DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> President of US - A question for NON-Americans
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 85 of 85, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/30/2008 06:24:15 PM · #76
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I lived in The Ideal Realm for a few years but got evicted due to foreclosure. A cave might be all I'll be able to afford at the rate I'm going.

Not on this coast ... :-(
09/30/2008 06:44:33 PM · #77
Originally posted by pawdrix:
...A cave might be all I'll be able to afford at the rate I'm going.
Do you have Plato's number...maybe he needs a roommate?


I can't recommend the cave, despite its popularity. You may prefer to dwell in the Republic though. It's not the most luxurious place, but with a little effort and good will, you may grow to like it.
 09/30/2008 07:32:20 PM · #78
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I lived in The Ideal Realm for a few years but got evicted due to foreclosure. A cave might be all I'll be able to afford at the rate I'm going.

Not on this coast ... :-(


Mmmmm...I've always wanted a wood burning fire place and exposed stone walls but it's still a little pricey.

Honestly, I thought I WAS in Plato's Republic...? I'm not?

So, does that mean the guys in Congress and Exec Branch aren't Philosopher Kings?

I keep getting duped. Will it ever end?

Message edited by author 2008-10-01 11:09:04.
 10/01/2008 08:45:55 PM · #79
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by ralph:
from outside the US
seeing a change is very important right now
you had 8 years of bush which gave you a black eye
McCain would have the same turkeys running the show & Palin is a joke
Obama would be a change & Biden makes a ok #2

given how fraked up the US is right now
if McCain died in office would you want a Presidnet Palin ?
if Obama died in Office would you want a President Biden .??


I would take President Palin right now, but I don't mind waiting out 8 years of President McCain first.

And our 8 years of doing the right thing in spite of liberal world opinion does not give us a black eye.


Interfering in other country's governments is the right thing? Attacking other countries based on bogus information is the right thing?


When the information is believed correct and confirmed at the time -- then yes, liberating Iraq was the correct move.

But even without the WMD (evidences of which WERE found), we were correct based on the 1991 UN Resolutions that Saddam was in violation of.


Am I reading the title of the thread wrong, is it not

"President of US - A question for NON-Americans" ?

Why are you here sharing your brutally honest views where non-Americans were asked for their opinion? Wont it be more appropriate to sit out and listen to what people from other nations have to say without influencing them and attacking their belief? You talk about truth, then in all fairness, pay attention to what people say, and then analyze it. No good opinions can be formed forcefully.

ETA: And by the way, nobody asked any country whatsoever to play the chief prosecutor and judge and police and punish another on one basis first, and then justify it on other grounds later. Invading a country is a big step. And if it is based on a report that is 'confirmed at the time' but can turn out false later, common sense says to back it up with more intelligence. And if all internal intel still confirmed it, fix the intel system first before putting our and their people's lives at risk.

Message edited by author 2008-10-01 23:03:32.
 10/01/2008 10:10:31 PM · #80
Just a comment on capital punishment. It always surprises me that in debates on this topic, most people seem to be unaware of the fact that people are wrongly convicted of capital crimes quite often in our criminal justice system. Goodness only knows how many innocent people have been put to death. For that reason alone, in my opinion, the death penalty should be overturned.

Since 1973, 130 people in 26 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence.
 10/01/2008 10:21:05 PM · #81
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Just a comment on capital punishment. It always surprises me that in debates on this topic, most people seem to be unaware of the fact that people are wrongly convicted of capital crimes quite often in our criminal justice system. Goodness only knows how many innocent people have been put to death. For that reason alone, in my opinion, the death penalty should be overturned.

Since 1973, 130 people in 26 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence.


and that is a sad truth. however, most people will shrug such news/statistic off as...well, mere statistics - UNLESS it happened to them, or their loved ones.
 10/02/2008 08:57:02 AM · #82
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Just a comment on capital punishment. It always surprises me that in debates on this topic, most people seem to be unaware of the fact that people are wrongly convicted of capital crimes quite often in our criminal justice system. Goodness only knows how many innocent people have been put to death. For that reason alone, in my opinion, the death penalty should be overturned.

Since 1973, 130 people in 26 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence.


I find this position perfectly acceptable as long as those same people are against abortion on demand. My problem is not with whether or not one chooses to support one side or the other, just don't argue to save the poor innocent convicted adult and then argue to ignore the poor innocent unborn/newborn. If it is the innocent you are concerned about (and I think that is a nobel position), then perhaps the unborn might qualify as well.
 10/02/2008 11:28:18 AM · #83
Originally posted by Flash:

I find this position perfectly acceptable as long as those same people are against abortion on demand. My problem is not with whether or not one chooses to support one side or the other, just don't argue to save the poor innocent convicted adult and then argue to ignore the poor innocent unborn/newborn. If it is the innocent you are concerned about (and I think that is a nobel position), then perhaps the unborn might qualify as well.


Just a heads up... You are using innocent in two different senses (definitions) here so there is no valid comparison.

Also, if you are a christian, then you believe in original sin. If you believe in original sin then you know that no one is born 'innocent' (in your first sense of using the word).

Additionally, abortion has nothing to do with newborns. If something is newly born, then it wasn't aborted or miscarried. If you are going to argue the above, unborn is correct and newborn is not.
 10/07/2008 10:22:54 AM · #84
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by Flash:

I find this position perfectly acceptable as long as those same people are against abortion on demand. My problem is not with whether or not one chooses to support one side or the other, just don't argue to save the poor innocent convicted adult and then argue to ignore the poor innocent unborn/newborn. If it is the innocent you are concerned about (and I think that is a nobel position), then perhaps the unborn might qualify as well.


Just a heads up... You are using innocent in two different senses (definitions) here so there is no valid comparison.

Also, if you are a christian, then you believe in original sin. If you believe in original sin then you know that no one is born 'innocent' (in your first sense of using the word).

Additionally, abortion has nothing to do with newborns. If something is newly born, then it wasn't aborted or miscarried. If you are going to argue the above, unborn is correct and newborn is not.


Judith Palakoff was defending her position on capital punishment by referencing the fact that some innocent persons have been saved from execution, therefore all executions should be forbidden. I was simply explaining her position as it might relate to the unborn as well.

Regarding the question of unborn vs newborn, we would need to define at what point the unborn becomes the newborn. It is only at natural birth? What about "C" sections or premature births? Is it at 6 months or 7 or 8 or 9 months that an unborn is determined to be a newborn? Are those kept alive in incubators considered unborn or newborn? On abortion procedures - are those performed in the last trimester a muder or a termination? If a termination and not a murder, then how is it justified as a termination?

Regarding "original sin", that is an entirely different context of "innocent" that what my post was addressing. I was specifically defining "innocent" as having not wilfully commited a criminal act against man's laws - as it might relate to the innocent on death row. Likewise, the unborn/newborn certrainly have not committed a willful criminal act against man's laws, therefore they too, would be innocent and should net be terminated/murdered IF we are accepting Judith's premise.

Message edited by author 2008-10-07 10:27:05.
 10/07/2008 03:58:55 PM · #85
From the horse's mouth.

53-45 Obama in latest poll, I think it was CNN.

One month left before the US starts to regain the respect it once had internationally. No more cowboys in the White House please, ok. :)

Message edited by L2 - Continue here.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 03:25:34 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 03:25:34 PM EDT.