It's time.

POSTED BY: Jonus
UPDATED: Monday, March 27, 2006 00:25
VIEWED: 15488
PAGE 10 of 14

PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE

HERO

Friday, March 24, 2006 8:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Just say that you don't care what laws Bush breaks. Just say that you don't care particularly why wars are fought.
Just say that you don't care if people are tortured or not.

Seems like your trying to avoid an honost debate by relying on your own false assumptions. Rather then engaging in a dialogue, you dismiss the arguments I make and insert ones you prefer.

So here's what I'll "just say". I don't agree that the President broke any laws, not going to war, not the election, not even the wiretapping. I do care why wars are fought and I think this one, meaning the broad war on terror as well as the particular war in Iraq, is more then justified by the actions of the party-opponants. Finally, I do care if people are tortured and I support the zealous prosecution of any American official who breaks the law in such a manner, yet I also believe that under certain, very limited, circumstances torture is necessary and proper even within the framework of the Constitution (which courts have noted is not a suicide pact).

Quote:

Either you're a hard-core misanthrope, or you need to excuse those whom you support out of purely emotional reasons, which is it, Hero?

I neither 'hate mankind' nor am seeking an emotional outlet. Your imagination is somewhat limited if you cannot come up with more then two possibilites here, including the one where I am 'a true believing patriot whose informed and educated opinion on these particular issues happens to differ from yours.'

Quote:

Edit: P.S. If you're takin' time to give me the proper reply to take the wind out of my arguments, remember; you put drunks in jail.

Actually I was taking my time putting people in jail. Taking the wind out of your arguments doesn't take much time at all.

Quote:

They're not a particularly hard crowd to outwit in court.

No. Its the lawyers, judges, and juries that take up most of my effort. And its never about outwiting. My style is to tell the truth and let justice sort itself out. Sounds 'corny' but I've never lost a jury trial.

Quote:

I.e., you're not as smart as you think you are,

Maybe not, but I'm a hell of a lot smarter then you think I am.

HERO

Friday, March 24, 2006 8:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
All I have to do is get him to give up his opulent lifestyle and dump that insanely beautiful girl (Who's only with him for the $ anyway), and start driving a Hyundai, and that will be a good start!

Hmm...my hot blonde nurse and new Mustang or a plumpy feminist and good gas milage. I'll have to think about that one.

And my oppulant lifestyle...on a government salary? If I hadn't had a wealthy grandfather to help fund lawschool, I'd take offense to that. Between him and my part-time job I managed to get out with about half the average student loans, so yeah...oppulant. If it wasn't for the bribes and kickbacks I'd be driving the low priced import and dating someone like PirateJenny (no offense).

H

REAVERMAN

Friday, March 24, 2006 8:53 PM

O.K., I think everyone needs to stop for a second. How is mudslinging going to solve anything? First of all, so far, I haven't seen a single person here say that they support anti-free speech laws, so stop jumping all over Hero. If he did everything he said he did, then he deserves your utmost respect, even if you dont agree with his political leanings. I, for example, am a flaming atheist liberal, but I respect the hell out of anyone who can do those kinds of things. Look, federal laws do exist that limit free speech. Some are, in my opinion, very good ideas. Take the slander and libel laws for example. If you were, say, a restaurant owner and you got into a argument with someone outside, how would you like it if they told the local paper that there were roaches in the kitchen and that customer service sucked? True or not, this would cost you a hell of a lot of money. Money that you can never get back. Even if you somehow clear your name, you're stuck with the stigma of being "that guy with the roaches in his kitchen".
I, however, do not believe that the laws should extend any further than that which can harm a person physically, financially, etc...

Chrisisall and Piratejenny, Your absolutism sickens me. Because Hero doesn't agree with you, he's automatically the bad guy, why, I bet he even gobbles up babies.*shakes head sadly* You know nothing about him aside from what he's told you. By taking the stand that you have against him without information about his real character, you are no better than any conservative, George Bush and Adolf Hitler included. As for whether one of us is more like a Browncoat or a Purplebelly, who cares? Both sides want to help people. Both sides have their pro's and con's. It is possible for the two to agree on somethings though. You spend all your time focusing on the differences, but if you look closer and actually ask Hero, I bet he is as against infringing on the constitution as you are, he just has different reasons why.

And will you people stop trying to say what the forefathers would think! You have no idea what they would think. Also, you have to remember that the forefathers were as fragmented and diverse as we are today. Some were Christian, some were atheist. Some believed that we should never have gone to war with Britain for independence, while some would have gladly put every English soldier against a wall and shot them.

If we really want to change things for the better, which, I for one do, then stop bitching about it because this is going nowhere. Do you think the Constitutional Convention created the foundation of our nation by hurling insults and mocking each other? OF COURSE NOT!!! They figured out what they had in common and made a compromise! Have any of you ever heard that term before? It means finding a solution that works for EVERYONE, not the right wing or the left. That is what we should be doing right now. Work together, find out what we all want to do, because even if one side or the other gets their way, there will always be people who disagree and will be pissed at not being included, which will only result in a constant cycle of revolution which leaves us wide open to attack. If we were fighting each other, do you think China would waste a single fuckin' second gettin' troops over here to "keep the peace"? No! The Chinese dont fuck around. They have a military that numbers 20,000,000, and the will to use it. Unless we work together, we'll have our very own Miranda right here in America. In the process of trying to make the world a better place, all we will have done is screw everyone!

All I ask is that you act like rational human beings. I know it's possible, or America would never have been founded. Stop, think, compromise, then act.

OLDENGLANDDRY

Friday, March 24, 2006 9:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

What you really mean to ask is why did I choose the name?

Perhaps it was a tribute to the legendary 'Hero of Canton'. Perhaps it was because I won a Bronze Star in the First Gulf War. Perhaps because I once pulled a child from in front of a speeding car (drunk driver). Perhaps because I adopted a rescued puppy. Perhaps a love a good sandwhich. Perhaps, perhaps perhaps, and perhaps you and others have a few perhaps of your own. The reason is personal and will remain so.

Perhaps it was out of modesty.

CHRISISALL

Friday, March 24, 2006 10:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I don't agree that the President broke any laws, not going to war, not the election, not even the wiretapping. I also believe that under certain, very limited, circumstances torture is necessary and proper even within the framework of the Constitution (which courts have noted is not a suicide pact).

It's not an issue to agree or disagree with. That's my whole problem with it. Do I need to agree that the sun is hot? Bush Broke laws. Bush lied. So did Clinton. Laws are either broken or not. If you go 28 mph in a 25 mph zone, you are breaking a law. If you tell a non-truth to mislead, it's a lie.
Clinton LIED about Monica.
Call it absolutism, but the disagreement should take place over whether it is acceptable to lie, or break a law, not whether it happens. That's nonsense.

I happen to believe it IS acceptable to break certain laws, at particular times. That's not even my beef with Bush. It's gonna (and sometimes SHOULD) happen. But don't act as if we can agree or disagree about the actual actions taken.

I will accept the argument that the war in Iraq will turn out to be a good thing.
I cannot accept that the reason we went there in the first place is based on lies.

*falls over*
Uh.... out o f g a s

Absolutist Chrisisall, realizing that Hero is smart (just gittin' a rise out of ya...)
Edit: NO CITIZEN!!!! Not that kind of rise!! Sheesh!!!

WHOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 10:24 PM

Quote:
Do you think the Constitutional Convention created the foundation of our nation by hurling insults and mocking each other? OF COURSE NOT!!!

Yes they did! Some were gentlemen, but others were serious rabble-rousers. There was name calling, threats were made, fists were pounded against table-tops, inflammatory speeches were made, and on several occasions delegates threatened to walk out.

Political gatherings were WAY more intense in the days before t.v. brought them into everyone's home.

CHRISISALL

Friday, March 24, 2006 10:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:

Chrisisall and Piratejenny, Your absolutism sickens me. Because Hero doesn't agree with you, he's automatically the bad guy, why, I bet he even gobbles up babies.

Is that libel?

Sorry, I guess maybe I should have messaged Hero directly, but I can't fathom how issues of yes or no can be turned into maybes.
I don't agree that we bombed Hiroshima. All the evidence is anecdotal. Documentary footage was falsified. Come on.
WMD's didn't exist. Saddam was no eminent threat to the U.S. Torture was acceptable enough until pictures surfaced. These are matters of undeniable fact. That's all.

I find compromise a difficult thing when dealing with facts.

I usually try to get us to be agreeable, but the wishy-washy maybes aren't helping anything at all.
"Bush lied to get the war he thought was necessary in the long run." I could actually respect that opinion.

Truth and Justice Chrisisall

REAVERMAN

Friday, March 24, 2006 10:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WhoMe:
Quote:
Do you think the Constitutional Convention created the foundation of our nation by hurling insults and mocking each other? OF COURSE NOT!!!

Yes they did! Some were gentlemen, but others were serious rabble-rousers. There was name calling, threats were made, fists were pounded against table-tops, inflammatory speeches were made, and on several occasions delegates threatened to walk out.

Political gatherings were WAY more intense in the days before t.v. brought them into everyone's home.

But in the end, they were forced to work together to accomplish what they intended. I never said they didn't fight and bicker. What I said was that it never got them anywhere.

"We're gonna explode? I don' wanna explode!"

REAVERMAN

Friday, March 24, 2006 10:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Just say that you don't care what laws Bush breaks. Just say that you don't care particularly why wars are fought.
Just say that you don't care if people are tortured or not.

Quote:

Either you're a hard-core misanthrope, or you need to excuse those whom you support out of purely emotional reasons, which is it, Hero?

Quote:

Edit: P.S. If you're takin' time to give me the proper reply to take the wind out of my arguments, remember; you put drunks in jail.

Quote:

They're not a particularly hard crowd to outwit in court.

Quote:

I.e., you're not as smart as you think you are,

Hmm... yep, definitely arguing only facts there. Why, I see attack after attack after attack on Hero's character. Yep, you're practically a wellspring of logical discourse.

Look, there is no concrete proof that Bush lied about the reasons for war. I, personally believe that he did lie, but there IS NO PROOF. If there was, he would have been impeached by now. In fact, aside from the wiretapping (completely beyond presidential authority), you have no proof at all that George Bush broke any law. Because there isn't proof, all you and Hero are doing is arguing opinions, which generally turns into a quagmire, because neither side is willing to be convinced, and both sides are too damn stubborn to give it up.

P.S. As for the torture thing, as far as I know, the constitution doesn't cover foreign citizens, so , if Bush is having prisoners tortured, it is not unconstitutional, and as the prisoners in Gtmo are not soldiers from one nation or another at war with us, they are not covered by the Geneva Convention. So, despicable as it is, Bush has broken no law whether he tortured prisoners or not.

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, March 25, 2006 4:53 AM

Ergh, would that I had the sense to not stick my pen into this rusty rat trap, but in the hopes of gettin something worthwhile across to anyone in this thread, here goes.

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Where were you when my High School History teacher was falling asleep behind his newspaper in class?

In a nose to nose screaming match with my own history teacher, over some glaring inconsistancies between my 1968 Silver Burdett textbook and Encylopedia Brittanica, and even more differences between either one, and what he was saying.

I wanted to get to the bottom of which version of events was factual, and eventually did, then laid into the poor guy out of the blue in the middle of a thursday afternoon.

Ironically, it was that set of verbal barrages that wound up drawing the whole class out of cruise control funk and got them actually interested in the subject at hand - and the teacher, to his credit as one, let the rather lively disagreements continue as he watched the average grades in his class quickly rise.

An interesting year, that was.

WHOME

Quote:
I would absolutely love to know where you got that number.

What, on how many folks fall down and get hurt in bathtubs every year ?

OSHA, Under slip and fall accidents.
US Dep of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics is an even better source.

Hell, looks to me like ladders are even more dangerous, you don't see war being declared on them neither, last i heard.

Quote:
How 'bout if I insult you and drive on? Is that okay?

Fine by me, unlike you, I do believe in free speech - insult away.

Quote:
Did you bother to read any of the links I posted? Or is this one of those situations where anything not in line with your current opinions doesn't exist for you?

I ask of you the same, I was familiar with the Alien and Sedition acts, and their relevant history before you even mentioned them, which rank right up there with the Jim Crow laws for historical cases of unconstitutional nastiness that had no business in american society, whether or not they ever made it into the law books.

I find it odd that in claiming to know the wishes of the founding fathers, you've yet to quote a one of them on the subject, and have not only obviously not bothered to read their own words or opinions on the matter, but do not seem in the least interested in doing so either - so either you've got a seance rolling with a really good medium, or you just assume they agree with what you are saying...

That's a fairly arrogant assumption, when you think about it.

REAVERMAN

Quote:
And will you people stop trying to say what the forefathers would think! You have no idea what they would think. Also, you have to remember that the forefathers were as fragmented and diverse as we are today. Some were Christian, some were atheist. Some believed that we should never have gone to war with Britain for independence, while some would have gladly put every English soldier against a wall and shot them.

I ain't sayin what they woulda thought, I'm suggesting folks read what they DID think, hell they wrote it all down for us so we would KNOW what they thought, why they did this or that, it's all a matter of record and available to anyone who can read, so what they thought on topics is not, and has never been, in any doubt.

What's causing issue is when folks made blatant assumptions and suggest they took stances contrary to everything they believed in without taking the time and effort to find out for themselves if they really felt that way.

They were indeed a diverse lot, and yet, unlike us of today, managed to hammer out a pretty decent government in spite of those differences - one could learn a lot from that alone.

Quote:
Do you think the Constitutional Convention created the foundation of our nation by hurling insults and mocking each other? OF COURSE NOT!!!

LMAO, Actually it was very much like that, and there was a whole lot of that goin on, I believe a healthy debate on any topic should involve a b

PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE