So it seems they got Saddam.
|
|
Jonathan VonLenard
Resident Hippo
Join date: 8 May 2003
Posts: 632
|
12-17-2003 23:11
From: someone Originally posted by Chip Midnight
You're right JV. That was a very cranky post... however it was in response to one that was incredibly patronizing. As I said later on, if that's the tact you (meaning who I was responding to) want to take, that's what you'll get in return. Champie and I kissed and made up, so no harm, no foul... but I agree with your sentiment. I went a bit over the top in trying to point out the tone I felt I was receiving. I understand, I'm not 100% innocent of this sometimes too, but I try to stay civil. Could you do me a favor and reply to my question in that post too? The one about whether or not I'm Bush's stooge for supporting the war when I am against him on many other issues.  JV
_____________________
"Now that we're here, it's so far away
All the struggle we thought was in vain
And all the mistakes, one life contained
They all finally start to go away
And now that we're here, it's so far away
And I feel like I can face the day
And I can forgive
And I'm not ashamed to be
The Person that I am today"
|
|
Corwin Weber
Registered User
Join date: 2 Oct 2003
Posts: 390
|
12-17-2003 23:13
From: someone Originally posted by Jonathan VonLenard
My friend, I don't care what you believe as long as your nota hypocrite.
You believe Bush deserted the Air National Guard, fine so be it, Clinton was a draft dodger.
You have to apply the same rules universally or else you are a hypocrite and noone can take you seriously.
BTW he was elected, the people have never elected a single president in the United States, the Electoral College does. If you dont like that fight to get it changed, but face the fact that he was elected legally.
JV Yak yak. Clinton got an educational deferrment... and was actually IN school. Hence, Clinton fulfilled his obligation. No 'dodging' involved. Bush went into the guard and deserted. AWOL during time of war. Why? Because he couldn't piss clean and he knew it. The electoral vote was irrelevant. Bush was appointed illegally by the Supreme Court. Period. |
|
Champie Jack
Registered User
Join date: 6 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,156
|
12-17-2003 23:14
JV,
I take responsibility for provoking Chip. As Chip said, we got it cleared up, thankfully.
Indeed, it would prove to be a great mistake if Iraq were to fall victim to a similar oppression. From my recollection of the TV history I got about Saddam, in the 1970's he provided excellent educational opportunities and infrastructure to his nation using money earned through oil sales. And, as others have stated, Iraq is comprised of tribes, which makes governing very difficult. I had mentioned Europe, Japan, and S. Korea in an earlier post. My comparison was not fair. Those were examples of homgeneous populations who had been governed as one people prior to their respective wars.
Perhaps the worst thing we can do is apply western values and thinking to Middle Eastern people.
|
|
Champie Jack
Registered User
Join date: 6 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,156
|
12-17-2003 23:24
Corwin, whether or not the Supreme Courts ruling was "illegal" is not a clear issue. I could easily rebut it by stating that the Florida Supreme Court was acting outside of the law by allowing selective recounts.
Maybe we should start another thread for that, or not use it in this one until the issue can be determined with accuracy.
|
|
Corwin Weber
Registered User
Join date: 2 Oct 2003
Posts: 390
|
12-17-2003 23:31
From: someone Originally posted by Champie Jack
Corwin, whether or not the Supreme Courts ruling was "illegal" is not a clear issue. I could easily rebut it by stating that the Florida Supreme Court was acting outside of the law by allowing selective recounts.
Maybe we should start another thread for that, or not use it in this one until the issue can be determined with accuracy. And the recount itself was irrelevant. The media made the whole issue out to be 'hanging chads' when in reality that was a side point. The ISSUE was the ballot boxes that conveniently went missing in south dade... or the voters in predominantly democratic neighborhoods that got turned away from the polls.... or the fact that the election itself was run by Bush's florida campaign manager, (who should have recused herself... at least Jeb had enough decency to do so.) |
|
Champie Jack
Registered User
Join date: 6 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,156
|
12-17-2003 23:41
to finish what I failed to conclude 2 posts ago...
Perhaps we lack the perspective to really understand cause and effect in the Middle East. Perhaps that is also why we (Westerners) have failed to make any signifcant progress in the Middle East in the last 50 years..or heck, ever. Unfortunately, it seems that The US and other western nations, and really all industrialized nations with global economies need a stable and vibrant situation in the Middle East to expand economically.
I know that some will respond by stating "So you admit that this war is about global eapansion of western economy and power." Well, yes and no. Yes, because all developed nations can benefit from expanded economic opportunities. And No, because there are real problems in the Middle East that threaten all of the world - terrorism, rougue powers, oppression, and religious fanatacism (I know we all dislike that). Not to mention that the key resource to all industrialized and developing nations lies under the crust in that region (oil).
My conclusion thus far is...(sorry for the cliche) damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Bush chose DO, others wish he hadn't. All motivations aside, if the world wants to continue to develop economically then stability and cooperation has to be established in area like Central Asia, Middle East, and Africa. For a President who wants to make something happen, then 9-11 is a good reason to go to afganastan, and Suspected weapons development, no-fly zone patrols, and aggitation of terrorist fears (Saddam's support of Suicide bombings in Israel and possible* support of terrorist agendas) in Iraq seems like a good reason to handle that situation in a pre-emptive manner.
I know I've said things that will be used againt me. I state them to let you all know that I am aware of these issues yet still draw different conclusions. Please enlighten me in whatever way you would like, but please be kind.
|
|
Champie Jack
Registered User
Join date: 6 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,156
|
12-17-2003 23:50
Corwin, I am familiar with those voter rights violation of which you speak. They are indeed troubling. I have often wondered where all that information went. I know there was a senate hearing on the voter list issue where some voters were denied the opportunity to vote because they were removed from the voter roles because of a botched filtering of criminal's names (or something close to that). That whole thing is quite suspect, but as I said, it seemed to disappear...hmmm.
But I would agree that all the stuff you mentioned has fallen into some void.
Still, the election was damn close, and it was Gore's to lose. That is no excuse for violating civil rights, I know. I think that you would agree that more experienced, more intelligent, more "in-the-know" people have gone over the whole thing many times over...if we dont know for sure now, we may have to wait 50 years or whatever when they unseal the top secret conspiracy file..lol
|
|
Jonathan VonLenard
Resident Hippo
Join date: 8 May 2003
Posts: 632
|
12-18-2003 05:18
From: someone Originally posted by Corwin Weber
Yak yak.
Clinton got an educational deferrment... and was actually IN school. Hence, Clinton fulfilled his obligation. No 'dodging' involved.
Bush went into the guard and deserted. AWOL during time of war. Why? Because he couldn't piss clean and he knew it.
The electoral vote was irrelevant. Bush was appointed illegally by the Supreme Court. Period. The supreme court did not appoint him. The popular vote was irrelevant which is what the court case was about. The court case was to determine whether there should have been a recount or not. Every blames Jeb and th Florida courts for supporting his brother yet the Supreme court of Florida supported the case. The Supreme court decided NOT to view the case, because it was irrellevant, even if the votes were recount 10 more times and Gore won the popular vote by 5 million votes then Bush was still president. The electoral college elects presidents and does not have to follow the popular vote though it has most times. JV
_____________________
"Now that we're here, it's so far away
All the struggle we thought was in vain
And all the mistakes, one life contained
They all finally start to go away
And now that we're here, it's so far away
And I feel like I can face the day
And I can forgive
And I'm not ashamed to be
The Person that I am today"
|
|
Champie Jack
Registered User
Join date: 6 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,156
|
12-18-2003 06:00
JV, think that you have either mis-stated some things or are wrong about what went down in Florida.
True, the Supreme Court did not appoint him. Saying that is common way of referring to the action of the Supreme Court as essentially an act of despotism (drama intended).
The United States Supreme Court DID rule that the Florida State Supreme Court cease all rulings that would allow recounts to continue in selected counties of Florida.
Sure, those votes are the popular vote, but the popular vote in each state is what is supposed to influence the Electoral College Reps for that State. True, Popular vote does not elect the president, but you mean that the NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE does not elect the president. The recount was for the FLORIDA VOTE. And since it was the electoral votes of Florida tht swung the election for Bush, I would say that the recount was very relevent.
|
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
12-18-2003 09:25
From: someone Originally posted by Nolan Nash
Yeah, yer right, not a Sunni Baathist at all, nothing to do with religion, that which you are vehemently against. Bud, I have been reading and studying indo- euoropean history since the 70's and continue to do so, dont try and pull yer pseudo intellectual crap on me.
Of course you will try to downplay his religiousness. It fits your scheme of non religion. Look, I was simply pointing out hipocrisy in Chip's post. I didn't expect I would have to argue once again with a political battering ram.
I am a definate middle of the roader and I delight in tickling the feathers of extremists, so humor me.
P.S. A quote by me;
*I have a suggestion for armchair lawyers/politicians; you are nothing but parrots repeating what you want to believe. THOSE NOT SO INCLINED NEED NOT TAKE OFFENSE. *
Please read the capitalized part before you respond with a formulaic dissertation. Okay Nolan, now that I've read and digested your posts, there's really nothing of substance to reply to except for personal attacks about how those of us who disagree with you are just grandstanding parrots. You're entitled to your opinion, but you don't say what you believe or why you believe it. You call me a hypocrite but you don't say why you think so. Please feel free to point out the exact substance of my hypocrisy. You brag about your studying the history of the region since the 70's but you offer none of the information you claim to have that counters our arguments. You backpeddle and try to change the meaning of your posts after the fact. When you say "Those not so inclined need not take offense" your are obviously not meaning Corwin or myself. We're the supposed parrots. Your posts are hostile and bereft of any supporting information. If you'd like to back up your claims with specifics, feel free. Maybe then we can have an intelligent discourse on the subject. But you have yet to offer any. And the tone of your posts is extremely arrogant. Please point to specific sources about Hussein's religiousness. Iraq had a secular government. You also claim that you "delight in tickling the feathers of extremists" which would seem to be the only thing you've backed up with your posts. However, I don't believe anyone in this thread is an extremist. I've presented plenty of supporting evidence for why I believe what I believe, and I'd be happy to supply more if you need it. So far all you've done is flame.
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
12-18-2003 09:42
From: someone Originally posted by Jonathan VonLenard Could you do me a favor and reply to my question in that post too?
The one about whether or not I'm Bush's stooge for supporting the war when I am against him on many other issues. Sure JV I don't think you're a stooge. I don't think Champie is either. He's demonstrated repeatedly that he's willing to digest and consider information from both sides of the fence. I do think that you have an inclination to lean towards Bush and the conservative agenda just as I do to lean the other way, but the fact that you're willing to debate in a reasonable way shows me that all in all you're a reasonable person. My crappy post to Champie was intended as sarcasm to make a point. Definitely NOT one of my better posts! Thanks for calling me on it.
_____________________
My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
|
Champie Jack
Registered User
Join date: 6 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,156
|
12-18-2003 10:01
quick, someone tell Daemioth that I can be resonable!! lol
off the subject...Chip, what is that Holodeck looking arena that you built? Is it a game, or what? I'm curious since I wsa checking it out earlier today.
|
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
12-18-2003 10:21
From: someone Originally posted by Champie Jack
quick, someone tell Daemioth that I can be resonable!! lol
off the subject...Chip, what is that Holodeck looking arena that you built? Is it a game, or what? I'm curious since I wsa checking it out earlier today. errrr, I'm not sure Champie. Might be something I helped Einsman with some texturing on a while back? Where was it? Thanks for the link to that article about neo-cons and their connection to Straussian ideology. Very interesting read.
_____________________
My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
|
Misnomer Jones
3 is the magic number
Join date: 27 Jan 2003
Posts: 1,800
|
12-18-2003 10:49
I really want to see the whole interview tonight. Meanwhile, here's something to chew on. More here From: someone DIANE SAWYER: Fifty percent of the American people have said that they think the administration exaggerated the evidence going into the war with Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, connection to terrorism. Are the American people wrong? Misguided?
PRESIDENT BUSH: The intelligence I operated one was good sound intelligence, the same intelligence that my predecessor operated on. The — there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a threat. The — otherwise the United Nations might — wouldn't a passed, you know, resolution after resolution after resolution, demanding that he disarm. ... I first went to the United Nations, September the 12th, 2002, and said you've given this man resolution after resolution after resolution. He's ignoring them. You step up and see that he honor those resolutions. Otherwise you become a feckless debating society. ... And so for the sake of peace and for the sake of freedom of the Iraqi people, for the sake of security of the country, and for the sake of the credibility of institu — in — international institutions, a group of us moved, and the world is better for it.
DIANE SAWYER: But let me try to ask — this could be a long question. ... ... When you take a look back, Vice President Cheney said there is no doubt, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, not programs, not intent. There is no doubt he has weapons of mass destruction. Secretary Powell said 100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons and now the inspectors say that there's no evidence of these weapons existing right now. The yellow cake in Niger, in Niger. George Tenet has said that shouldn't have been in your speech. Secretary Powell talked about mobile labs. Again, the intelligence — the inspectors have said they can't confirm this, they can't corroborate.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet.
DIANE SAWYER: — an active —
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet.
DIANE SAWYER: Is it yet?
PRESIDENT BUSH: But what David Kay did discover was they had a weapons program, and had that, that — let me finish for a second. Now it's more extensive than, than missiles. Had that knowledge been examined by the United Nations or had David Kay's report been placed in front of the United Nations, he, he, Saddam Hussein, would have been in material breach of 1441, which meant it was a causis belli. And look, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous person, and there's no doubt we had a body of evidence proving that, and there is no doubt that the president must act, after 9/11, to make America a more secure country.
DIANE SAWYER: Again, I'm just trying to ask, these are supporters, people who believed in the war who have asked the question.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, you can keep asking the question and my answer's gonna be the same. Saddam was a danger and the world is better off cause we got rid of him.
DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —
PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?
DIANE SAWYER: Well —
PRESIDENT BUSH: The possibility that he could acquire weapons. If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger. That's, that's what I'm trying to explain to you. A gathering threat, after 9/11, is a threat that needed to be de — dealt with, and it was done after 12 long years of the world saying the man's a danger. And so we got rid of him and there's no doubt the world is a safer, freer place as a result of Saddam being gone.
DIANE SAWYER: But, but, again, some, some of the critics have said this combined with the failure to establish proof of, of elaborate terrorism contacts, has indicated that there's just not precision, at best, and misleading, at worst.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah. Look — what — what we based our evidence on was a very sound National Intelligence Estimate. ...
DIANE SAWYER: Nothing should have been more precise?
PRESIDENT BUSH: What — I, I — I made my decision based upon enough intelligence to tell me that this country was threatened with Saddam Hussein in power.
DIANE SAWYER: What would it take to convince you he didn't have weapons of mass destruction?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Saddam Hussein was a threat and the fact that he is gone means America is a safer country.
DIANE SAWYER: And if he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction [inaudible] —
PRESIDENT BUSH: Diane, you can keep asking the question. I'm telling you — I made the right decision for America —
DIANE SAWYER: But-
PRESIDENT BUSH: — because Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction, invaded Kuwait. ... But the fact that he is not there is, means America's a more secure country. |
|
Kathy Yamamoto
Publisher and Surrealist
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 615
|
12-18-2003 15:19
I know how to make the United States even safer
_____________________
Kathy Yamamoto
Quaker's Sword
Leftist, Liberals & Lunatics
Turtlemoon Publishing and Property
turtlemoon@gmail.com
|
|
Jonathan VonLenard
Resident Hippo
Join date: 8 May 2003
Posts: 632
|
12-18-2003 16:13
From: someone Originally posted by Champie Jack
JV, think that you have either mis-stated some things or are wrong about what went down in Florida.
True, the Supreme Court did not appoint him. Saying that is common way of referring to the action of the Supreme Court as essentially an act of despotism (drama intended).
The United States Supreme Court DID rule that the Florida State Supreme Court cease all rulings that would allow recounts to continue in selected counties of Florida.
Sure, those votes are the popular vote, but the popular vote in each state is what is supposed to influence the Electoral College Reps for that State. True, Popular vote does not elect the president, but you mean that the NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE does not elect the president. The recount was for the FLORIDA VOTE. And since it was the electoral votes of Florida tht swung the election for Bush, I would say that the recount was very relevent. State wide popular vote doesn't mean anything either. The electors are elected by elected officials (works differently in different states), they can vote however they want, they don't have to vote the way the people do. Any doubt that Bush is president is wrong, you may not like him as a President (not you Champie, the allmighty use of you) but he is president, and it just shows lack of constitutional knowledge to claim differently. JV
_____________________
"Now that we're here, it's so far away
All the struggle we thought was in vain
And all the mistakes, one life contained
They all finally start to go away
And now that we're here, it's so far away
And I feel like I can face the day
And I can forgive
And I'm not ashamed to be
The Person that I am today"
|
|
Jonathan VonLenard
Resident Hippo
Join date: 8 May 2003
Posts: 632
|
12-18-2003 16:16
From: someone Originally posted by Champie Jack
JV, think that you have either mis-stated some things or are wrong about what went down in Florida.
True, the Supreme Court did not appoint him. Saying that is common way of referring to the action of the Supreme Court as essentially an act of despotism (drama intended).
The United States Supreme Court DID rule that the Florida State Supreme Court cease all rulings that would allow recounts to continue in selected counties of Florida.
Sure, those votes are the popular vote, but the popular vote in each state is what is supposed to influence the Electoral College Reps for that State. True, Popular vote does not elect the president, but you mean that the NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE does not elect the president. The recount was for the FLORIDA VOTE. And since it was the electoral votes of Florida tht swung the election for Bush, I would say that the recount was very relevent. Also it wasn't the Florida electoral votes that lost Gore the election, it was all the votes he lost. INCLUDING HIS HOME STATE. He lost his home state, I'm sorry, but recounts that dont' change the electoral vote in florida when you lost your own damn state, are stupid. JV
_____________________
"Now that we're here, it's so far away
All the struggle we thought was in vain
And all the mistakes, one life contained
They all finally start to go away
And now that we're here, it's so far away
And I feel like I can face the day
And I can forgive
And I'm not ashamed to be
The Person that I am today"
|
|
Champie Jack
Registered User
Join date: 6 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,156
|
12-18-2003 17:02
Jv, like I said in an earlier post...the election was Gore's to lose. So, I agree that it wasn't JUST Florida that was the problem.
Kathy, what is your idea to make the United Sates even safer? Or, were you making a sarcastic remark?
|
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
12-18-2003 18:29
From: someone Originally posted by Champie Jack
Kathy, what is your idea to make the United Sates even safer? Or, were you making a sarcastic remark? I think she meant making sure the backpeddler-in-chief doesn't get reelected 
_____________________
My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
|
Champie Jack
Registered User
Join date: 6 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,156
|
12-18-2003 18:44
thats what I thought Chip, thanks for cleaing it up.
What do you think? Is this thread cooked? Me? I think I'm moving onto more game related stuff for now. Even though things move kinda slow in the game discussion, I have plenty of catching up to do regarding building, economy, and social apects.
Like any noob, I have all these ideas that I'm sure have been hashed out in these forums...I need to understand the potential and the limitations of SL before I start spewing "hey, I got a great idea" type stuff.
Anyway, I probably wont be back in this thread unless someone calls me out on something...
It has been a pleasure, but I fear that my introduction to the SL community was a bit dubious. Well, we move on from here.
Champie
|
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
12-18-2003 19:16
I enjoyed debating with you Champie Hope to see you in world soon.
_____________________
My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|