Subject:
|
Re: The partisian trap in California
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Oct 2003 04:59:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
378 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Precisely point out Bush’s “lie” about Iraq. Be prepared to show that he
knowingly and deliberately, and also specifically (I want quotations)
misinformed.
|
Just because you ask this question repetitiously doesn’t mean it hasn’t been
answered already, either directly or by a link to an article somewhere. I
have answered this question multiple times in this forum before it was asked
by you.
|
You can link until the cows come home, but it really proves nothing. Nada. The
best you can hope for is that Bush believed intelligence that suggested that
WMD still existed (assuming that they indeed don’t) and he was wrong. Nobody
can prove that he deliberately lied (if they could, wouldn’t you think his
head would already be on a platter?).
| |
And sorry, but I don’t jump through hoops for anyone -- you can
search this forum yourself. In doing so, you will find that I have previously
noted and explained how and why we get multiple stories from the White House,
that there were multiple points in the last State of the Union address that
were known to be both false and misleading, and that plainly and simply --
there are no WMD and Iraq was not an imminent threat to anyone. End of story.
|
Again, at best he may have been wrong, not lying. You assume that because
you read the speculations of the media that you know the “ins” of the White
House and our intelligence? The media and you are merely taking blind swipes at
a pinata. It really boils down to whether or not you trust Bush. I happen to
believe he is an honest man; you don’t. Based on those presuppositions, you get
your answers.
| |
Do you have any proof in support of any of the rhetoric on the run-up to war?
That’s right, you don’t. Why should I have to prove a negative when you
cannot prove a positive?
|
History will decide, regardless of hack-spinning on both sides.
| |
I find your clinging to the shreds of your party’s baseless rhetoric somewhat
laughable, and I expect I am not alone.
|
But of course you do!
| |
| |
Really? And what about an American muslim who believes he is justified to
stab his own daughter on religious grounds?
|
Religious freedom is deeply respected in this country but I am not sure it
extends to assaulting or killing another. The nature of your question
ignorantly ignores the fact that most individual rights are conceived of as
extending only to a point of not harming others. This is often noted as the
Golden Rule: do not unto others as you would have others not do unto you.
|
| |
Was there a serious point to your question? I mean, what kind of question is
that? I presume you are trying to make some huge point that common law crimes
like theft, rape, and murder are examples of legislated morality. Your
problem is that those examples are based on fundamental ethics so common to
so many cultures that I am somewhat pressed to think of a culture that
doesn’t ideally try to protect its participants from those kinds of harm. The
fact that you might subsequently come up with an example of such a culture
doesn’t change the fact that all of these crimes are predicated on harm to
others, and no one’s rights extend that far.
|
Maybe in your culture, but that is precisely my point. In some cultures,
one’s rights do extend that far! Think “Jihad”, or consider this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/3149030.stm
| |
Because I try to take you seriously sometimes, although there is often
precious little reason to do so, I will try it again another way: what if an
American muslim, who believes he is justified in doing so on religious
grounds, commits suicide? Frankly, I don’t have a problem with that. I
support the right to commit suicide for whatever reason(s) one chooses.
|
Really. What if they choose to commit suicide by strapping on TNT and
denotating themselves in a crowded family restaurant?
| |
Such
a right is actually de facto since people indeed commit suicide all the time,
having laws against it prevents nothing. I even support carefully monitored
assisted suicide for medical reasons.
| |
Just curious. If you are in favor of marriages other than male-female
(remember, this could conceivably be a “gay” marriage), how do you justify
drawing the line at 2 person marriages? What about 3? Or 4? Or me and my
pet Eric the half-bee?
|
The last bit is deeply offensive and I think it reveals you in your true
colors.
|
What, you don’t like Monty Python?
| |
I don’t think that this is truly an idle question -- it reveals your
deeply contemptuous and bigoted nature for any lifestyle not having your full
100% agreement and support. I find your attitude decidedly unamerican because
it is freedom hating.
To answer the first part of your paragraph. No, I don’t have a problem with
multiple partner marriages or with communal lifestyles for that matter. It
makes no difference in answering this question that I am in an ordinary
heterosexual two person relationship myself. I don’t have a problem if other
people want to choose something different for themselves from what I choose
for myself.
|
Please, stick to the issue. We are talking about government sanctioned
unions, not tolerance of lifestyles. You want to shack up with a chicken?
Knock yourself out. But you don’t have the “right” of recognition by the
government. But feel free to point it out in the Constitution or BoR.
| |
Freedom, John. Haven’t you heard? It’s what being an american is supposed to
be about. Privately, you can opine on these subjects as pleases you, but I
would expect a true american to support legislation expanding personal
freedom when it costs the community nothing to provide that freedom to those
that need it.
Can you imagine being denied access to the sickbed of a loved one just
because the law does not recognize the nature of your relationship? Is there
a point to something like that?
|
Sounds like hospital policy to me.
| |
And if you can’t handle that level of freedom for others, let’s take it
another way: it would be my opinion that no one should be granted the special
status of having a legally recognized marriage -- let it remain a purely
symbolic social or religious custom. Why should the state be allowed to pick
and choose from amongst the many possible lifestyles those that are to be be
given the special status of “legal” marriage. Maybe the state doesn’t need
to be in that business at all.
|
You call me “unamerican”, but what you have stated above is completely
unamerican! We live in a Judeo-Christianity society whether you like it or
not, and we have decided as a culture to uphold the traditional male-female
family structure as the foundation of our society. Attempts to undermine that
foundation are not efforts to protect freedoms, but to destroy the fabric of our
society as we know it. I am afraid that you are in the vast minority here,
because this issue of “family values” cuts through political, economic, and
gender lines.
Your vision of what America should be is simply not shared by the overwhelming
majority of Americans. Whine all you want; it is a free country.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
| (...) If Democrats has sufficient sway in Congress, there would certainly be an independent counsel investigating the run-up to the war (a la Ken Starr/Whitewater), but Republican lock-steppers have resisted any efforts in this regard. Likewise, the (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
| (...) This kind of nonsense is precisely why its not worth discussing anything with you. I can't even call it a debate if your replies are going to be this moronic. You don't have any logic behind your position, you just keep asking the same (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
| (...) Just because you ask this question repetitiously doesn't mean it hasn't been answered already, either directly or by a link to an article somewhere. I have answered this question multiple times in this forum before it was asked by you. And (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
