|
Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/17/2005 12:16:31 AM · #1 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
There are so many I figured it could use a thread :)
This is one of my favorites from recently.
NEWSWEEK reports that George W. Bush, appearing before a right-to-life rally in Tampa, Florida on June 17, stated:
"We must always remember that all
human beings begin life as a feces. A feces is a living being in the eyes of
God, who has endowed that feces with all of the rights and God-given
blessings of any other human being."
Bush repeated his error at least a dozen times, before realizing that he had used the word 'feces" when he meant to say "fetus." |
Yeah, June 17, 2004. It took you a year-and-a-half to pounce on this? Your reflexes must be slowing down. |
Ummm... did you look at the date/time of his post?
08/26/2004 06:01:35 PM
~Terry
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 11:59:03 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by JEM:
Mad, I understood you were developing a plan to block worldwide terrorist activity. |
Ya I gave up on that so I could focus my full attention to keeping gays from getting married. |
Have you made any progress yet? |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 11:54:53 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
There are so many I figured it could use a thread :)
This is one of my favorites from recently.
NEWSWEEK reports that George W. Bush, appearing before a right-to-life rally in Tampa, Florida on June 17, stated:
"We must always remember that all
human beings begin life as a feces. A feces is a living being in the eyes of
God, who has endowed that feces with all of the rights and God-given
blessings of any other human being."
Bush repeated his error at least a dozen times, before realizing that he had used the word 'feces" when he meant to say "fetus." |
Yeah, June 17, 2004. It took you a year-and-a-half to pounce on this? Your reflexes must be slowing down. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 02:20:58 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Abortion is a tough case because defining "another" is under great question and debate and opinion.
If the fetus is "another" than Libertarianism would say the mother could not exterminate the fetus' life.
If it is not "another" than Libertarianism would say that I could not dictate the mother's actions.
Libertarianism in no way makes any statement regards to whether or not a fetus is "another human being". The Libertarian view determines how to proceed regarding human beings and does not define human being. Which is the crux of the issue at hand with abortion. |
On this we agree. It is the determinination of what is a human being and in my judgement, that is an individual decision up to birth. Then it is no longer subjective.
This is not to say that I approve of nor even condone actions against unborn children, only that I believe it to be a personal matter. One that has agonizing repercussions for many that have faced this difficult choice. This, to me, is a Libertarian view. Individual choice, individual responsibility. This is much different than your reply whereby the allusion was made that there is no difference between the termination of a pregnancy vs. the extermination of the jewish race. These are separate matters to me. Perhaps not to you. But there are to me. I say they are different matters because of my definition of what constitute an individual human being. I say it is after birth, where as you say it is at conception.
edit for spelling and to remove the word inciteful
Message edited by author 2005-12-16 14:32:08. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 02:00:11 PM · #5 |
I don't know how exactly "Libertarian" actually equates with the concept of "liberal" ex-US, but from Wikipedia:
Liberalism:
"Cultural liberalism generally opposes government regulation of gambling, sex, prostitution, the age of consent, abortion, birth control, terminal illness, alcohol, and marijuana and other controlled substances. Most liberals oppose some or all government intervention in these areas. The Netherlands, in this respect, may be the most liberal country in the world today."
Libertarianism seems quite a lot more US-centric, and tends more twards being a political system rather than a description of political attitude:
"Libertarian perspectives on abortion: The abortion debate among libertarians centers around whether the fetus is a person (and thus has its own rights) or a part of the mother's body (in which case it is subject to her wishes). A secondary controversy is the role of the state in regulating abortion, if it is in fact immoral. Most on both sides of this debate agree that this should be settled by the states instead of the federal government, thereby invalidating Roe v. Wade on grounds that the federal government violates traditional state self-police powers. Libertarians who are not states-rights advocates, on the other hand, prefer for the issue to be settled at whatever level of government (or no level of government, if they are anarcho-capitalists) will reach the best decision. "
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:51:41 PM · #6 |
Thus, your position of "An individual does not have the right to determine whether another human being constitutes an individual" (let me phrase this a little more clearly by adding that a determine that a human being does not constitute an individual)
Libertarianism does not say (Go Godwin Go) that NAZI's could kill Jews and no issue of objection could be raised. Because Libertarianism does not support one's rights against another's well being.
Abortion is a tough case because defining "another" is under great question and debate and opinion.
If the fetus is "another" than Libertarianism would say the mother could not exterminate the fetus' life.
If it is not "another" than Libertarianism would say that I could not dictate the mother's actions.
Libertarianism in no way makes any statement regards to whether or not a fetus is "another human being". The Libertarian view determines how to proceed regarding human beings and does not define human being. Which is the crux of the issue at hand with abortion.
Originally posted by "flash":
One that I respect, but am not prepared to enforce against another |
But one you are okay with allowing another enforce upon a 3rd party?
Originally posted by "flash":
I simply believe that the choice is individual, when it applies to the unborn. |
Which individual....is there one or two individuals at hand? if there is one, than I agree with you...if there are two, than I greatly disagree with you. I am of the belief that for most abortions there are two individuals.
Originally posted by "flash":
This I believe is more attuned to a Libertarian's politics. |
There is very little relation of Libertarian viewpoint one way or the other because all the necessary facts do not exist to apply it too. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:39:12 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
"that is an individual choice/responsibility"
Actually it's not...that is one of the fundamental issues we deal with in society. An individual does not have the right to determine whether another human being constitutes and individual. Every time we've made that decision we have ended in horror. To do so, is to infringe on another's life. Thus is very sancrosanct in regards to Libertarianism. |
Your sentence; "An individual does not have the right to determine whether another human being constitutes an individual." is the crux of the debate between you and I (and I believe legalbeagle as well). It is true as you state that; "An individual does not have the right to determine whether another human being constitutes an individual.", as long as that other individual is in fact an individual. Your definition of when life starts (human being=df) versus another's definition of when life starts (human being=df) is a separate argument from the Libertarian's view of "An individual does not have the right to determine whether another human being constitutes an individual", as it is written in the link post. However, I grant that some Libertarian's may believe (as you do) that the "individual/human being" is "in effect" at the point of conception, I argue that others would believe that the "individual/human being" is "in effect" at birth. Thus, your position of "An individual does not have the right to determine whether another human being constitutes an individual" as it relates to the abortion question, is not a Libertarian viewpoint, nor a Communist viewpoint, but rather a personal viewpoint. One that I respect, but am not prepared to enforce against another, specifically regarding an unborn. I understand your arguments for your position. I understand the morality of your position. I simply believe that the choice is individual, when it applies to the unborn. This I believe is more attuned to a Libertarian's politics. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 01:38:17 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
"that is an individual choice/responsibility"
Actually it's not...that is one of the fundamental issues we deal with in society. An individual does not have the right to determine whether another human being constitutes and individual. Every time we've made that decision we have ended in horror. To do so, is to infringe on another's life. Thus is very sancrosanct in regards to Libertarianism. |
Is mitochondrial DNA another human being?
Is a single cell?
First non-stem cell?
Etc etc - as Flash says, it depends on how you interpret something else as being a human being.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 12:57:20 PM · #9 |
"that is an individual choice/responsibility"
Actually it's not...that is one of the fundamental issues we deal with in society. An individual does not have the right to determine whether another human being constitutes and individual. Every time we've made that decision we have ended in horror. To do so, is to infringe on another's life. Thus is very sancrosanct in regards to Libertarianism.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 12:06:59 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Not really...
"Specifically, libertarian politics holds that a person's freedom to dispose of his body and private property as he sees fit should be unlimited as long as that person does not initiate coercion on the person or property of others. Libertarians define "coercion" as the use of physical force, the threat of such, or deception (fraud), that alters, or is intended to alter, the way individuals would use their body or property."
Nor do I see abortion as a victimless crime.
"Thus, they oppose the idea of government intervening in private affairs to forcibly prevent peaceful "victimless crimes."" |
I suspected your position to be this and thus added in my above post:
Originally posted by Flash:
except that you argue for the unborn child as though it were a full member of society |
However, as legalbeagle has asserted, it truly depends at what point ones defines life. You obviously define life while within the mother and have posted positions regarding nuerons firing. As a Libertarian, per my understanding, that is an individual choice/responsibility and thusly a choice for each to make for themselves. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 11:58:25 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by "Flash":
Your abortion position seems to be at odds with a Libertarian's viewpoint, except that you argue for the unborn child as though it were a full member of society. You may believe that to be the case for you, and as a Libertarian you would make that as a personal/individual choice, but not impose that view on others, as it would be their personal/individual choice to make. |
Not really...
"Specifically, libertarian politics holds that a person's freedom to dispose of his body and private property as he sees fit should be unlimited as long as that person does not initiate coercion on the person or property of others. Libertarians define "coercion" as the use of physical force, the threat of such, or deception (fraud), that alters, or is intended to alter, the way individuals would use their body or property."
Nor do I see abortion as a victimless crime.
"Thus, they oppose the idea of government intervening in private affairs to forcibly prevent peaceful "victimless crimes.""
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 11:50:00 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
As for me, I have realized that I am a "Libertarian Communist", this means I support libertarianism, in that we should be free to live so long as we don't infringe on another. (This get's blurry, as you must define "another" hence the abortion debate.) At the same time, I believe in helping people, and I believe in a system of shared furtherance of the common good. (Communism) However, I believe one must opt into communism, and not have it forced upon them. But anyone who does opt in and contribute according to their means will receive the communal support and benefit. And then if feasible, we might assist others outside the communal pact in hopes of having them see the benefits and becoming a contributor. |
Libertarianism = df
theSaj,
Your abortion position seems to be at odds with a Libertarian's viewpoint, except that you argue for the unborn child as though it were a full member of society. You may believe that to be the case for you, and as a Libertarian you would make that as a personal/individual choice, but not impose that view on others, as it would be their personal/individual choice to make.
I have long believed myself a part of the Libertarian political spectrum and was one of 2 people in Michigan that voted for Andre Moreau for President the year that Clinton first won the Presidency. It was 8 years of Clinton and the subsequent erosion of military morale (even Colin Powell refused to serve under Clinton - as in left the military and refused an administrative position) that convinced me that even though my politics are aligned with the Libertarians, my votes would most often go Republican. I tend to vote issues and support both major parties, however on the issues I'm most concerned with, the Republicans/Conservatives typically get the nod.
I am a staunch believer in individual responsibility and individual choice. I believe in charity and the volunteering of one's time and money to help those less fortunate. I do not believe it is in societies interest to have social dependency programs that are the tentacles of government, mandating who, what, where, when and why. I am strongly opposed to the waste of my tax dollars on "pork barrell" spending initives and believe that limited government is best, when it is truly limited. I have faith in my fellow man to make decisions for themselves, and perfer that they allow me to make mine. Regarding Tookie Williams, he paid the price for his choices as I would expect the same from me if I had made or ever make the same choices. It is called individual responsibility for individual choices. Alot like Libertarianism. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 10:56:26 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Conservative
- USA: small government, small taxes, government mainly for foriegn issues (trade, diplomacy, defense)
- UK: makes people think neo-NAZI
|
In the UK the Conservative party is centre-right, and conservatism is generally associated with them, rather than ultra-right wing (which is better labelled fascism). Both Conservative (right wing) and Labour (lef wing) parties are converging on policy with centrist policies. The third "centre" party, the Liberal Democrats, are being squeezed and are being forced into adopting some left wing policies as a means to differentiate their policies. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 10:28:46 AM · #14 |
Damn symantecs....
Liberal
- USA: advocate free lifestyles and immense government influence in daily life and strong socialist tendencies. Essentially, the government knows better than you philosophy
- UK: apparently, free market, small government (or what is commonly called Libertarian in the USA)
[Note, LB, you should express yourself as a Libertarian when dealing with Americans instead of a Liberal. They'll get a better idea of your stance then.]
Conservative
- USA: small government, small taxes, government mainly for foriegn issues (trade, diplomacy, defense)
- UK: makes people think neo-NAZI
National Socialist
- USA: makes people think neo-NAZI
As for me, I have realized that I am a "Libertarian Communist", this means I support libertarianism, in that we should be free to live so long as we don't infringe on another. (This get's blurry, as you must define "another" hence the abortion debate.) At the same time, I believe in helping people, and I believe in a system of shared furtherance of the common good. (Communism) However, I believe one must opt into communism, and not have it forced upon them. But anyone who does opt in and contribute according to their means will receive the communal support and benefit. And then if feasible, we might assist others outside the communal pact in hopes of having them see the benefits and becoming a contributor.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:57:35 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Flash:
. My point in the post was that each side, if sincere enough in their attempt to understand the other side, could find elements of truth in both postings. |
My point, is that in a lot of what people see, they see no truth and simply rhetoric. *shrug*
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 07:36:17 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Social conservatism is a belief in traditional morality and social mores and the desire to preserve these in present day society, often through civil law or regulation. |
Thanks - I mis-wrote. conservatism slipped in there.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 01:18:36 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I believe in economic liberalism (free market capitalism), but social conservatism (protect the poor in society from starvation/illness/lack of education - socialistic responsibility (again - without the US historical connotations)). |
Social conservatism is a belief in traditional morality and social mores and the desire to preserve these in present day society, often through civil law or regulation. Social change is generally regarded as suspect, while social values based on tradition are generally regarded as tried, tested and true. Its opponents (incorrectly ) commonly associate it with conservative religious groups, militarism and nationalism.
Taking this definition and applying it to monetary policy and taxation.
Social change supported through removing money from one group to give to another at the point of a gun is considered suspect.
Socialistic responsibility falls on the individual that suffers from starvation/lack of education/illness.
Starvation.....I support local efforts like the Salvation Army or the Red Cross, supported at my discretion. I do not support government enforced support at the point of a gun (taxation).
Illness....I support, once again The Red Cross, United Way and several other organizations designed to help the indigent...by choice. I do not support government forced support (taxation) UNLESS in a state of national emergency like Katrina or the Avian Flu.
Education...I support the right of any person to have access to information that can educate them. I do not support forcing the population, at the point of a gun (taxation) to build institutions to warehouse children and try to teach them how to interact sexually, how to be good government socialists or how to rely on others to help them do what they should do for themselves.
Efforts to force me, at the point of a gun, to behave socially like your agenda says I should (minus killing or denying others their liberty) is morally reprehensible and against the very nature of free choice.
Message edited by author 2005-12-15 13:19:28. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 01:10:14 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by hokie:
I have not met anyone that impresses me enough for me to turn over my rights to them because...gasp..they are just so much smarter, wiser and more sensitive. |
My opinions have become better informed and I am more aware of the basis of contrary views as a consequence of these debates. The community here is pretty broadly based and good for debate. Eg There are no church going Christians in my social circle, let alone Young Earth Creationists. I know no-one who seriously supports the death penalty, and no-one who cares enough to seriously object to abortion. I know no-one who would dismiss evolution out of hand.
It is good to see some alternative views on life and challenge them and myself.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 01:02:11 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by hokie:
BTW....that isn't liberalism, communism, socialism or facism...so don't try to stereotype it ...thank you very much :-) |
Not a stereotype - liberal means something different in the US, I think. Liberal (untainted by US historical connotations) means free market - no govt intervention. Opposite is conservatism (not to be tainted by the policies of the UK political party with the same name).
I believe in economic liberalism (free market capitalism), but social conservatism (protect the poor in society from starvation/illness/lack of education - socialism (again - without the US historical connotations)).
Message edited by author 2005-12-15 13:03:36.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 12:47:51 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I think this is part of the problems with unions. As you put it, the lowest denominator. When Joe NoDoesWork can't be fired and gets the same raise. Why should Sam WorkVeryHard continue to do so? |
That has been my experience. However, to be fair, there are many hard working individuals that are exemplary employees and would be an attribute to any organization. There simply are not as many as there could be due to the availability of not having to become one. Are there some upstanding hard working union individuals? Without a doubt and its has been a pleasure to work with them over the years. On the other hand, there have been too many that have cost their peers, work site, managers, and company many unnecessary dollars simply because they were defended successfully by socialistic minded representatives, and thus the entire group suffered.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "Flash":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 - Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but
trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
Actually most Republicans I know are not too fond of fair trade agreements with China and tend to have a very negative outlook on the situation. Oh, and I don't give a damn about Cuba being communist. But it's human rights record...that I do.
But I think we should open up trade because I think immersing capitalism to Cuba would actually lead to Fidel's removal.
Originally posted by "Flash":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 - Claiming to provide health care to all Iraqis is sound policy.
Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
Naw...makes perfect sense. Iraqi healthcare doesn't have the multitude of litigation and lawsuits. Thus it's quite cheap in comparison.
Originally posted by "Flash":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 - A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable
offense.
Actually, this one makes us realize how stupid liberals tend to be.
a) President Clinton was impeached not because he lied about an extramarital affair. But because he committed perjury in a civil "sexual harassment" court case brought against him by an government employee. He use the powers of the executive branch to interfere in the judicial branch thus preventing a U.S. citizen her right to due recourse. Sorry if you're too ignorant to know the facts. The media, made it about sex. The government kept it about facts. That is why he was impeached. But as he was popular and had popular public support (in part due to the media's constant misportrayal of the issue), they merely gave him a slap on the wrist.
Funny, Newt Gingrich was forced to resign for merely having an affair. He did not perjury himself, nor did he impede a citizen's right, nor breach the powers of his office.
That is why Republicans find this all quite hypocritical. And why when they read that statement they think you're completely misguided, uninformed, ignorant and poorly educated.
Originally posted by "Flash":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
a) the president did not lie, he made a decisions based on available evidence and opinion throughout world intelligence agencies.
b) quite a bit of stuff was found, but deemed to have alternative uses. Gee....how quaint.
c) still questions remained of certain elements being moved...they sure had plenty of time thanks to the Oil-for-scandal friends in France & Russia.
d) Was he wrong...quite possibly, but there is a difference between being mistaken and a blatant liar. Clinton was a blatant liar. Bush may or may not have been mistaken.
e) Memos circulated internally in the Bush Administration on what to do and how to address the possible situation of thousands of U.S. soldiers dying from chemical weapons (and the political ramifications that would resul) essentially show that there were real fears. If such fears existed, than said issue is "mistaken" and not a "lie".
Republicans think Democrats are morons because they keep representing the issue in such fashion when it is not accurate.
Originally posted by "Flash":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 - Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime for which
people should go to jail. Unless you're a wealthy conservative radio host.
Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.
Yeah...there's no difference between getting addicted to legal prescription pain meds due to an injury. And the illegal narcotic drug addict stealing and killing to feed his habit. Not saying that Rush was in the right. But there is a bit of a difference. And the attitude toward excessive use of prescription drugs is a mitigating factor. Though, no it does not absolve him of the issue.
|
I wish you would have commented on both groups. As it is written, it appears that your close minded. It would be interesting if you could defend the leftist sentences as a leftist with the same fervor. My point in the post was that each side, if sincere enough in their attempt to understand the other side, could find elements of truth in both postings.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 12:32:36 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by hokie:
BTW....that isn't liberalism, communism, socialism or facism...so don't try to stereotype it ...thank you very much :-) |
Hmm...he must be a support of that blasted startathomism philosophy. |
Yes....:-)
Listen....I know I am not the smartest, wisest, most sensitive human...
BUT....
I have not met anyone that impresses me enough for me to turn over my rights to them because...gasp..they are just so much smarter, wiser and more sensitive.
So....before anyone comes here and starts telling me that some social program or some political party or some religous leader has "figured it out" and I should abdicate my rights or..maybe just shave a few rights here or there...
...Save your breath.
The odds are you simply have an agenda....however well intentioned. And I don't need your agenda.
Schools? We live in the information age..If you want to learn about anything the only thing stopping you is your ability to read and your desire. Once I learned to read there was not a teacher that taught me anything I could not have learned myself by reading or attaching myself to a mentor/company that had...through experience..done something like what I wanted to do.
Government? Hmmmm..they provide roads...but I could simply walk, use a Jeep ..What in the world did we do before Eisenhower and the interstates? National Defense? Some organized army is a pretty good idea but not the empire building force some want us to have. A monetary system..Our company barters a lot of our services but...I guess a unified monetary system is useful although the printing of money is passe.
My point here? Self reliance is a difficult road but the alternative many would have us believe is reliance on a central big brother where people are more sensitive, smarter and just..well...where better people run things.
No thank you. Give me liberty or give me death...Learn it and live it.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 12:08:04 PM · #22 |
| Wasn't knocking him, just relating an observation. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 12:05:08 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Flash:
This example actually explains why conservatives feel the way they do. Washington DC as you so noted is a vast devide bewteen very rich and very poor. This is the result of the very social engineering that liberals preach. It is not even a state. It has the strictest gun control (yet highest crime), most people on welfare (socially dependent) and the worst corruption (city politics) od anywhere in the US. This degenerative downward spiral occurred while the Democrats were in office for 30+ years. Just don't see your example of a good reason to become a socilists society. having worked in a union enviornment for nearly 30 years, I am convinced that one main accomplishment is the reduction of the workforce to the LOWEST denominator rather than the highest. Since unions are socialistic entities, societies that adopt these principles become less empowered rather than more empowered. Tookie Williams and the streets of LA are yet another example. The results of which we have been discussing. |
News flash....I agree with Flash!
(Though, I actually lean toward what I call "Libertarian Communism". And that is a Libertarian bent with a communist option but with the condition that you must "opt into" the communion and remain a contributing member (within your means) in order to remain a member and receive said benefits.)
I think this is part of the problems with unions. As you put it, the lowest denominator. When Joe NoDoesWork can't be fired and gets the same raise. Why should Sam WorkVeryHard continue to do so?
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 12:01:09 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by hokie:
BTW....that isn't liberalism, communism, socialism or facism...so don't try to stereotype it ...thank you very much :-) |
Hmm...he must be a support of that blasted startathomism philosophy. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 12:00:26 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I didn't take offense at all. I just thought it was off base. Honestly, I could care less. |
Likewise, others felt the first post was off-base. Just where you stand and from what angle you view (photograph) the world.
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I don't like Democrats or Republicans...for the record. Both parties are completely full of crap. |
Of this we can both agree on...
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I would give examples such as E. Germany and the Czech Republic, where democracy was established by revolution without the significant loss of life. |
Yes, but it was also because there was a strong firm hand on the other side (NATO) essentially saying we'd intervene on their behalf. And the power of the USSR was in collapse and internal turmoil and unable to act. Much different scenario. Oh, BTW...it cost billions to achieve that freedom. And thankfully, very little bloodshed.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Hans Blix has commented on his belief that the Hussein regime would have collapsed in Iraq within a matter of years without the interference and deaths. |
Funny, I remember hearing the same thing years before about just applying sanctions and it'd only be a few years. Funny thing....that seldom is the case. If you look at most dictatorships they sustain for decades.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
There are few examples of successful intervention by one country in another where the purpose was to establish a democracy. |
U.S.A (intervention by France)
Germany
Japan
Korea
I wonder how many will die in Hong Kong from the exact opposite action?
Originally posted by "Flash":
2 - Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but
trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
|
Actually most Republicans I know are not too fond of fair trade agreements with China and tend to have a very negative outlook on the situation. Oh, and I don't give a damn about Cuba being communist. But it's human rights record...that I do.
But I think we should open up trade because I think immersing capitalism to Cuba would actually lead to Fidel's removal.
Originally posted by "Flash":
9 - Claiming to provide health care to all Iraqis is sound policy.
Providing health care to all Americans is socialism. |
Naw...makes perfect sense. Iraqi healthcare doesn't have the multitude of litigation and lawsuits. Thus it's quite cheap in comparison.
Originally posted by "Flash":
13 - A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable
offense. |
Actually, this one makes us realize how stupid liberals tend to be.
a) President Clinton was impeached not because he lied about an extramarital affair. But because he committed perjury in a civil "sexual harassment" court case brought against him by an government employee. He use the powers of the executive branch to interfere in the judicial branch thus preventing a U.S. citizen her right to due recourse. Sorry if you're too ignorant to know the facts. The media, made it about sex. The government kept it about facts. That is why he was impeached. But as he was popular and had popular public support (in part due to the media's constant misportrayal of the issue), they merely gave him a slap on the wrist.
Funny, Newt Gingrich was forced to resign for merely having an affair. He did not perjury himself, nor did he impede a citizen's right, nor breach the powers of his office.
That is why Republicans find this all quite hypocritical. And why when they read that statement they think you're completely misguided, uninformed, ignorant and poorly educated.
Originally posted by "Flash":
A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy. |
a) the president did not lie, he made a decisions based on available evidence and opinion throughout world intelligence agencies.
b) quite a bit of stuff was found, but deemed to have alternative uses. Gee....how quaint.
c) still questions remained of certain elements being moved...they sure had plenty of time thanks to the Oil-for-scandal friends in France & Russia.
d) Was he wrong...quite possibly, but there is a difference between being mistaken and a blatant liar. Clinton was a blatant liar. Bush may or may not have been mistaken.
e) Memos circulated internally in the Bush Administration on what to do and how to address the possible situation of thousands of U.S. soldiers dying from chemical weapons (and the political ramifications that would resul) essentially show that there were real fears. If such fears existed, than said issue is "mistaken" and not a "lie".
Republicans think Democrats are morons because they keep representing the issue in such fashion when it is not accurate.
Originally posted by "Flash":
15 - Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime for which
people should go to jail. Unless you're a wealthy conservative radio host.
Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery. |
Yeah...there's no difference between getting addicted to legal prescription pain meds due to an injury. And the illegal narcotic drug addict stealing and killing to feed his habit. Not saying that Rush was in the right. But there is a bit of a difference. And the attitude toward excessive use of prescription drugs is a mitigating factor. Though, no it does not absolve him of the issue.
Originally posted by "Alienyst":
Bushisms aside, and there are many of them, whenever I hear him speak what strikes me is he always seems to sound like he is almost drunk enough to fully slur his words, but not quite that drunk yet. One more drink would do it. |
And this is why I like him. I do the same thing sober. Have been accused at times of not being when I am. It's annoying. So whenever I see people unilaterally point to these speech failings and label them bushism's. The first thing that comes to mind.
Here's another !@#$% hypocritical liberal prick. Who makes fun of someone who has a speech disability. But god forbid a Republican conservative ever made the same mistake they'd be demonized. Thanks to Political Correctness a liberal !@#$% can make fun of disabilities with inscrutiny and at the same time condemn anyone for doing the same if they're a conservative. This is also why if a Republican makes a comment it's assumed racial. But if a Democrat and former member of the KKK makes a racist comment - oh, that wasn't racist. He's a Democrat. They can't be racist...
Have you ever thought of the fact, that you are basicly knocking a guy for a speech pattern difficulty. One that I happen to share with and had to suffer a ton of abuse because of.
Well....thank you oh great and wise and compassionate liberals.... |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/20/2024 08:29:23 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/20/2024 08:29:23 AM EDT.
|
