Check out some similar questions!

excon · Jul 1, 2006, 11:48 AM

Hello wrongwingers:

Is this the end? Has this president yet realized that he is not beyond the law? Nahhh, not yet. Yup, we are a nation of laws and we adhere to our treaties, like the Geneva Convention, even though Bush thinks otherwise.

The result? The Democrats will take over BOTH houses in '06. That doesn't make me any happier.

excon

PS> I'm presuming most of you know what I'm referring to. To those who don't, go read a newspaper.

Fr_Chuck · Jul 1, 2006, 12:23 PM

One set of crooks for another set of crooks, not seeing any real gain.

Of course for the detainees it may be worst, since if we don't have a trial for them, which was the ruling, that ony said we could not try them in military court. So now they may be given over or back to their own governments or perhaps even to the Iraq government

educatedhorse_2005 · Jul 2, 2006, 01:54 AM

I think fair is fair.
How many of the prisoners that the terrorist have taken in this war have they killed. Or tortured.
I think that we should have the right to return the favor.

ScottGem · Jul 2, 2006, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by Demonspeeding_2005

I think fair is fair.
How many of the prisoners that the terrorist have taken in this war have they killed. Or tortured.
I think that we should have the right to return the favor.

One of the supposed ideals of the US is to take the high side. If we lower ourselves to the level of the "bad guys", are we any better than them?

fredg · Jul 2, 2006, 05:50 AM

Hi, Excon,
I agree with you. Democrats will take over, everything; both Senate, Representatives, and the Presidency.
Maybe it's time for some "new blood". I agree with another answer, that it might not make much difference anyway. But, for the time being, it's all we got.
I've seen some Republican TV commercials here in our local campaigns, where one said "I stand with the President"... he is going to fall with him, too, and not be elected. But, that's just my opinion.
Best wishes.

Fr_Chuck · Jul 2, 2006, 07:10 AM

Part of the democratic problem is that too many of their "support" groups don't go out to the poll in large numbers and many at the state and national level have such a split support group, democrats for example in the south are conservative in the most part, not supporing in large numbers gay rights and abortion, so often they cross party and vote against issues, not straight party.

I really think that the immigration issue ( unless something else happens before them) will make a big difference. I hear many Rep going against the President on this issue and Dem agreeing with the president.
( if that is not scary) But in the south and parts of the west, people are very much more supportive of our troops and of the war ( we don't like it, don't want it but feel it is needed) Most of the polls are vague enough that people say they don't like certain choices but it does not mean they believe the other side is better.

But after watching Clinton, and knowing Carter personally, I don't believe they will really change anything, since they know what the result wouold be if they really tired, they will find someone to blame the not changing on and let things go they way they are with a few changes in social program.

educatedhorse_2005 · Jul 2, 2006, 04:45 PM

If we keep letting them kill there prisoners. With out retribution it will never stop.
You talk about taking the high road. The old testament said it best an eye for an eye.

As far as the president is concerned I agree with what he did. I will stand behind him 100%. If he asked me to I would stand beside him.

I don't care who is elected the next president. He will have to do the same thing. I fill as though the majority elected them then we should all stand beside him.

Even if we do not agree with him.

We should not sit here and pick him apart.

ScottGem · Jul 2, 2006, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Demonspeeding_2005

If we keep letting them kill there prisoners. With out retribution it will never stop.
You talk about taking the high road. The old testament said it best an eye for an eye.

As far as the president is concerned I agree with what he did. I will stand behind him 100%. If he asked me to I would stand beside him.

I don't care who is elected the next president. He will have to do the same thing. I fill as though the majority elected them then we should all stand beside him.

Even if we do not agree with him.

We should not sit here and pick him apart.

Geez, you have no clue what our founding fathers believed in, do you? I suggest you try reading the Federalist Papers. But the concept of blindly following an elected official simply because they were elected was never in their thinking.

I didn't say there shouldn't be retribution, but I again ask; If we stoop to their level are we any better then them? "Eye for an eye" is rather a barbaric custom.

If he is doing a bad job, then we should be picking him apart. If the job he is doing can't stand up to scrutiny then he needs to do a better job.

We got into the mess in Iraq because many people DID follow him blindly.

educatedhorse_2005 · Jul 2, 2006, 05:39 PM

I figured that would get you going.

Sometimes you need to change the rules to get your point across to stupid people. If that means stooping to there level for a minute or two then so be it.

Basically what your are saying is that I am uneducated barbaric person.
I have read the fedarilist papers.
I have been to college.
I thought that this site was to encourage freedom of speech and here you are critcizing me for what I say and what I believe

excon · Jul 2, 2006, 06:11 PM

Hello:

If the Constitution said anything about an "eye for an eye" then I would support it. But, it doesn't say anything close to that. As a matter of fact, our Constitution is the opposite of that.

Are the Gitmo prisoners covered by our Constitution AND the Geneva Convention?? Of course. The Supreme Court just said so. All those agreements say, by the way, is that we'll treat our prisoners humanely. We should do it, if for no other reason, than we said we would. It shouldn't be too hard for us. That IS our character - or at least it used to be.

Of course, our enemy isn't going to do that. So that's good enough reason to change who we are?? I don't think so! Because the people we're fighting are NOT like us, isn't a good reason to change WHO we are. If the only time we are going to act like good, decent, Americans is when we're fighting "good" guys, then we're toast, cause I don't think we're going to find any!

excon

ScottGem · Jul 2, 2006, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Demonspeeding_2005

I figured that would get you going.

Sometimes you need to change the rules to get your point accross to stupid people. If that means stooping to there level for a minute or two then so be it.

Basically what your are saying is that I am uneducated barbaric person.
I have read the fedarilist papers.
I have been to college.
I thought that this site was to encourage freedom of speech and here you are critcizing me for what I say and what I believe

No that's not what I said. Please don't put words into my keyboard.

I didn't say you were uneducated, but your statement about standing behind him because he was elected, does show a lack of understanding of the principles this country was founded on.

Nor did I say YOU were barbaric, I said the concept of eye for an eye is barbaric. Yes there is guilt by association, but one can believe in a barbaric idea without being barbaric themselves.

Now it appears you made those statements because you had a feeling of the way I might react to them. So you were baiting me. Is that what you are saying.

No this site is not here to encourage freedom of speech. Its here to answer people's questions. That doesn't mean you aren't free to voice your opinion. But I find it typical that, at the same time you promote your rights, you deny me mine. If you you have the right to express your opinion (which you do), don't I have the same right?

If you want to voice your opinion that we should stoop to the level of the bad guys, don't I have the right to voice my opinion about why that is wrong? You can't have it both ways. You can't claim free speech rights while trying to deny my free speech rights.

But I say again, that once you stoop to the level of the bad guys, you lose the high ground. You lose a lot of justification for your actions. Which is, of course, the reason why the Bush administration is getting so much flak.

educatedhorse_2005 · Jul 2, 2006, 07:50 PM

I have my opinion and you have yours.
I will quit antagonizing you

I am sorry
Have a good day

talaniman · Jul 3, 2006, 06:53 AM

I don't know what the next election holds for this country but Bush will be gone and that makes me feel better! The next president may be worse ,who can say yet, but a chance to return to sanity will be welcome!
Scott I agree with you and excon that we should always seek the high road and do what we say as a country no matter what the bad guys do, because that is who we are, and if we start doing what they do we will be as wrong as them. You notice I didn't use better than them because as misguided and stupid their actions are we are no better than anyone!
As an American I have the right to call anyone elected or not a dumb ***!!
As an American I do not have to follow a dumb *** wherever he leads whether he is elected or not!!
I was glad the supreme court chose to go against Bush as far as his military tribunal but I will spare you the biased rant I planned against MY president due to breakfast is ready PASS THE HOT SAUCE...

ScottGem · Jul 3, 2006, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by Demonspeeding_2005

I have my opinion and you have yours.
I will quit antagonizing you
I am sorry
Have a good day

I have spoken before on the issue of an opinion being valid or invalid. Often an issue is not cut and dried. In such a case, different opinions can be valid. However, in other cases, a differing opinion is not valid. For example, if you express the opinion that the earth is flat, that would be an invalid opinion since all the evidence says its round (or oval) and there is no evidence to support the its flat statement.

Now, I won't go so far as to say that this discussion falls into the cut and dried area. So you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I think I am on very solid ground when I state that:

1) the founding fathers did not agree with your sentiments
2) this country has always prided itself in taking the moral high ground (didn't always do it, i.e. treatment of native americans and african americans), but certainly its part of the national culture
3) Our constitution and other laws prevent our treating enemines in kind.
4) Our country was founded on the right to freedom of speech and the right to protest the actions of elected officials that one feels are wrong.

The above are facts, not opinions. It would seem to me that your opinion does not fit those facts.

talaniman · Jul 3, 2006, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by ScottGem

I have spoken before on the issue of an opinion being valid or invalid. Often an issue is not cut and dried. In such a case, different opinions can be valid. However, in other cases, a differing opinion is not valid. For example, if you express the opinion that the earth is flat, that would be an invalid opinion since all the evidence says its round (or oval) and there is no evidence to support the its flat statement.

Now, I won't go so far as to say that this discussion falls into the cut and dried area. So you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I think I am on very solid ground when I state that:

1) the founding fathers did not agree with your sentiments
2) this country has always prided itself in taking the moral high ground (didn't always do it, i.e. treatment of native americans and african americans), but certainly its part of the national culture
3) Our constitution and other laws prevent our treating enemines in kind.
4) Our country was founded on the right to freedom of speech and the right to protest the actions of elected officals that one feels are wrong.

The above are facts, not opinions. it would seem to me that your opinion does not fit those facts.

Even though one has an opinion that runs contrary to accepted fact in no way means they do not have the right to express them. Whenever we express such opinions though we have to respect anothers right to disagree with the opinion put forth. There is no right or wrong answer to ones opinion no matter what facts support either. Just my opinion-right or wrong.
I am putting off my Rant against MY president as it is time for lunch so please pass the HOT SAUCE-again!

educatedhorse_2005 · Jul 6, 2006, 09:51 PM

Here is the definition of opinion from webster.

Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
To a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view

ScottGem · Jul 7, 2006, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by Demonspeeding_2005

Here is the definition of opinion from webster.

So? Doesn't contradict with my point that an opinion needs to have some basis in fact.

excon · Jul 7, 2006, 07:05 AM

Hello:

Here's my opinion. You two should take your pi**ing contest over to the pi**ing board, and let's stick to politics. Of course, you're not going to agree. That's the ballgame here. But we can certainly leave personalities out of it!

Let me tell you why. Cause each time you say something nasty to each other, EVERY one of us is informed about it. We click on the board to see who has advanced the POLITICAL discussion, only to find, in our collective dissapointment, that it's you two fighting again.

There ain't one fact in that opinion.

excon

ScottGem · Jul 7, 2006, 09:08 AM

A valid opinion, but not one I totally agree with ;) Its not fighting its discussion. Albeit a bit off topic.

tomder55 · Jul 12, 2006, 05:05 AM

It is now a mute issue . The President caved in . I don't like it and I don't like the Supreme's decision . They basically rewrote the Geneva Convention and gave terrorists and their organizationsnot covered under convention provisions the same rights as nation-state signatories .

The black robed oligarchs gave the President an out . Congress was more than willing to write laws for the terms of confinement and "court martial " that complied with existing standards . The Court (Stevens ) wrote that if Congress passed the legislation they could live with it . But Bush surrendered before they could and announced yesterday that (I guess) the courts interpretation of the Geneva treaty now is the standard (even though they completely distorted Geneva 3... I guess they found their definition in the "emanations from penumbras ")