|
Post by gillianren on Feb 16, 2007 14:18:28 GMT -4
[I'm sorry if I'm tugging on the goalposts - as I said I had forgotten that a judge did rule that way because I felt it was of no consequence whatsoever (as it would certainly be appealed). Well, yes; that's how the process works. It doesn't mean the appeal will be shown to have merit. After all, Ted Bundy appealed his sentence; he was still executed, and well he should have been. The trial was completely legally valid, so his appeal was meritless. An appeal is not in and of itself evidence of a lack of validity to the original ruling, just that the side appealing won't let it go.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Feb 16, 2007 19:18:49 GMT -4
If you are referring to me you took my statement out of context. I honestly don't remember who made the statement or if it was several people. I don’t remember anyone else making comments along those lines, intentionally or not my comments were taken out of context What evidence do you have to support this contention? Earlier in this thread I provided links showing that numerous polls carried out by an organization run by Iraqi’s defense minister showed otherwise. As with Vietnam you seem to be blaming the opponents (i.e. blaming the messenger) for the US’s failure, in both cases we were where we weren’t really wanted. Part of the problem seems to be the US is too heavy handed, Britain is even more divided than the US but are having far less trouble in their sector. You think that the politicians who oppose the war do so for political reasons but it doesn’t seem to occur to you they might sincerely oppose the war. I agree Americans should unite against a common enemy but that is not to say we and our elected leaders should blindly follow the president if he involves us in a war that is disastrous for our country, our allies, the rest of the world and especially the country were the war is being fought. If the administration is now doing what its critics said it should have been doing that could be interpreted as a tact admission they were wrong and/or they doubt their actions would withstand legal scrutiny OK three legal scholars; I was unaware of them. The same Wikipedia article lists 22, including a former presidential council, the dean of Yale Law School and 5 professors from Stanford, Harvard or Georgetown law schools who say it was illegal a position also taken by the American Bar Association and the Congressional Research Service (at a time when both houses were controlled by the president’s party. Even Arlen Specter a former prosecutor a Republican and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said it was illegal.* This seems to have been the overwhelming consensus of the legal community. www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/20060205-065029-9962r/So am I and most of the people who criticized the program. That’s the problem it seems to have been done illegally and for no real reason, it wasn’t a situation were getting the warrants would have encumbered the investigations, they could have asked after the fact and had a 99.9998% chance of getting approved. I really doubt the 0.0002% (4 or 5 out of 18,761) of cases turned down by judges appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist would have been likely to have uncovered coming attacks. Most if not all the rejected warrants were approved after being modified anyway. It's the events that were important. Details as inconsequential as exactly when you saw what media coverage of the event that day are not as likely to be remembered as the content of the coverage itself, even only a few months after. Let’s go over the chronology he was told about the 1st crash either in the limo or just after getting to the school at that point he might have thought it was an accident as he recalled on those two occasion but obviously couldn’t have seen anything (other than the North Tower on fire) before entering the classroom, then he was told by Andy Card in the classroom the South Tower had been hit, he probably saw a replay of the 2nd crash after leaving the classroom it it’s really hard to believe he couldn’t correctly remember that sequence only a couple months later. Kerry has proved his intelligence in other ways. “He was chosen to deliver his senior class oration, a testament to his reputation as a public speaker” Again, public speaking ability is no real indication of intelligence. I agree that up to a point someone who is a poor speaker might be intelligent but it’s hard to believe that someone who is highly articulate isn’t intelligent, he was chosen as one of the best orators among the graduates of one of the top universities in America (and didn’t get in because he was a legacy). Carnival has arrived I probably won’t post again till next Wednesday.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Feb 17, 2007 2:10:11 GMT -4
I don't know Jason the arguments you present soundlike a rehash of what we (or in many cases our parents) were told were reasons for staying in Vietnam. We pulled out of that country in 72-73 under pretty much the same terms we could have 5 years and thousands of deaths earlier. Vietnam was a result of the politicians trying to run the war instead of leaving it to the generals. The greatest kinship the Iraq war has to Vietnam is in this aspect. True, to a point, but in my opinion the LBJ/ Westmorland relationship during the height of the US escalation (roughly mid '66 to until the Tet offensive) sure looked, more often than not, like a meeting of the minds. LBJ's micromanagement of the situation is another story, but the broad game plan was Westmoreland's.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 20, 2007 12:36:01 GMT -4
As with Vietnam you seem to be blaming the opponents (i.e. blaming the messenger) for the US’s failure, in both cases we were where we weren’t really wanted. There were people in Vietnam who wanted us there too. Most of them either came to the U.S. or didn't survive the pogroms that followed the U.S. withdrawl. Some of them probably do, but their actions convince me that the majority are doing so for political reasons. The non-binding resolution in the House that passed last week, for instance. If congress really opposes the war then they should vote to de-fund it, not use the opportunity to do a little grandstanding. Each member of the house was given 5 minutes, which is just enough time to issue some soundbites but not enough to really engage in any debate. Healthy criticism is one thing. All out efforts to destroy the President at the cost of our troop's lives and national security is quite another. For quite some time the administration's critics argued that there were not enough troops in Iraq to get the job done. Now that the president listened and is sending more troops that argument reversed itself - sending more troops is now the worst possible move. That would be because Wikipedia is generally liberal and anti-war. I don't care if there is a consensus. There's a general consensus in the country that O.J. is guilty but the man is still walking around free today. Not to me it's not. I remember turning on the TV in the morning and watching until one of the towers collapsed before going to work, but I don't remember if I saw one of the planes hit or not. I think I didn't until later in the day, when I went down to the company cafeteria to watch the news a few hours later, but I can't really be sure. Point taken. But like I said, I don't need to think John Kerry is stupid to disagree with him.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jul 10, 2007 10:02:18 GMT -4
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 10, 2007 11:03:08 GMT -4
Seeing this thread pop to the top reminded me that the ruling against the warrentless wiretapping program mentioned earlier in this thread has now been overturned - as I predicted it would be. It was overturned by the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on the 6th of this month.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 10, 2007 11:17:50 GMT -4
It was overturned by the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on the 6th of this month. Numerologists are currently sifting through the documentation for a 3rd 6.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 10, 2007 11:21:55 GMT -4
Wow. I got a few paragraphs into this and couldn't help laughing out loud. It's an amazing piece of doublethink - she decries ignorance, gullibility, propoganda, and close-mindedness while wallowing in her own ability to believe anything about America and Americans as long as it's bad.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 10, 2007 18:42:50 GMT -4
I think that in general, Americans are too independent to be programmed. But I do find that are somewhat ignorant of other cultures, even Canada which is right next door.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 10, 2007 20:49:51 GMT -4
Actually I think it's a rare individual who isn't mostly ignorant about other cultures. Even with American music playing everywhere, American shows on TV, and American movies in the theaters I still ran into a lot of Dutch people who had really strange ideas of what America was really like.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 10, 2007 21:00:12 GMT -4
I still ran into a lot of Dutch people who had really strange ideas of what America was really like. No doubt, if they were based on pop music, TV and films. Lemme guess, they think we all live in enormous studio apartments and deliver quippy one-liners before blowing away our enemies.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 10, 2007 21:20:13 GMT -4
Compared to most Dutch homes we do all live in enormous apartments.
And many people I ran into thought it would be dangerous to walk the streets in any American city because of all the armed gangs.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 10, 2007 21:20:50 GMT -4
Here in Canada we are very aware of U.S. cultural and political processes. I've watched Presidential Debates many times and followed their elections. I have access to all the American networks, CNN etc. Even in school we learned the names of the 50 states and their capitals in grade seven. We learned about the Civil War in our history class and the War of Independence. I doubt if Americans learn about the Riel Rebellion in their schools. We buy not only American cars, but also make American cars in Canada. We buy American packaged food and their fresh oranges and sell them beef and maple syrup. All the books I buy have American and Canadian prices printed on them. I can buy the New York Times in a store just blocks from my house and get Newsweek just as easily as Macleans (our national news magazine). I can drive to the States in about an hour and a half and visit their side of the falls or see a Bills game. In the winter I can be relieved that we're not getting all the snow that Buffalo is getting. I grew up watching Commander Tom, and Captain Kangaroo . I've sent money to PBS when they've had pledge drives. I've felt sadness when Bobby Kennedy was shot, even though I was only ten. I remember in 1968 watching the disruptions at the Democratic Convention and Apollo 8. My first memory ever of television was when I was five and watched JFK's casket slow ride through the streets of Washington (I believe). So in general, I think Canadians would know more about America than say, the European countries.
I don't have FOX television. Am I missing out?
Added:
Also to comment on the 'Lying American Press' One thing I've learned is that in the States almost everyone has the power to express their opinion. They can (and have) start their own magazine, or club, or website to do this. So I can read the Republic, or Mother Jones. Time or Rolling Stone. America has variety. It has room for great ideas from great people and is a place where dreams can be made reality. It is home to many of the worlds greatest politicians, scientists and humanitarians in its history. It has a heart, but is sometimes a bully. It can save Europe from destruction but also wreak havoc on Vietnam and Iraq. Benjamin Franklin once said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. " I wonder if G. Bush even read those words. Oh, he also said "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." Well said.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Jul 14, 2007 0:48:11 GMT -4
Compared to most Dutch homes we do all live in enormous apartments. And many people I ran into thought it would be dangerous to walk the streets in any American city because of all the armed gangs. I ran into this with an Australian girlfriend; she was pleasantly surprised when she visited, there weren't gun fights and hoodlums on every corner, no one she saw were packing a "nine" or a .45 (as I had tried to tell her). Never did get her over her fear of black bears though (Ursaphobia?lol)...when we toured the back roads (in Vermont) she insisted I bring my rifle...Her fear of bears outweighed her fear of firearms I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 14, 2007 1:45:28 GMT -4
Her fear of bears outweighed her fear of firearms I guess. So I assume her stance on bears with firearms is in the resoundingly negative?
|
|