Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 21, 2008 16:46:46 GMT -4
So I guess what you are saying is that if I show you that Al Gore did nothing like trying to "steal" an election and if I show you very definitively why that is so -- you are just going to say that he tried to steal it, anyway. If you could definitely show me that Al Gore didn't try to steal an election then I would probably change my mind, but said definite evidence seems to be lacking. I admit it would be a difficult task to produce such evidence, since it doesn't hinge on whether Gore's actions were legal, but whether they were moral. In other words, not whether Gore was legally allowed to do what he did, but whether he should have. That's a piont of my position you seem to be ignoring with your constant insistance that he did nothing illegal.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on May 21, 2008 18:01:50 GMT -4
I didn't mean to imply that Saudi Arabia has religious freedom (or that their government isn't corrupt, for that matter). ObL hates us more and we are more free. Now were you meaning to imply that we really are trying to eradicate Islam? Well, there is an historical precedent... Some people have loooong memories. And the US mucking about the Middle-East during the last 60 years (for their own geopolitical reasons), with the grace and common sense of an ass hasn't helped either. The Ugly American was published in '58, but not much seems to have changed since then. Frankly, Yankees suck at diplomacy.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 21, 2008 18:08:37 GMT -4
I didn't mean to imply that Saudi Arabia has religious freedom (or that their government isn't corrupt, for that matter). ObL hates us more and we are more free. Now were you meaning to imply that we really are trying to eradicate Islam? Well, there is an historical precedent... Some people have loooong memories. That's taking things back a little too far for me. Why, just over a hundred years ago the U.S. government actively tried to destroy the LDS church. I don't hold it against them today. Maybe it's difficult to be a good diplomat when you're the world's only superpower and everyone knows it. On a national level it may indeed be better to be feared than loved.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 21, 2008 18:12:37 GMT -4
Arguing about what is and isn't definitively immoral should be very productive. So... since your claim that Al Gore tried to steal the election seems to be based on his supposed immoral acts, the challenge is really yours to show that his acts were immoral -- and you must do so without claiming his acts to be illegal. And you had better be ready to back your claim up with facts, not just wishful thinking and spin.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 21, 2008 18:38:09 GMT -4
That's taking things back a little too far for me.
You are forgetting that there was very recently a war because "Those Musliems come over the hills and took away my father's land, 500 years ago"
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 22, 2008 10:48:58 GMT -4
Arguing about what is and isn't definitively immoral should be very productive. Which is why I won't bother to argue it again. If you have something new to say that will completely turn around my view of Al Gore go ahead and say it. I've already laid out my case of what I think happened and why it was wrong and you haven't been able to raise anything I would consider a serious challenge to it. So unless you have something new there's nothing more for me to say on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 22, 2008 18:12:24 GMT -4
Something new has happened here. At one time, you were claiming Gore's actions were immoral and illegal. Now you are just claiming them to be immoral. You've never provided any kind of support for the immorality claim and you don't seem to be willing to do so, now.
So if you have nothing new to offer, then by all means stop claiming that Al Gore tried to "steal" the election.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 22, 2008 18:39:56 GMT -4
Something new has happened here. At one time, you were claiming Gore's actions were immoral and illegal. Evidence? I'm sure I never said that Gore's actions were criminal (in the sense that he would be liable for prosecution because of them).
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 22, 2008 20:49:09 GMT -4
Something new has happened here. At one time, you were claiming Gore's actions were immoral and illegal. Evidence? I'm sure I never said that Gore's actions were criminal (in the sense that he would be liable for prosecution because of them). You're playing with words again, Jason. You can't have it both ways. By alluding that Gore committed an illegal act, aren't you suggesting that he is a criminal? 0r at least, would be if he were properly prosecuted? Or are you saying he should have been prosecuted? If not, what act did he commit that was illegal? Or, are you saying that what he did was immoral, but should have been illegal? Or that there should have been a law that made it illegal? Or that what he did should have been illegal? Or that Gore didn't do anything illegal, but the Florida Supreme Court did? Just kiddin' around Jason. But sometimes your words twist my simple mind. And yeah, too bad McCain didn't become president in 2000. ;D
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 23, 2008 17:59:37 GMT -4
It's all in the posts I've written on the subject. But in short; I don't know of anything Al Gore did during the 2000 campaign that would be considered illegal in the sense that it was criminal and worthy of prosecution. That does not mean he didn't attempt to steal the election or that he acted morally. What he did do was convince the Florida Supreme Court to re-write Florida election law in his favor after the election had already occurred and cause a lot of damage to many Americans' faith in their electoral system - one that may not have been perfect but worked - and seriously undermined the legitimacy of the then President-Elect from day one. What he should have done is a) not conceded until he was sure he had lost, ignoring the media until he had the official results and b) not attempted to overturn the lawful result once it was in place under the law as it was on election day. In other words, he should have chosen to lose gracefully. He did not. He may have had every right to do what he did, but he shouldn't have done it. It caused more harm than it did anyone good.
What the Florida Supreme Court did was illegal because it was unconstitutional, as the US Supreme Court found, but again it was not criminal - there is no reason to persecute them for it. Whether it was moral or not is a trickier question, since their motives aren't as clear. They should have either not gotten involved at all in the first place (dismissed the case and allowed the state officials to proceed under the statute) or they should have ordered recounts of all the counties in Florida and issued fair standards by which the ballots could be inspected. If they had done that they might have gotten away with it, since the Florida law did give them an unnusual amount of lattitude to fix a problem they found. However they failed to do so and the Supreme Court called them on it. So if they were acting specifically to get Gore elected out of personal bias against Bush then they were acting immorally, but if they were just being incompetent then the case isn't as clear as to whether that rises to the level of "immoral". Hmmm, that was a little longer than I meant to write. Oh well. I hope the summary helps make my position a little more clear.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 23, 2008 18:45:00 GMT -4
Oh Wdmundt, you'll be happy to know that John McCain rejected Rev. Hagee's endorsement of him yesterday, and Rod Parsley's endorsement as well.
Speaking of Hagee's comments about Nazi's being part of God's plan to persecute the Jews into forming Israel, he said:
He also said
Amusingly, Rev. Hagee retracted his endorsement a short time after McCain rejected it.
Just thought you would like to know, since you seemed concerned about the endorsement earlier.
Also, I'll take the opportunity to say that I don't think religious groups should endorse individual candidates or political parties. Churches should not be used for political events or rallys either. Religious groups should instead speak about specific issues that have a moral aspect, such as marriage, and leave their members to decide which candidate best supports the correct moral stance.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on May 23, 2008 18:54:33 GMT -4
Religious groups should instead speak about specific issues that have a moral aspect, such as marriage, and leave their members to decide which candidate best supports the correct moral stance. You left out the part where the members make up their minds for themselves about what actually is 'the correct moral stance'. (Otherwise they'd just be voting cattle. We can't have that in a democracy, now can we?)
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 23, 2008 18:58:09 GMT -4
And there's another dirty trick out there. Back in 2004, when John Kerry was running for president and Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts legislature stripped the governor of the power to appoint a senator should a vaccancy occur. Obviously they didn't want Romney appointing a republican replacement for John Kerry if he had won the election. The legislature instead specified that a vacancy would be filled by a special election. Now that Ted Kennedy has a brain tumor and will probably have to resign shortly, the Masachussetts legislature is talking about restoring the governor's ability to appoint a replacement. The difference? The current governor of Masachussetts is Gov. Deval Patrick - a Democrat.
House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi came right out and acknowledged that they were being completely partisan about this:
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 23, 2008 19:00:30 GMT -4
You left out the part where the members make up their minds for themselves about what actually is 'the correct moral stance'. (Otherwise they'd just be voting cattle. We can't have that in a democracy, now can we?) That's what I meant by "leave it up to them to decide who supports the correct moral stance." Why would you be a member of a religion that you disagree with on moral issues anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on May 23, 2008 19:05:45 GMT -4
Why would you be a member of a religion that you disagree with on moral issues anyway? I dunno... Go ask a catholic.
|
|