Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Litmus test for liberals
| Litmus test for liberals [message #107580] |
Fri, 13 August 2004 04:32   |
 |
ViperFUD
Messages: 69
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Javaxcx |
I'm sure it's been done, but I don't know enough about the American legislation to say for certain.
Also: Both of you are using semantics. If what Kerry said is ambiguous, then everyone is going to be using semantics. Whee. I have no doubt in my mind that Kerry can be ambiguous when he talks. Bush is the exact same way.
|
Although, Kerry is ambiguous because he changes his statement halfway through the sentence. Bush is ambiguous because he says things like "unambuligoutysnesstry."
And shepherds we shall be,
For thee, my Lord, for thee.
Power hath descended forth from thy hand;
That our feet may swiftly carry out thy command.
And we shall flow a river forth to thee,
And teeming with souls shall it ever be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #107719] |
Fri, 13 August 2004 12:41 |
 |
Gizbotvas
Messages: 172
Registered: February 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
The senate gave President Bush the authorization to use military force if he needed it, and he invaded Iraq against the wishes of many senators including Kerry.
I offer a metaphor: My daughter says she needs a cell phone in case of emergencies. I authorize it, I agree to pay for it. Later I get a phone bill showing she has made 300 local calls to her friends. What happened? Am I a "Flip-Flop" if I criticize her misuse of the authority I granted her? Is it my fault for trusting her with the phone, or is it her fault for misusing that trust? Can I not say that, given the chance to do it all over again, I would still give her the cell phone, but I wouldn't approve of the way she uses it?
To criticize Kerry for giving the president all the tools is ridiculous, the criticism lays in the way the president USES those tools, and President Bush has clearly misused the power he has been given. The war was a mistake, and the apologies have not been forthcoming.
"Everyone relax...Gizbotvas is here"
Pits moderator
n00bserver moderator
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #107727] |
Fri, 13 August 2004 13:01 |
 |
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Gizbotvas |
The senate gave President Bush the authorization to use military force if he needed it, and he invaded Iraq against the wishes of many senators including Kerry.
I offer a metaphor: My daughter says she needs a cell phone in case of emergencies. I authorize it, I agree to pay for it. Later I get a phone bill showing she has made 300 local calls to her friends. What happened? Am I a "Flip-Flop" if I criticize her misuse of the authority I granted her? Is it my fault for trusting her with the phone, or is it her fault for misusing that trust? Can I not say that, given the chance to do it all over again, I would still give her the cell phone, but I wouldn't approve of the way she uses it?
To criticize Kerry for giving the president all the tools is ridiculous, the criticism lays in the way the president USES those tools, and President Bush has clearly misused the power he has been given. The war was a mistake, and the apologies have not been forthcoming.
|
Fuck You
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #107747] |
Fri, 13 August 2004 14:04 |
AlostSOul
Messages: 101
Registered: August 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
If you are going to make yourself look like an ass on a politcs issue, then leave.
agreeing with javaxcx with this one. Nodbugger is making Bush look like he is on smokable crack. When bush gave his "48 hour" speech, he intended it to be a warning for Sadam Hussien to leave the country within "48 hours", not that we were going to war in 48 hours. In fact, Bush was lienyeint in his time and gave that dictator 56 hours before the first bomb fell on the country.
the only thing I can say is this: ROFL!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #107784] |
Fri, 13 August 2004 17:02 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I see that article is from October 2002.... and we started the war when? Oh yeah, March 2003... just about 6 months later. And yet he "rushed to war". LOL I am tearing up from laughter.
Your analogy is horrid and doesn't fit, mostly because they agreed at the time that Iraq was an "emergency" and in fact Kerry along with several other senators urges Clinton to do the same thing back in his Administration.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #107786] |
Fri, 13 August 2004 17:12 |
|
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Crimson |
Your analogy is horrid and doesn't fit, mostly because they agreed at the time that Iraq was an "emergency" and in fact Kerry along with several other senators urges Clinton to do the same thing back in his Administration.
|
| Quote: |
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108319] |
Mon, 16 August 2004 13:12 |
|
Gizbotvas
Messages: 172
Registered: February 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Some of you little kids crack me up. You think you read the article, then you post it, and I read it, and see that your article actually makes my point for me.
| Quote: |
In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions
|
We had weapons inpectors in Iraq saying there were no weapons of mass destruction. France, Germany, Russia, China, the United Nations, and people like me were urging the president to wait and see if there were actually weapons in Iraq before we used the military.
The letter you posted from 1998 is hilarious. For one thing, we DID bomb targets in Iraq that we thought to be weapons facilities and the Republicans freaked out calling for Clinton's resignation. Now suddenly it is the talking point for a Republican agenda. LOL. For whatever it's worth, not that I expect you to understand, but that letter DID generate activity through the IAEC and got weapons inspectors back into Iraq.
"Everyone relax...Gizbotvas is here"
Pits moderator
n00bserver moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108344] |
Mon, 16 August 2004 14:42 |
|
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Gizbotvas |
Some of you little kids crack me up. You think you read the article, then you post it, and I read it, and see that your article actually makes my point for me.
| Quote: |
In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions
|
We had weapons inpectors in Iraq saying there were no weapons of mass destruction. France, Germany, Russia, China, the United Nations, and people like me were urging the president to wait and see if there were actually weapons in Iraq before we used the military.
The letter you posted from 1998 is hilarious. For one thing, we DID bomb targets in Iraq that we thought to be weapons facilities and the Republicans freaked out calling for Clinton's resignation. Now suddenly it is the talking point for a Republican agenda. LOL. For whatever it's worth, not that I expect you to understand, but that letter DID generate activity through the IAEC and got weapons inspectors back into Iraq.
|
No it doesn't.
They gave him authority to attack Iraq. End of story.
He used it exactly how they wrote it and they have no excuse.
And neither do you for defending them.
There was nothing wrong with this war.
No matter what you people attempt to come up with Saddam was someone who we do need in this world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108352] |
Mon, 16 August 2004 15:03 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
It was especially clever of you when you would quote a mile-long post and respond to one part of it.
| Nodbugger |
There was nothing wrong with this war.
|
Error: Too Stupid.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108382] |
Mon, 16 August 2004 18:57 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
I hate seeing people yak on and on about how the US defied the UN- they talk about the UN as if it had the authority to govern member nations. Nuh-uh. All member nations are still independent and free to make their own choices. The US constitution grants the authority to make war on the US government, not an outside organization (just because France or Russia doesn't want the US to go to war, the US can still go to war because the US government supercedes the authority of the UN).
H O W E V E R . . .
Member nations of the UN should at least try to work with each other, not against. If they feel the organization does not support their nation's best interests, they should withdraw from it. That goes for ALL member nations, not just one or two. At the beginning of the Iraq war, the simple fact is that nearly the entire security council was in violation of UN resolutions in one way or another. On that note, I feel that the UN has outlived its usefulness- it has neither the power to back up its resolutions nor the compliance of its member nations.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108385] |
Mon, 16 August 2004 19:25 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| NukeIt15 |
I hate seeing people yak on and on about how the US defied the UN- they talk about the UN as if it had the authority to govern member nations. Nuh-uh. All member nations are still independent and free to make their own choices. The US constitution grants the authority to make war on the US government, not an outside organization (just because France or Russia doesn't want the US to go to war, the US can still go to war because the US government supercedes the authority of the UN).
|
Not quite. You're right about the lack thereof to govern other nations, because nations are ASKED (or warned) not told to comply with resolutions. You're also right about being free to make your own choices. However, should those choices be in violation of the law agreed to by the Member States in 1945 and onward, then at the end of the day, the act was still illegal. Illegal, of course, in terms of the international law that Member AGREED to. In 1945, quite a few people said "yeah, we'll play by these rules". Those rules are the United Nations Charter.
All of these rules can be found here: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
I trust you to have more sense then Nodbugger and read them before commenting on them.
As for the United States government superceding the United Nations. Heh. I can't agree with that. Sure, you've got the biggest guns, but you've locked the ball'n'chain around yourselves when you signed that 'contract'. The fact of the matter is, Resolution 1441 was violated by both Iraq and the United States (and in essence, all nations in the Coalition of the Willing). If the U.S. is going to call Iraq's actions against resolutions illegal, then do the same thing, but claim it not to be illegal. Well, there is a problem there.
So I'm going to ask you:
Resolution 1441 says this: "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,"
That statement runs back all the way to Resolution 686 in 1990 in terms of Iraq.
Was this commitment (you can find it in the Charter in article 2 I believe) at the end of the day upheld and implimented by the United States and the CoW as per their authority of Resolution 678? If not, then this war is illegal. If so, prove it.
| Quote: |
At the beginning of the Iraq war, the simple fact is that nearly the entire security council was in violation of UN resolutions in one way or another.
|
You're absolutely right. I was aghast when I read that the Security Council didn't condemn this attack dispite its obvious violation of 1441 and previous resolutions. It's suspicious.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108469] |
Tue, 17 August 2004 06:46 |
|
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Javaxcx |
| NukeIt15 |
I hate seeing people yak on and on about how the US defied the UN- they talk about the UN as if it had the authority to govern member nations. Nuh-uh. All member nations are still independent and free to make their own choices. The US constitution grants the authority to make war on the US government, not an outside organization (just because France or Russia doesn't want the US to go to war, the US can still go to war because the US government supercedes the authority of the UN).
|
Not quite. You're right about the lack thereof to govern other nations, because nations are ASKED (or warned) not told to comply with resolutions. You're also right about being free to make your own choices. However, should those choices be in violation of the law agreed to by the Member States in 1945 and onward, then at the end of the day, the act was still illegal. Illegal, of course, in terms of the international law that Member AGREED to. In 1945, quite a few people said "yeah, we'll play by these rules". Those rules are the United Nations Charter.
All of these rules can be found here: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
I trust you to have more sense then Nodbugger and read them before commenting on them.
As for the United States government superceding the United Nations. Heh. I can't agree with that. Sure, you've got the biggest guns, but you've locked the ball'n'chain around yourselves when you signed that 'contract'. The fact of the matter is, Resolution 1441 was violated by both Iraq and the United States (and in essence, all nations in the Coalition of the Willing). If the U.S. is going to call Iraq's actions against resolutions illegal, then do the same thing, but claim it not to be illegal. Well, there is a problem there.
So I'm going to ask you:
Resolution 1441 says this: "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,"
That statement runs back all the way to Resolution 686 in 1990 in terms of Iraq.
Was this commitment (you can find it in the Charter in article 2 I believe) at the end of the day upheld and implimented by the United States and the CoW as per their authority of Resolution 678? If not, then this war is illegal. If so, prove it.
| Quote: |
At the beginning of the Iraq war, the simple fact is that nearly the entire security council was in violation of UN resolutions in one way or another.
|
You're absolutely right. I was aghast when I read that the Security Council didn't condemn this attack dispite its obvious violation of 1441 and previous resolutions. It's suspicious.
|
Shut the fuck up.
Why do you all you fuckers keep trying to make America the bad guy!
Are you really that fucking stupid? Saddam is the bad guy. Saddam is the one doing all the horrible shit. Stop protesting the US and go fucking protest Saddam. All you peace loving fuckers are a bunch of hypocrites. We did not do a single thing wrong. Saddam was the asshole killing people. We went there to stop that. If your stupid fucking head cannot agree with than sit down and shut the fuck up because we simply do not want to hear your stupid fucking logic. We do not fucking care.
I also don't fucking care how childish I may sound. I don't give a fuck. I don't care, if you guys are going to stay fucking retarded do it in Canada or where ever the fuck you are from.
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108486] |
Tue, 17 August 2004 09:38 |
|
Gizbotvas
Messages: 172
Registered: February 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Quote: |
Shut the fuck up.
Why do you all you fuckers keep trying to make America the bad guy!
|
Sometimes we are the bad guy. Saddam Hussein was completely UNconnected to the 9/11 attacks. Al Queada attacked the US, a group formed in large part by the United States to combat Communists like me.
The Bush Administration scared the American Public, using constant references to 9/11, Al Queada, and terrorists, to push a long-held agenda to invade Iraq against all international law and common sense.
You can pretend America is correct all the time if you want to, but 3 Billion Muslims may disagree with you, and if you weren't so young and uninformed you would be forced to agree that some critical self-examination and policy review is warranted.
Remember that it was Legal to hang a Black man for touching a White woman not even sixty years ago here. We are not always right, we are not always the good guys, the important thing is to learn from our mistakes and get rid of GW Bush before he causes any more damage.
"Everyone relax...Gizbotvas is here"
Pits moderator
n00bserver moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Nov 26 05:52:28 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01430 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
