE a Constitutional republic. Or, at least, we're supposed to be.

Anyone sincerely concerned about the decline of the rule of the constitution should focus their attention squarely there - everything else is peanuts.

I wouldn't go that far, but it is a valid issue. Article III is the shortest of the Constitutional Articles that cover the three branches of government, so it's the branch that's the least constrained.