Subject:
|
Re: The partisian trap in California
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Oct 2003 05:15:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
367 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
|
| |
Do you accept that, even if Dubya et all have not lied per se, the
administration has indeed been giving inconsistent, equivocative, and
deliberatly misleading accounts of the war on terror? This is demonstrably
true, and such prevarication doesn’t speak well for a president who has
postured himself as a man of morals and integrity.
|
As for the threat of terror (imminent or otherwise), this is what I genuinely
believe: I have no doubt that if SH had biological, chemical or nuclear WMDs
at his disposal, he eventually would have made them available to terrorists such
as OBL to use against the US. Had Israel not bombed his nuclear program into
the Stone Age, he would probably have possessed nukes by now. I seriously
believe that the most effective way to fight terrorists like OBL is to put the
BIG HURT on regimes that aide and abett terrorist groups such as al-Queda.
Call it big-stick diplomacy, but if that is what it takes to get countries to
fight evil than so be it.
| |
| |
Again, at best he may have been wrong, not lying.
|
I don’t know if that qualifies as “at best,” but I see what you’re getting
at. If Dubya had any integrity at all, he would admit that he was wrong (on
any number of subjects, but specifically on the issue of WoMD in Iraq).
Lukewarm admissions that members of his administration have “misspoken” are
not sufficient; he must admit to and take responsibility for massive factual
errors. Likewise, he doesn’t have the luxury of demanding patience from the
American people. At issue is whether or not Dubya abused the public trust
and violated the Constitution, so he can’t simply say “wait and see.”
Instead, he and his press team are steadfastly insisting that everyone in the
world is mistaken.
|
He has hung his hat on the notion that SH had WMDs. I still believe we will
eventually find unequivocal evidence to support this. If we don’t, then he may
have some ‘splaining to do, Lucy...
| |
While I’m at it, is there a point at which you’d agree that widespread error
is sufficient to call into question the man’s fitness to rule? How many
massive errors will you permit him before demanding accountability?
|
Yes, mass incompetence calls for heads to roll, but what you are suggesting is
literary the complete failure of all of the intelligence of our country (let
alone Israel’s, which I think is better than ours in this region BTW). It is
such a fantastic scenario, and besides which is completely counter to Occam’s
razor and in close proximity to partisan conspiracy theory...
| |
| |
It really boils down to whether or not you trust Bush.
I happen to believe he is an honest man; you don’t.
|
The President is absolutely the last person we should trust--his every move
should be exactingly scrutinized, within reasonable (not blanket) demands of
national security and executive privilege.
I specifically do not trust Dubya because he’s a phony. He’s a favorite-son
richboy posing as a flannelclad everyman rube. The falsehood of this
artifice is sufficient to cast doubt on his sincerity elsewhere, just as
Republicans claimed that Clinton’s sexual improprieties were sufficient to
cast doubt on his entire presidency.
|
Now I am curious. Were we to find stockloads of WMD in Iraq, would this
suddenly make him not a phony WRT to the invasion of Iraq? Or, would your
vile turn on a vial:-)
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
That’s a straw man. In the case you describe, the individual is committing
suicide and also committing homicide, which is not what Richard is talking
about. If the guy wants to load himself up with dynamite and detonate
himself on his own property, I say let him do it.
|
Just seeking clarity.
| |
| |
What, you don’t like Monty Python?
| |
I don’t think that this is truly an idle question
|
|
A pun! A very palpable pun!
|
Ha, I missed that one; Cleese forgive me! (doubt it was intentional though)
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
A hospital that receives even a small amount of public, tax-payer funding
should not be permitted to discriminate in this way. Would you support a
public hospital’s right to refuse treatment or visitation access to
Christians?
|
Not if I were footing the bill! But how about this scenario: would you admit
a witch doctor who needs to bring in a chicken to sacrifice and burn incense to
assist his tribal brother’s healing while he is in the hospital (all as a part
of their religion)?
There are times when we do need to discriminate (we actually do it all the
time), and this is part of my point with RM WRT gay marriage.
JOHN
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
