The W
Views: 101556138
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.12.07 1739
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Election 2004 results thread Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next(533 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (176 total)
JayJayDean
Scrapple
Level: 125

Posts: 1734/4730
EXP: 22390363
For next: 63864

Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#141 Posted on 4.11.04 1508.39
Reposted on: 4.11.11 1529.01
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    As far as using the military for a personal vendetta, it wasnt like the Iraqis tried to kill Jeb Bush, they tried to assasinate the President of the United States of America.


This is the second time you've referred to this, Stagger, and I'm struggling to remember an ACTUAL assassination attempt, which is the kind of this I'd like to think I'd remember. What are you taliking about?

(edited by JayJayDean on 4.11.04 1309)
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1647/1759
EXP: 4963147
For next: 29723

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1376 days
Last activity: 142 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#142 Posted on 4.11.04 1520.23
Reposted on: 4.11.11 1529.05
How Do We Know that Iraq Tried to Assassinate President George H.W. Bush?
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 2127/6373
EXP: 33988572
For next: 131526

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#143 Posted on 4.11.04 1526.35
Reposted on: 4.11.11 1529.08
http://www.c-span.org/iraq/history.asp

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON ON RETALIATION FOR IRAQI PLOT TO ASSASSINATE PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH
    June 26, 1993
    On April 13, 1993, several Iraqi nationals were arrested in Kuwait and charged with plotting an assassination attempt against former President Bush as he visited Kuwait that month. In June of that year, President Clinton retaliated for the attempted assassination by authorizing air strikes against Iraq. Next, President Clinton's address to the American people on the assassination plot and the bombing of Iraq.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm


    U.S. Navy ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service yesterday in what President Clinton said was a "firm and commensurate" response to Iraq's plan to assassinate former president George Bush in mid-April.

    The attack was meant to strike at the building where Iraqi officials had plotted against Bush, organized other unspecified terrorist actions and directed repressive internal security measures, senior U.S. officials said.

    Clinton, speaking in a televised address to the nation at 7:40 last night, said he ordered the attack to send three messages to the Iraqi leadership: "We will combat terrorism. We will deter aggression. We will protect our people."

    Clinton said he ordered the attack after receiving "compelling evidence" from U.S. intelligence officials that Bush had been the target of an assassination plot and that the plot was "directed and pursued by the Iraqi Intelligence Service."


http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/apr03/136382.asp?format=print


    Syria delivers Iraqi spy official
    Man tied to al-Qaida, Bush assassination plot
    Los Angeles Times
    Last Updated: April 25, 2003
    Washington - A longtime Iraqi spy official, suspected of involvement in a plot to assassinate former President George Bush and of having links to al-Qaida, was delivered to the Iraqi border by Syrian authorities Friday, U.S. officials said.

    Farouk Hijazi was taken into custody near the Syrian border, U.S. officials said, indicating new cooperation from a government that had been accused of harboring members of Saddam Hussein's deposed regime.

    Hijazi most recently served as Iraq's ambassador to Tunisia, and was formerly ambassador to Turkey. But he is of particular interest to the CIA and the Pentagon because he was "a lifelong member of the Iraqi Intelligence Service," known as Mukhabarat, a U.S. official said.





JayJayDean
Scrapple
Level: 125

Posts: 1735/4730
EXP: 22390363
For next: 63864

Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#144 Posted on 4.11.04 1543.58
Reposted on: 4.11.11 1544.07
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy and StaggerLee
    some stuff


Neat-o. (Not that it happened of course.) We were just discussing the fact that no one had taken a shot at a (sitting) President for a while { Sorry, you must be logged in to see this text! } I think if I could get odds on that I might take that bet.
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 202/449
EXP: 651411
For next: 8758

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 606 days
Last activity: 472 days
AIM:  
#145 Posted on 4.11.04 1623.42
Reposted on: 4.11.11 1629.01
    Originally posted by SirBubNorm
      Originally posted by A Fan
      Well, being Catholic for me is living by Jesus' teaching of helping out your fellow man and not codeming him. I have no time for Cardinals that slam Kerry for not being Catholic enough when they continue to hide and seek with priests who have molested children.


    Are you trying to be ironic? Your first statement says not to condemn, followed by a second statement that (maybe I'm reading too much into it) condemns.

    Look everyone is at some point a hypocrite, although some try harder at not being one than others. I agree you shouldn't condemn anyone, but if a public figure is representing himself as being part of the group, and he isn't following what the overall group believes, I do think it's fair (and not necessarily condemning) for the group to address what's in question.


Bush is a Methodist. So let's see how close his beliefs conform to those of the Methodist Church as a whole:


United Methodist Church social principles:

The Natural World

Therefore, let us recognize the responsibility of the church and its members to place a high priority on changes in economic, political, social, and technological lifestyles to support a more ecologically equitable and sustainable world leading to a higher quality of life for all of God's creation.


Energy Resources Utilization

Affirming the inherent value of nonhuman creation, we support and encourage social policies that are directed toward rational and restrained transformation of parts of the nonhuman world into energy for human usage and that de-emphasize or eliminate energy-producing technologies that endanger the health, the safety, and even the existence of the present and future human and nonhuman creation. Further, we urge wholehearted support of the conservation of energy and responsible development of all energy resources, with special concern for the development of renewable energy sources, that the goodness of the earth may be affirmed.


Right to Health Care

Health is a condition of physical, mental, social, and spiritual well-being, and we view it as a responsibilityópublic and private. Health care is a basic human right. Psalm 146 speaks of the God "who executes justice for the oppressed; who gives food to the hungry. The LORD sets the prisoners free;/ the LORD opens the eyes of the blind." It is unjust to construct or perpetuate barriers to physical wholeness or full participation in community.

We encourage individuals to pursue a healthy lifestyle and affirm the importance of preventive health care, health education, environmental and occupational safety, good nutrition, and secure housing in achieving health. We also recognize the role of governments in ensuring that each individual has access to those elements necessary to good health.


The Economic Community

163 We claim all economic systems to be under the judgment of God no less than other facets of the created order. Therefore, we recognize the responsibility of governments to develop and implement sound fiscal and monetary policies that provide for the economic life of individuals and corporate entities and that ensure full employment and adequate incomes with a minimum of inflation. We believe private and public economic enterprises are responsible for the social costs of doing business, such as employment and environmental pollution, and that they should be held accountable for these costs. We support measures that would reduce the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. We further support efforts to revise tax structures and to eliminate governmental support programs that now benefit the wealthy at the expense of other persons.

Corporate Responsibility

Corporations are responsible not only to their stockholders, but also to other stakeholders: their workers, suppliers, vendors, customers, the communities in which they do business, and for the earth, which supports them. We support the publicís right to know what impact corporations have in these various arenas, so that people can make informed choices about which corporations to support.

We applaud corporations that voluntarily comply with standards that promote human well-being and protect the environment.

Basic Freedoms and Human Rights

We hold governments responsible for the protection of the rights of the people to free and fair elections and to the freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, communications media, and petition for redress of grievances without fear of reprisal; to the right to privacy; and to the guarantee of the rights to adequate food, clothing, shelter, education, and health care. The form and the leaders of all governments should be determined by exercise of the right to vote guaranteed to all adult citizens. We also strongly reject domestic surveillance and intimidation of political opponents by governments in power and all other misuses of elective or appointive offices. The use of detention and imprisonment for the harassment and elimination of political opponents or other dissidents violates fundamental human rights. Furthermore, the mistreatment or torture of persons by governments for any purpose violates Christian teaching and must be condemned and/or opposed by Christians and churches wherever and whenever it occurs. For the same reason, we oppose capital punishment and urge its elimination from all criminal codes.

Military Service

We deplore war and urge the peaceful settlement of all disputes among nations. From the beginning, the Christian conscience has struggled with the harsh realities of violence and war, for these evils clearly frustrate Godís loving purposes for humankind. We yearn for the day when there will be no more war and people will live together in peace and justice. Some of us believe that war, and other acts of violence, are never acceptable to Christians. We also acknowledge that most Christians regretfully realize that, when peaceful alternatives have failed, the force of arms may be preferable to unchecked aggression, tyranny and genocide. We honor the witness of pacifists who will not allow us to become complacent about war and violence. We also respect those who support the use of force, but only in extreme situations and only when the need is clear beyond reasonable doubt, and through appropriate international organizations. We urge the establishment of the rule of law in international affairs as a means of elimination of war, violence, and coercion in these affairs.

We reject national policies of enforced military service as incompatible with the gospel. We acknowledge the agonizing tension created by the demand for military service by national governments. We urge all young adults to seek the counsel of the Church as they reach a conscientious decision concerning the nature of their responsibility as citizens. Pastors are called upon to be available for counseling with all young adults who face conscription, including those who conscientiously refuse to cooperate with a system of conscription.

We support and extend the ministry of the Church to those persons who conscientiously oppose all war, or any particular war, and who therefore refuse to serve in the armed forces or to cooperate with systems of military conscription. We also support and extend the Churchís ministry to those persons who conscientiously choose to serve in the armed forces or to accept alternative service.

National Power and Responsibility

Some nations possess more military and economic power than do others. Upon the powerful rests responsibility to exercise their wealth and influence with restraint. We affirm the right and duty of people of all nations to determine their own destiny. We urge the major political powers to use their nonviolent power to maximize the political, social, and economic self-determination of other nations rather than to further their own special interests. We applaud international efforts to develop a more just international economic order in which the limited resources of the earth will be used to the maximum benefit of all nations and peoples. We urge Christians in every society to encourage the governments under which they live and the economic entities within their societies to aid and work for the development of more just economic orders.

War and Peace

We believe war is incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ. We therefore reject war as a usual instrument of national foreign policy and insist that the first moral duty of all nations is to resolve by peaceful means every dispute that arises between or among them; that human values must outweigh military claims as governments determine their priorities; that the militarization of society must be challenged and stopped; that the manufacture, sale, and deployment of armaments must be reduced and controlled; and that the production, possession, or use of nuclear weapons be condemned. Consequently, we endorse general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Justice and Law

Persons and groups must feel secure in their life and right to live within a society if order is to be achieved and maintained by law. We denounce as immoral an ordering of life that perpetuates injustice. Nations, too, must feel secure in the world if world community is to become a fact.

Believing that international justice requires the participation of all peoples, we endorse the United Nations and its related bodies and the International Court of Justice as the best instruments now in existence to achieve a world of justice and law. We commend the efforts of all people in all countries who pursue world peace through law. We endorse international aid and cooperation on all matters of need and conflict. We urge acceptance for membership in the United Nations of all nations who wish such membership and who accept United Nations responsibility. We urge the United Nations to take a more aggressive role in the development of international arbitration of disputes and actual conflicts among nations by developing binding third-party arbitration. Bilateral or multilateral efforts outside of the United Nations should work in concert with, and not contrary to, its purposes. We reaffirm our historic concern for the world as our parish and seek for all persons and peoples full and equal membership in a truly world community.


Bush clearly differs from the Methodists on a whole host of issues, and yet the Methodist have never come out and denounced him. Why? Because we realize people of faith can differ on many beliefs and still all be Christians, still all have powerful faith we have no right to denounce.

We can argue over the Bible, argue over beliefs and tenents of faith, but we should never reject the right of someone to attend our Church or take communion. We should never take away the rights of people to worship how they see fit, marry how they see fit, and we should never forget we do not have the entire answer, and so we should therefore never pass laws (nationally or in the Church) that take away the right of someone to live differently from us.
SirBubNorm
Salami
Level: 33

Posts: 167/219
EXP: 223056
For next: 6126

Since: 2.1.02
From: Under the table

Since last post: 3653 days
Last activity: 3602 days
#146 Posted on 4.11.04 1652.00
Reposted on: 4.11.11 1654.07
    Originally posted by messenoir
    We can argue over the Bible, argue over beliefs and tenents of faith, but we should never reject the right of someone to attend our Church or take communion.


This I agree completely with.

    Originally posted by messenoir
    We should never take away the rights of people to worship how they see fit, marry how they see fit,



Are you saying that if someone wanted to marry 5 people, or people wanted to marry an animal, or a family member, we really should just let that go? If not what do you use to determine where to draw the line?

    Originally posted by messenoir
    and we should never forget we do not have the entire answer, and so we should therefore never pass laws (nationally or in the Church) that take away the right of someone to live differently from us.


I know I don't have all the answers. And I'm perfectly willing to accept that I've been wrong before and will be wrong again. But in order for there to be "wrong", there has to be a right.
Big G
Potato korv
Level: 53

Posts: 241/667
EXP: 1108489
For next: 48637

Since: 21.8.03
From: the people who brought you Steel Magnolias....

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 13 hours
#147 Posted on 4.11.04 1724.36
Reposted on: 4.11.11 1726.29
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by Net Hack Slasher
      There was this old guy on election night on CBS who was labeled "Elections Historian" can't remember his name, but really late in the night he said something that had to be said. There are two Americas, there is one that is progressive & understands society outlooks need to change. Then there's an America that refuses to move on, who sees the world changing around them and wants to stop the evolution of society...
    I had two thoughts about that.

    1. Unbiased media?

    2. He's right. The Democrats and the liberals really need to move on and get with the times and stop fighting Vietnam....


Heh Heh, Very Good

1. no such animal

I think the 2 arguments could be made in a lot of countries. Definitely here anyway. I think it is more of a case where factions of parties are progressive and other factions are staid, so you end up with a wishy washy half arsed approach.

On the election, I want to talk more about the swing towards the sitting government rather than just the fact that Bush won. A swing towards is generally a significant statement by the people "we've seen what you've done and we want you to continue". It also sends a damning message to the Dems that has been discussed here at length already. Not a 'rout' but definitely a powerful statement - although maybe I read too much into it as you guys don't have 'compulsory' elections.

At great risk of being howled down, some talk I've heard is that Americans don't like admitting they were wrong, and if they put in Kerry it would be saying to the world we were wrong to elect Bush in '00. Now I don't agree with this theory, but I have heard it being bandied around so I thought I would float it here for discussion.

I think with 2 party systems the result is generally decided by the middle 20% anyway. 40% of your voters wouldn't vote conservative if you held a gun to their heads, same but opposite for the liberals. Election goes to who maps and panders to the middle 20, or swingers, the best. Am I wrong about this in the US?

Also, props to messenoir's original post. That was one of the best Christian statements I have heard. Good to see not everyone in the Church has forgotten the old judge not lest ye be judged line. I have no problems with Christianity, but some of the interpretations and implementations of recent times, and over the ages, I disagree with.

And too many priests have turned out to be rock spiders, and that shit is about as wrong as you can go, regardless of your beliefs.

On my comment #1, I recently watched some old news reels of 'The Petrov Affair' (Russian spy and hsi wife defect to Australia and give evidence at a royal commision in 1953-4) and my god the voice over was biased. On the segment where the Russian embassy staff were recalled to Moscow, they were bemoaning that the staff's children would forget the freedom they had in Aust and inferred that the staff would be off to Siberia on their return.

However one argument often made is 'the last guardian of democracy is a free media'.

Shit - this is reaching Blog like proportions, just like to thank all contribs for the thread, its been very informative and interesting.

Later G
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 1121/2186
EXP: 7050584
For next: 138052

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#148 Posted on 4.11.04 1727.08
Reposted on: 4.11.11 1727.24
    Originally posted by Net Hack Slasher
    yet here at home we have the President of the United States voted into office because of fundamentalist religious groups.


This is just far too simplistic, and probably outright wrong.

Unfortunately, it might be the route some Democrats decide to go again, claiming the Republicans are being strung along by the "fundamentalist Christians." Same as they tried in the Reagan/Bush I years... when we never heard anything about them until after the election.

Maybe *I* am being too simplistic here but "here at home we?" Aren't you in Canada?
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 214

Posts: 5310/16402
EXP: 144942147
For next: 783273

Since: 9.12.01
From: „Éü„Éć„āĘ„ÉĚ„É™„āĻ

Since last post: 14 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#149 Posted on 4.11.04 1735.47
Reposted on: 4.11.11 1738.00
Geez, Eddie, if you think he's trolling, DON'T FEED HIM. Honestly.
JayJayDean
Scrapple
Level: 125

Posts: 1738/4730
EXP: 22390363
For next: 63864

Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#150 Posted on 4.11.04 1808.37
Reposted on: 4.11.11 1812.28
Well, headlines like Election reinforces U.S. religious divide and Moral values propel Bush to re-election could certainly lead one to believe that NHS isn't that far off from the truth. There definitely is some celebrating by some of those on the social right, as though this were simply a black-and-white social referendum and that it would be impossible for someone to believe that one candidate has the best social policies, another has the best domestic economic policies, and YET ANOTHER has the best foreign policies.
StingArmy
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 137/2096
EXP: 6256771
For next: 136028

Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 1 day
#151 Posted on 4.11.04 1842.00
Reposted on: 4.11.11 1843.44
Mess put it far better than I ever could a couple of pages ago, but I'm gonna try..

I feel that it's one thing to vote by your morals (i.e., doing the right thing, as one W so eloquently stated) and another totally different thing to vote by FAITH or by your RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. I mean, obviously if there's a candidate out there whose platform looks similar to the religious beliefs of most of the voting public, then a lot of those voters are going to vote for that candidate because, hey, he's gonna do things that my religion tells me is right. If people voted like Guru suggested and voted for what was best for the country, that would be ideal I think, but it's wholly unrealistic. People are going to vote for the guy whose "philosophy" most closely matches theirs. Unfortunately, this often equates to forcing your beliefs on everyone else. So basically I'm saying that I can't really fault people for voting by faith.

HOWEVER.. I CAN fault a candidate for trying to appeal to the voter on religious grounds or faith-based grounds. While it is the states that are putting up the ban against gay marriage, wasn't it GW that spoke out on banning gay marriages BEFORE these proposals were put to a vote? And what about the abortion issue? I mean, he couldn't make it any more clear that he believes these things are immoral and against what he has been "taught." But should that be good enough for establishing policy for a government? What ever happened to completely separating government from church doctrine?

If you have candidates campaigning like this and people voting like this for long enough, our country is going to turn into a theocracy. It's unfair campaigning and isn't at all in the spirit of our country. If you have one guy trying to feed into the religious conscious of voters, it's almost like the other guy will stand no chance unless (1)he does the same or (2)the first guy is absolutely worthless in every other respect.

    Originally posted by SirBumNorm
    Are you saying that if someone wanted to marry 5 people, or people wanted to marry an animal, or a family member, we really should just let that go? If not what do you use to determine where to draw the line?

You draw the line where you start taking away rights from one person without any reasonable protection of the rights of others. Maybe I'm too simple-minded on this gay marriage issue. Can someone explain to me how you could possibly think it's alright to support a candidate that wants to put limits on the civil rights of people that aren't bothering anybody else? You can make arguments on the abortion issue with the whole "When does life start argument?" but this I just don't see.

- StingArmy
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 203/449
EXP: 651411
For next: 8758

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 606 days
Last activity: 472 days
AIM:  
#152 Posted on 4.11.04 2313.46
Reposted on: 4.11.11 2324.02
    Originally posted by SirBubNorm
      Originally posted by messenoir
      We can argue over the Bible, argue over beliefs and tenents of faith, but we should never reject the right of someone to attend our Church or take communion.


    This I agree completely with.

      Originally posted by messenoir
      We should never take away the rights of people to worship how they see fit, marry how they see fit,



    Are you saying that if someone wanted to marry 5 people, or people wanted to marry an animal, or a family member, we really should just let that go? If not what do you use to determine where to draw the line?


The marriage thread has been done before, and I don't really want to restart it. Simply this: Are you making the choice to get into the marriage? Are you forcing someone else (or some animal)? That should decide whether the marriage is acceptable.

There are many people who do not want the mentally challenged to marry. Would this be an acceptable law to pass? There are probably a lot of people who want less obese people to marry. Would this be an acceptable law to pass?

    Originally posted by SirBubNorm


      Originally posted by messenoir
      and we should never forget we do not have the entire answer, and so we should therefore never pass laws (nationally or in the Church) that take away the right of someone to live differently from us.


    I know I don't have all the answers. And I'm perfectly willing to accept that I've been wrong before and will be wrong again. But in order for there to be "wrong", there has to be a right.


And when we die and stand in front of God, we will know that right and wrong. Until that time, we can only live our life to the best of our ability to decide that right and wrong for ourselves. That should involve our lives not causing harm to other people.

Now, I've made my point and am repeating myself. I will allow other people to join the thread and comment.
bash91
Merguez
Level: 55

Posts: 303/711
EXP: 1304889
For next: 9309

Since: 2.1.02
From: Bossier City, LA

Since last post: 859 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#153 Posted on 4.11.04 2315.04
Reposted on: 4.11.11 2325.04
After 2 days, I'll offer my one post in this thread. To me, the deciding issue in this election was one of passion. In 2000, I knew a lot of people who were passionately for Al Gore and a lot of people who were passionately for George Bush. In 2004, I know a lot of people who are passionately anti-Bush and a lot of people who are passionately for Bush, but I don't personally know anyone who is passionately for John Kerry. Ultimately, I think that mobilizing those who were anti-Bush without also offering a candidate about whom those people could be passionate was a losing approach. There is no doubt that there is a substantial section of the electorate that passionately opposes Bush but I don't think that there is anywhere near that large a segment of the population that passionately supports John Kerry as John Kerry and not as anti-Bush.

I know I'm in the minority here, but I find Guru's argument profoundly disturbing on a whole lot of levels.

    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    If you personally believe in something, but can see that your belief is based in something that is not necessarily factual, you should have the restraint to choose the best option for America, not just the option that fits your belief.


I've asked this question in other places, but who decides? Voting is fundamentally an act of faith, not reason. I/you don't and can't have all of the information necessary in order to make a fully rational decision so we have to act on faith and what we believe to be in the best interests of America. At that point, any decision made is "not necessarily factual." Indeed, it's hard for me to fathom a perspective that suggests that you should vote against your beliefs because they might be "anti-American" according to someone else's "not necessarily factual" beliefs about what is best for America.

Perhaps the largest problem that I have with this position is that it makes unsupported and unsupportable suppositions. I have no doubt that my world view is incorrect in some way, shape, or form. But, I also have no doubt that everyone else's worldview is in the same boat. However, the proposition advanced above presupposes that since faith is inherently afactual, a lack of faith in a supreme being is an inherently rational position. Given that neither of these viewpoints is provable, privileging one over the other is an afactual act of faith which takes us back to asking who decides what is "best for America" since humans are apparently incapable of making that decision.

    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    If you only choose the thing you believe in, you end up with a theocracy once a critical mass of people start voting like that.


Or you end up with a meritocracy, or a welfare state, or an atheist nation, or a dictatorship, or any other ocracy you care to name. The slippery slope argument can be applied to any position or group that has the potential to gather enough votes to effect a change, but that doesn't make it any less of a straw man argument. In this case, theocracy is a convenient straw man to disguise a distaste for those who don't think the same way that you do.

    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    It upsets me that people today can't see the great foundation of tolerance that was laid in the Constitution, but choose to only see certain words "See, they said God!".


And part of tolerance is a respect for those who have a different perspective than you. We can all point a finger at the excesses committed in the name of religion by zealots, but zealotry and excess are not unique to the religious or the faithful. Fundamentally, I believe that the American people are a good people. We have made mistakes and will continue to make mistakes, but we generally try and correct and learn from those mistakes. Part of that process is understanding that different people have different perspectives than yours and seeking to find ways in which those different perspectives can be melded to create something new and different and better. But, we can't achieve that as long as we're not tolerant of those differing perspectives.

End rant
Tim

Crimedog
Boerewors
Level: 42

Posts: 100/374
EXP: 493307
For next: 28059

Since: 28.3.02
From: Ohio

Since last post: 2770 days
Last activity: 2760 days
#154 Posted on 5.11.04 0107.20
Reposted on: 5.11.11 0109.37
    Originally posted by wordlife
    Well, I could make a laundry list of what I don't like about W but that has been done ad nauseum already.


    So instead you attack Bush with something that is patently untrue? Again, you could have chosen a hundred different things to criticize him on, but you chose one thing that isn't even a possibility. Why?

      Originally posted by wordlife


      I think you misunderstood what I was saying. His "daddy issues" relate to what you said later. If you read the BBC (b/c I hate to say it, most American news is drivel), W came out and stated at the end of one of his speeches that Hussein was evil and that he tried to kill his father. Sooo you are saying that it is okay to pillage a country for something that was done almost 15 years ago? Cmon! My feeling is that if older Bush wanted to do something about it, he should have before he left but he pulled out of Iraq and left Hussein in power. They shouldn't make up some excuse to go in and kick ass now.


    From a military standpoint, the smartest way to fight the first Gulf War would have been to drive into downtown Baghdad, take over the city and say "We can hang out here as long as you like. We aren't leaving until Saddam turns himself over." That didn't happen because the Arab countries said "Get Iraq out of Kuwait and we'll take care of Saddam." Which they didn't.

      Originally posted by wordlife
      First things first, what does deciding people's civil liberties have to do with me going to war for our President? In my opinion, they are 2 completely different things. Explain what you mean by that comment and I will respond.

      My question is what are we truly fighting for in Iraq? Answer that question for me Crimedog.


    Hey, you arbitrarily stated that "rednecks and morons" shouldn't get to vote on civil rights issues, so I arbitrarily stated you shouldn't get to vote for President. That's the problem with trying to place more than very basic requirements on a person's right to vote. Somebody else might disagree with you.

    As for Iraq, I support the fact that we are there. Do I support the fact that a reason was given that is more than likely not true? No. But I think that 20 years from now, when Iraq is a booming democracy and the Middle East has been forced to change from a group of dictatorships/kingdoms/theocracies to countries that actually elect their leaders, people will point to Iraq as the first domino in a pretty successful process. Listen, the rules changed after Sept. 11. It's no longer an option to sit back and wait for this country to get sucker-punched, then toss a few cruise missiles into some random country. Saddam supported terrorists _ unless you don't think that giving them safe harbor and passing out checks to Palestinian suicide bombers is support _ so for that reason alone, it's good that he's gone. All I ask is this: Wait until after the elections in January to pass judgement on Iraq. I think you might be surprised.

      Originally posted by wordlife


      Honestly, if I got called due to our country being under attack (which is a joke b/c the terror groups are everywhere and destroying the Middle East isn't going to stop them), I guess that is life in the big city. However, I really don't want to risk life and limb so some rich assholes can make a billion dollars (Halliburton, Exxon/Mobil, which both were HUGE contributors to the W elections) and we can get Hussein back for attacking W's dad. These are the reasons we are in Iraq. This is a stupid, pointless war that is escalating to another Vietnam.


    I guess your double degrees in Accounting and Economics didn't leave much time for history classes. Comparing the situation in Iraq to the situation in Vietnam is COMPLETELY off base. Listen (standard disclaimer: every human life is precious and every member of the military that dies in the line of duty deserves our respect and sympathy), the number of casualties the U.S. has taken in Iraq is miniscule compared to what we took in Vietnam. Plus, in Iraq, there was a clear goal: topple Saddam and institute democracy in Iraq. There was no such goal in Vietnam. THAT was a pointless war.

      Originally posted by wordlife
      Furthermore, W has come out and said that he wants Iran next. No offense, but he hasn't finished the job in Afghanistan or Iraq first. Anyone who thinks this is near over has no idea what we are in for.

      I guess I would be more accepting of this crap if he actually FINISHED ONE MESS BEFORE MAKING ANOTHER. If you read some of the British papers, they have stated that we found Osama but he is sooo well protected it would be suicide for us. Maybe if we weren't so busy trying to get Hussein back, we could have caught Osama before he build a fortress up in the mountains?


    These would be the British papers which are blatantly anti-Bush and tend to be staggeringly wrong on a regular basis? If you're relying on foreign media to find out about your own country, you need to rethink that. Osama will be found and will be either captured or killed. It's just not an easy thing to do when someone is hiding out in the tribal areas of Afghanistan or Pakistan. And yes, Afghanistan is a work in progress, but the first big step _ the elections _ were a smashing success. Afghanistan is only a matter of time.

      Originally posted by wordlife


      Remember that Vietnam started out small, we weren't sending hundreds of thousands of boys over there immediately....


    Nope. Which is one of the reasons it was such a fiasco. If you're going to launch a military operation, you don't do it half-assed. You don't send in "advisers" and put the U.S. military in a subordinate role to the South Vietnamese military.
tarnish
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 456/859
EXP: 1725143
For next: 47645

Since: 13.2.02
From: Back in the Heart of Hali

Since last post: 561 days
Last activity: 7 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#155 Posted on 5.11.04 0827.58
Reposted on: 5.11.11 0828.19
Funny that anyone found Guru's post to be unsettling; I think it's one of the better posts I've seen anywhere on this board and one I pretty much wholeheartedly agree with.

Voting based on one's faith is a difficult issue. I, for one, have two problems with it. The first is probably selfish: I don't adhere to any sort of faith right now, so, in effect, I don't have access to an "easy" answer. If I were still a practicing Catholic, I think it would be easier to avoid actually considering things like abortion and stem cell research and simply take the position that is consistent with my faith. That's the crux of religion: struggle with your faith in God rather than struggling with the individual issues of life.

The second issue with faith-based voting has to do with the apparent expectation that legislation supporting one side or another will be passed. Bush did nothing in the last four years to disabuse anyone of that notion; if anything, he seemed to indicate that legislation might well be expected.

America was founded by people fleeing, among other things, religious persecution. The grand irony is that the religious right, though they appear to be ready to persecute (via legislation against things they don't agree with) will stand there and tell you, straight-faced, that they are the ones being persecuted, that, for example, allowing gay marriage impinges upon the rights of non-gays. I can never quite follow these arguments, but they always sound compelling.

My interpretation of Guru's statement was along the lines of, "Sure, make your own choices for your own life based on faith if that is what you wish to do; but remember there are millions of other free Americans who are just as entitled to the liberty to make these decisions on their own."

(Fuck. Am I becoming libertarian?)

Where it all becomes scary is where people who have strong beliefs start to believe that their beliefs are SO right that EVERYONE should fall into line. Or that it is their duty to God to bring the heathens into line. This is where church and state get mixed up. And that's when very bad things happen.

If you are going to tell me what I can or can't do, you'd better have something better than, "God says it's wrong," to back you up.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1851/2042
EXP: 6350399
For next: 42400

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3094 days
Last activity: 307 days
#156 Posted on 5.11.04 0901.37
Reposted on: 5.11.11 0901.52
    Originally posted by tarnish
    If you are going to tell me what I can or can't do, you'd better have something better than, "God says it's wrong," to back you up.


THAT is the mantra that needs to be repeated over and over again over the next four years.

There is nothing wrong with a religious person _believing_ that everyone should live their lives according to his or her religion's code of ethics, morals and doctrines.

There is nothing wrong with a religious person _disapproving_ of others who live their lives differently, or trying to sway those people to their own version of morality.

There is nothing wrong with a religious person _believing_ that his or her morality and judgements about right and wrong are absolute.

However, morality is the most subjective of all subjects. Beliefs are simply that -- beliefs, not facts. Christianity, for example, is centered around the belief that what is in the Bible is true and accurate. If I do not share that belief, the notion that the Bible's morality is absolute means nothing more to me than the word of Arthur Dent, Indiana Jones, Charlie Brown or Beowulf.

And neither a religious person's belief that the Bible is the source of "true" morality nor my belief that it isn't is necessarily TRUE in a literal sense. My beliefs work for me, your beliefs work for you. When they start turning into LAWS is where there are problems. A religious legislator should no more be able to prohibit others from acting in ways that violate his idea of morality than an atheist legislator should be able to prohibit others from going to church.

The trick is balancing out these rights in the public square, so that neither the atheist nor the believer tramples on the other. This is not a Christian nation, but neither is it an entirely secular one. There are people out there who demand nothing less than a fully Christian government, and I hope that I'm wrong about how much influence they'll have over the next four years.
wordlife
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 290/324
EXP: 381555
For next: 23220

Since: 4.4.03

Since last post: 3422 days
Last activity: 2706 days
#157 Posted on 5.11.04 1035.24
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1036.27
{ EDIT: Geez, you two have SERIOUSLY messed up the attribution here. I have no idea who's saying what, and that's a major pain. Is it SO hard to grok the use of [quote] and [/quote]? I mean, REALLY? Anyway, I tried to salvage something readable out of this. Okay, back to your pointless argument... - CRZ }

    Originally posted by Crimedog
      Originally posted by wordlife
      Well, I could make a laundry list of what I don't like about W but that has been done ad nauseum already.
    So instead you attack Bush with something that is patently untrue? Again, you could have chosen a hundred different things to criticize him on, but you chose one thing that isn't even a possibility. Why?
Why do you feel it wasn't a possibility? Everyone has stated that it was one of the reasons we have went in there. Most people here have stated that we should be there b/c what Hussein did was a declaration of war b/c he attacked our President.


      First things first, what does deciding people's civil liberties have to do with me going to war for our President? In my opinion, they are 2 completely different things. Explain what you mean by that comment and I will respond.

      My question is what are we truly fighting for in Iraq? Answer that question for me Crimedog.
    Hey, you arbitrarily stated that "rednecks and morons" shouldn't get to vote on civil rights issues, so I arbitrarily stated you shouldn't get to vote for President. That's the problem with trying to place more than very basic requirements on a person's right to vote. Somebody else might disagree with you.

    As for Iraq, I support the fact that we are there. Do I support the fact that a reason was given that is more than likely not true? No. But I think that 20 years from now, when Iraq is a booming democracy and the Middle East has been forced to change from a group of dictatorships/kingdoms/theocracies to countries that actually elect their leaders, people will point to Iraq as the first domino in a pretty successful process. Listen, the rules changed after Sept. 11. It's no longer an option to sit back and wait for this country to get sucker-punched, then toss a few cruise missiles into some random country. Saddam supported terrorists _ unless you don't think that giving them safe harbor and passing out checks to Palestinian suicide bombers is support _ so for that reason alone, it's good that he's gone. All I ask is this: Wait until after the elections in January to pass judgement on Iraq. I think you might be surprised.
As for the whole civil liberties thing, I laugh b/c the same group of people that declare gay marriage and abortion as a sin feel that letting some 16 year old who can't afford the child is cool. That means that someone like me is stuck picking up the bill for her kid, her new apartment and paying for her to go to college b/c of her religious beliefs?!?! This isn't a socialist country last time I checked. Gays are taxpaying citizens (much like you)who want just a normal life. Nothing more or nothing less. But these people that I referred to earlier as "rednecks/morons" feel that b/c of "moral issues" they should not be allowed to get married. However, doesn't the Bible also say that sex out of wedlock, cheating on your wife, and divorce are immoral too? My personal favorite of the Bible is the story of the Whore of Babylon when Jesus stated "let he without sin cast the first stone", well shouldn't these people listen to their own damn Bible before they attack the gays?

As for Iraq, what the hell does Palestine have to do with us? Why is my military risking its life to protect the right of Israel? Yeah, he was harboring terrorists, but so does Saudi Arabia (a country we count supposedly as an ally), Jordan, Syria, UAE, Lebanon, Egypt and most of the other Northern African and Middle Eastern countries. I mean we haven't even gotten into the worst of the countries (North Korea) So you're saying basically that our military should just pave through these areas, right? Yeah, best of luck with that one....

If that is the best reason you got, keep 'em coming. One of our main problems is that W views himself like the World Police (I can just envision W playing "America-FUCK YEAH" in his office). We cannot go around and solve everyone's problems.

If you think we can get a booming democracy going over there, good luck. An old saying I heard when I was younger was "Wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which gets filled first". That is pretty much the situation over there. The people in these countries are used to that type of lifestyle. The people themselves needed to start an uprising against Hussein then ask for help (much like we did here hundreds of years ago). We can't go around and impose our will on people, that is truly immoral! My friend, who is over in Iraq, talks about how much the morale sucks over there. The people sit there and berate them about being "infidels" all day long. Democracy will never thrive in these countries, face it b/c the people do not want democracy!

Yeah, we need to be offensive, but we need to do it intelligently. This would include setting out a true plan of attack with multiple plans to set up a truly functioning gov't already in place, figuring out ways to track communications (websites, emails, etc.) that the terrorits use to lead us to sects here and then shutting these sites down, finding money sources (which there are tons of them here, believe me) and destroying them, truly cracking down on the drug trade here (this is one of their main sources of income), stop educating all of these foreigners in our country (a lot of the terrorists leaders (including bin Laden and Dr. Germ) went to Harvard, MIT, Yale, etc.) and finally sealing our borders until we can get a strong handle in our country. Healing begins from within and then works outward not going out half-cocked with your guns blazing.

Is he doing some of these things I have listed? Possibly, but I don't think they are being pursued enough! I believe that W is trying to flex his physical muscle here too hard and not his mental muscle. We were the strongest country b/c we were the strongest in might and brains now we think we are the strongest in might. Intelligence will most of the time beat out braun, and the times that braun does win a battle, dollars to donuts that intelligence wins the war.


      Honestly, if I got called due to our country being under attack (which is a joke b/c the terror groups are everywhere and destroying the Middle East isn't going to stop them), I guess that is life in the big city. However, I really don't want to risk life and limb so some rich assholes can make a billion dollars (Halliburton, Exxon/Mobil, which both were HUGE contributors to the W elections) and we can get Hussein back for attacking W's dad. These are the reasons we are in Iraq. This is a stupid, pointless war that is escalating to another Vietnam.
    I guess your double degrees in Accounting and Economics didn't leave much time for history classes. Comparing the situation in Iraq to the situation in Vietnam is COMPLETELY off base. Listen (standard disclaimer: every human life is precious and every member of the military that dies in the line of duty deserves our respect and sympathy), the number of casualties the U.S. has taken in Iraq is miniscule compared to what we took in Vietnam. Plus, in Iraq, there was a clear goal: topple Saddam and institute democracy in Iraq. There was no such goal in Vietnam. THAT was a pointless war.
How can you say it's off base? You cannot make a comment like that and then not back it up with facts.

There was a goal in Vietnam: to stop Communism and protect S. Vietnam from becoming a Communistic state. At least, that is what I interpret the reason for being there was.

I am not a history genius by any stretch of the imagination, admittedly so, but I feel there are plenty of similiarites:
1. Both presidents (W and LBJ) are from Texas and are "devout Christians" and considered to have "high moral values".
2. Both rec'd their rights to the presidency under great controversy.
3. Both wars started off as these "easy wars" that end up turning into bigger deals than once thought.(See W's Mission Accomplished speech)
4. Both wars started with us sending over a small number of troops with the numbers growing day by day (our military is completely taxed right now).
5. Both wars were started due to the USA thinking it was this massive superpower who feels it can impose its will (that being democracy) over everyone.
6. Both thought that it could fight these wars with all braun and very little strategy.
7. Both underestimated their enemies' will, intelligence and fortitude and are paying or paid dearly. (bin Laden has something up his sleeve, believe me).
8. Both wars, at the beginning, had everyone's support then when things got ugly people changed (this is slowly happening in Iraq).
9. Both wars contained a president that had poor foreign policy and did not take the time to understand the culture of the other person (this is my opinion).
10. Finally, both thought they could fight a war "fairly" with an opponent who doesn't play by the rules.

I think those are some fair similarites, but that is my opinion.


      Furthermore, W has come out and said that he wants Iran next. No offense, but he hasn't finished the job in Afghanistan or Iraq first. Anyone who thinks this is near over has no idea what we are in for.

      I guess I would be more accepting of this crap if he actually FINISHED ONE MESS BEFORE MAKING ANOTHER. If you read some of the British papers, they have stated that we found Osama but he is sooo well protected it would be suicide for us. Maybe if we weren't so busy trying to get Hussein back, we could have caught Osama before he build a fortress up in the mountains?
    These would be the British papers which are blatantly anti-Bush and tend to be staggeringly wrong on a regular basis? If you're relying on foreign media to find out about your own country, you need to rethink that. Osama will be found and will be either captured or killed. It's just not an easy thing to do when someone is hiding out in the tribal areas of Afghanistan or Pakistan. And yes, Afghanistan is a work in progress, but the first big step _ the elections _ were a smashing success. Afghanistan is only a matter of time.

I do read the American news sites but I also check out the British sites as another POV.

Why shouldn't I rely on the British media for my news? They generally tell more of the truth and I find the BBC more of an interesting read. They all pretty much report the same thing, however I think the BBC is somewhat more objective but that is my opinion. Now the Guardian and the Daily Mirror are VERY anti-Bush, no question, but they are still an interesting read. Honestly, I also find their articles better researched and better written too. I have found them to be wrong on occasion, but isn't our media wrong a lot of the time also?!?!

I just told you about Osama, they know where he is, I wish you the best of luck on getting thru the fortress he has set up while trying to still conquer Iraq. The man is unarguably one of the most educated people on the planet and is probably about 10 steps ahead of us. From what I have read, getting thru that fortress would be a suicide mission and would cause hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Wow, Afghanistan elected a leader, am I supposed to be excited? It will never last, it will end up like Somalia over there. People are too used to things the way they are, if they wanted freedom, they would fight much like they did against Russia.



      Remember that Vietnam started out small, we weren't sending hundreds of thousands of boys over there immediately....
    Nope. Which is one of the reasons it was such a fiasco. If you're going to launch a military operation, you don't do it half-assed. You don't send in "advisers" and put the U.S. military in a subordinate role to the South Vietnamese military.
Yeah, we should run in there with guns blazing and kick ass in lieu of a smartly planned attack that includes fighting them with brains and braun in lieu of just braun.

Question for you, were you or are you in the military?(If you have been or are, disregard these next few sentences) If you were not, you talk a lot about running over there and kicking ass and taking numbers. If you haven't been or you aren't,why aren't you over there? You seem pretty willing to send other guys/girls over there to die for this.

I think if you saw what these guys are seeing on daily basis and what they are dealing with, you would be in support of this war as much as I am. My buddy who is there now voted for W in 2000 and told me he regretted doing it about a month before he got shipped over.

(edited by CRZ on 5.11.04 1100)
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 2140/6373
EXP: 33988572
For next: 131526

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#158 Posted on 5.11.04 1059.23
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1059.41
wordlife, oh man, where to start. First your buddy doesnt like being in combat? Really? I thought people LOVED the idea of possibly getting shot 24 hours a day. NOBODY likes combat duty. Does that mean that they duty they are carrying out isnt worthwhile?

And, if you want to play "why we went over there" look at the resolution that was passed by congress to authorize the use of force, its all spelled out, and guess what, WMD, or the lack thereof for the left weenies out there, was only a portion of the reasons that were cited.

AS far as the "I pay for the out of wedlock child" argument, I have never, EVER seen a raise in my taxes because a person in my community had a child out of wedlock. Your tax money is going to be spent either way, it may as well be spent helping somebody out for a while. When was the last time you got anything out of the Space Program? Yet that costs 10 times whatever welfare for an unwed mother costs. Are you lobbying congress for some space dust or some moon rocks? Since you're "paying for it with your tax dollars" and all.

And, HUNDRED OF THOUSANDS of people will die if they went into the mountains and tried to get Bin Laden? Wasnt that the same prediction for the Iraqi Invasion?
When they have him pinpointed, and KNOW his exact location, it wont even be a mission of going in to get him, it will be cruise missle time.

A radio host here in St Louis pointed this out. How many people were killed in Iraq in June? (I think he said) 37. How many were killed in Detroit? 39. Are you marching to boycott Detroit? Are you making posts on message boards that the government should get all the citizens out of Detroit?

People die in war. As sad as that is, it happens. We have lost less than 1100 people, while defeating an army, and removing a evil corrupt government from power.
More people were killed TRAINING for D Day than that.
By the logic some people use, we should have never participated in D Day because we lost people. I dont see where that makes any sense whatsoever.
I dont see the logic in the expectations that we would incur no losses of life, and that it wouldnt cost a LOT of money to accomplish.

Your buddy in Iraq should regret his decision to enlist, not his vote.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 2284/3036
EXP: 11372012
For next: 99433

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 6 days
AIM:  
#159 Posted on 5.11.04 1124.22
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1124.34
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    A radio host here in St Louis pointed this out. How many people were killed in Iraq in June? (I think he said) 37. How many were killed in Detroit? 39. Are you marching to boycott Detroit? Are you making posts on message boards that the government should get all the citizens out of Detroit?


Yes, except I think there might be a few more Americans in Detroit than in Iraq. Just a hunch.
Spaceman Spiff
Knackwurst
Level: 102

Posts: 1722/2909
EXP: 10798545
For next: 291460

Since: 2.1.02
From: Philly Suburbs

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
#160 Posted on 5.11.04 1205.24
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1205.47
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    When was the last time you got anything out of the Space Program? Yet that costs 10 times whatever welfare for an unwed mother costs. Are you lobbying congress for some space dust or some moon rocks? Since you're "paying for it with your tax dollars" and all.


Click Here (thespaceplace.com). Damn that useless space program!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextThread ahead: Attorney General Ashcroft resigns
Next thread: Less than shocking new study on the root causes of terrorism....
Previous thread: Conservative Groups Put Research on Watch List
(533 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Election 2004 results threadRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.222 seconds.