Who will be your next president?

[gridsix]

Originally Posted by m42

1. Not presenting well does not make you an idiot.
2. That isn't proof. I'm certain you can find more relevant and ethical ways to get traffic to your blog.

Please post a rational and factual argument --preferably here and not on your blog.

What evidence do you have that Bush has single-handedly destroyed our "economics, foreign policy, Iraq?"



Funny! Thanks for sharing!

Uh, the 5 billion and change we're borrowing from China & Japan to fund a mis-placed war that furthers his fat cat cronism? Are you seriously supporting the worst president in American history? Wow, I didn't think there were any of you hard-core neocons left...

Did you know that the Iraq war has cost each American $16,000 to date?

And posting a link to a related blog is unethical? Revoke your support of 'the decider' before calling others ethics into question.

[m42]

I support logical arguments. I asked you for a rational and factual response, and you gave me an emotional and illogical one.

I am not a neocon, I'm a libertarian hawk. In this thread I have simply:

1. asked why people maintain certain beliefs.
2. challenged them to back their beliefs with fact and logic.

You have not only proven yourself to be assumptive, you have proven your logic to be extremely flawed.

Now my opinion of your response:

Five billion dollars is small change. I strongly believe in liberating innocent people from the hands of tyrannical regimes. I freely acknowledge that my belief in this is quite emotional as I was born into a tyrannical regime and saw first hand what it has done to those I love.

I have as much of a problem with your posting links to relevant blogs as you do in linking to your own site in order to boost traffic.

If you continue to be irrational and emotional, I will be more than happy to just write you off as an emotional moron and I promise stop responding to your posts. Scouts honor!

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by gridsix

Uh, the 5 billion and change we're borrowing from China & Japan to fund a mis-placed war that furthers his fat cat cronism?

1. Under Bill Clinton, not Bush, the US debt began being subsidized largely by foreign nations. When Clinton finished his 2nd term, foreign ownership of US Treasuries was about 35%.

2. US foreign debt is largely due to Liberal spending, not the war on terror or the liberation of Iraq from a blood thirsty dictator. A liberation, which you should know, that actually saved lives.

Originally Posted by gridsix

Wow, I didn't think there were any of you hard-core neocons left...

That has to be one of the most idiotic statements I've ever seen. Neo-conservatives are a growing group, not a diminishing one. You probably don't even know what neo-conservatives believe, do you?

Originally Posted by gridsix

Did you know that the Iraq war has cost each American $16,000 to date?

And? You want to draw a conclusion from the price of the war? What if it cost $16,000 to save a young man from being murdered? Forget murder. How about beaten? And forget young man. Let's say it's and old woman. An old woman with cancer, and less than a month to live.

Yeah, it doesn't matter that she's going to die anyway. Neo-conservatives believe that the government has an obligation to do what it can to stop atrocities.

[gridsix]

Originally Posted by m42

I support logical arguments. I asked you for a rational and factual response, and you gave me an emotional and illogical one.

I am not a neocon, I'm a libertarian hawk. In this thread I have simply:

1. asked why people maintain certain beliefs.
2. challenged them to back their beliefs with fact and logic.

You have not only proven yourself to be assumptive, you have proven your logic to be extremely flawed.

Now my opinion of your response:

Five billion dollars is small change. I strongly believe in liberating innocent people from the hands of tyrannical regimes. I freely acknowledge that my belief in this is quite emotional as I was born into a tyrannical regime and saw first hand what it has done to those I love.

I have as much of a problem with your posting links to relevant blogs as you do in linking to your own site in order to boost traffic.

If you continue to be irrational and emotional, I will be more than happy to just write you off as an emotional moron and I promise stop responding to your posts. Scouts honor!

Hilarious... no really. Did you think up that schpeel on your own? Cause, wow, the wit...

I may be 'an emotional moron,' but I do know when to step out of a pointless conversation with closed-minded individuals (that's you m42). Peace.

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Projecting your own thoughts or feelings on others? To some, it appeared to be a president commending the armed forces for toppling Saddam.

And Clinton easily ranks above Bush as worst president. His retreat from Mogadishu impressed upon Al-Qaeda that Americans are a bunch a pussies and all you have to do is kill a few of them and they'll beg for mercy and do whatever you want.

bin Laden was already profoundly affected by the defeat of US forces in Beirut in 1983. That was on Reagan's watch. So, now you're blaming Reagan for this too? The Beirut defeat was far worse. 241 marines blown up in their barracks, the largest one day death toll on American forces since before Nam. The US response? Retreat from Lebanon. So why aren't you you calling Ronnie the worst ever? Would that be too even-handed? Too darn logical?

So to make it clear, it was Beirut, under Reagan, that set the message that the US had no stomach for a fight and would cut and run. That is why John Scott thinks Ronald Reagan is the worst President ever.

Originally Posted by m42

[color=black]
[color=black]I asked for non-tampered quotes. You have effectively confirmed my suspicions that you’ve fallen victim to the liberal media...
Here is the actual quote:

“In defiance of pledges to the United Nations, Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. Saddam Hussein has used these weapons of death against innocent Iraqi people, and we have every reason to believe he will use them again.”

I do not see:

“We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

If he said it, it wasn’t during this radio address. Whether or not he said it is completely irrelevant, there aren’t many reasons to add the second statement to the first out of context. I think the end result here is obvious.

I'm sure you'd like to think so. So the quotes were conflated, that's true: the missing section you wanted was here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030206-17.html

Whether or not he said it is irrelevant? Nice try, but of course it's relevant - it was the pretext for going to war.

The fact of the matter is Bush did claim that Iraq had WMDs. You were wrong. Cheney spoke about Iraq having WMDs... though he tried to talk it up to nukes. These WMDs of Hussein's, primed to strike European targets with 45 mins notice were the reason for the war, whatever your futile attempts at historical revisionism seem to indicate.

Originally Posted by m42

There are many reasons behind the invasion of Iraq. WMD’s were the focus of the media because they preyed upon people’s lack of historical knowledge. And it appears to have worked, not only in my country, but in yours. Here are the stated reasons behind the invasion:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080319-2.html

To find the stated reasons behind the invasion, you have to look at the reasons given at the time - funnily enough, the reasons Bush is giving for it now aren't the same as they were in 2003. Why is that do you think? I know its easy to get confused and, because it's the last thing that was said on the matter, it somehow becomes truth retroactively - Bush likes this kind of Orwellian stuff - but for god's sake can we begin with looking at the actual reasons for the war, not what Bush said it was really about just last week.

Now, this is OK, because I'm used to it from John - he's tried to claim it was nothing to do with WMDs too. For supporters of the current administration (and its always a surprise to me that there any of them left) the WMD issue is the elephant in the room, so they try to pretend it was never there in the first place:

Ultimately I don't need to come up with quotes to demolish a blatant lie, but here are the reasons for the war:
Wikipedia:
The main rationale for the invasion offered by U.S. President George W. Bush and coalition supporters was the allegation that Iraq possessed and was actively developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in violation of a 1991 agreement.

George Bush making it clear that it's about WMDs:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

So let's just put that lie to bed: the war was about WMDs. John likes the war for different reasons, but those who claim it wasn't based on WMDs are lying - or willing victims of doublethink - and hence scarcely worth debating with.

[m42]

Read the full quote (Thank you, btw.):

"Iraq has never accounted for thousands of bombs and shells capable of delivering chemical weapons. The regime is actively pursuing components for prohibited ballistic missiles. And we have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells the world he does not have."

References to missing WMD components, the active pursuit of WMD components, and unconfirmed firsthand sightings aren't enough to back your original statements. If you keep reading, his obvious concern is the potential distribution of these unaccounted for components to terrorist networks.

The post also clearly outlines other reasons for countering Iraq. See sections on the murder of an innocent American, the support and protection of terrorist networks, and the torture of Iraqi people.

Reasons for war link:

Fair enough. Hindsight is 20/20. Withdrawn. Look at the link you posted.

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by m42

Reasons for war link:

Fair enough. Hindsight is 20/20. Withdrawn. Look at the link you posted.

OK, fair enough. Standards are double-edged daggers. I did that too.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

bin Laden was already profoundly affected by the defeat of US forces in Beirut in 1983. That was on Reagan's watch. So, now you're blaming Reagan for this too? The Beirut defeat was far worse. 241 marines blown up in their barracks, the largest one day death toll on American forces since before Nam. The US response? Retreat from Lebanon. So why aren't you you calling Ronnie the worst ever? Would that be too even-handed? Too darn logical?

So to make it clear, it was Beirut, under Reagan, that set the message that the US had no stomach for a fight and would cut and run. That is why John Scott thinks Ronald Reagan is the worst President ever.

Wow, you socialists really are dumb.

Clinton got a minor ass whopping and went into a full run, demonstrating his cowardice. This gives a green light to terrorists.

Reagan faced a terrorist attack, made sure they retaliated and didn't leave until Nabih Berri asked them to.

Reagan soft on terrorists? Ha. What a joke. Reagan was trigger happy, and they knew it. If the terrorists had ever been identified, Reagan would have created a bloodbath.

Reagan no stomach? He's the one that scared the communism out of the Soviet Union.

Should the US have left Beirut? Your socialist buddies have no stomach for war. You're the ones that create wars by telling the terrorists that all they have to do is blow up a few buses and the pussies will give in to their demands.

So let's just put that lie to bed: the war was about WMDs.

Silly Rank. No logic. You should apply for disability pay.

The stated reasons don't matter. The US could run a commercial on tv, 24/7, saying that the invasion was over WMD. Or they could say that the invasion was over abuse of towels by applying them to heads.

Unfortunately for you, logic doesn't ask what the stated reasons were. Logic doesn't give a single flying flick. An action is either just or unjust. Stated motivations don't matter.

A woman is being raped in the park. I go over and attempt to stop the rape. The rapist fights, and I'm forced to use lethal force.

I could have been stopping the rape to protect the victim. I could have been stopping the rape to get on the news. I could have been stopping the rape because I wanted reward money. I could have been stopping the rape because I wanted a peek at the rapist's willie. Or maybe I wanted to see the victim's hoo-hoo.

Motivation doesn't matter. Either an action is justified or it isn't.

That brings us to the question of whether or not a people is justified in taking out a regime that murdered millions of people.

Common sense, the social contract, justice and even decency say "yes". Socialists and pussies say "no".

[Rankenstein]

I see. So when are you guys going after China? Or keeping it smaller, Sudan?

Anyhow, stopping a rape because you want to take a look at the victim's hoo-hoo? Heavyweight arguments there, Buckley. When are you going to start hankering after a look at China's hoo-hoo?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

I see. So when are you guys going after China? Or keeping it smaller, Sudan?

China? I don't see it happening. They will continue to oppress their people for centuries, because it's economically prudent. Like abortion.

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

Anyhow, stopping a rape because you want to take a look at the victim's hoo-hoo? Heavyweight arguments there, Buckley. When are you going to start hankering after a look at China's hoo-hoo?

I see that you can't rebut the argument. You want to know why you can't? L. O. G. I. C.

Because appeal to motive is a fallacy.

*Cue "flushing sound" as your argument makes it way to the sewer*

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by John Scott

China? I don't see it happening. They will continue to oppress their people for centuries, because it's economically prudent. Like abortion.

So as a nation you're only going to right carefully selected wrongs - but only if you can convince everyone else it's OK by lying about your motives beforehand, especially if you can fall back on the old saw that motives don't matter afterwards? Nope, I don't see any double standards there. What was I saying about doublethink?

Originally Posted by John Scott

I see that you can't rebut the argument. You want to know why you can't? L. O. G. I. C.

Because appeal to motive is a fallacy.

*Cue "flushing sound" as your argument makes it way to the sewer*

Oh no, it's a floater! The important thing to note here, is that one has to be able to evaluate a proposition, not just spell it. The appeal to motive is fallacious, because it says something like
"It's obvious why they went into Iraq: Dubya's dad didn't finish the job, so Dubya did it for him."
That's an appeal to motive.

What I said was, the primary official reason given by the Bush Administration for going into Iraq is because of the WMDs. They whipped up a frenzy and fed it to the UN. Now of course they deny it was to do with WMDs.

I don't actually have to appeal to motive because they told everyone what their motive was already.

But that's OK, because apparently, motives don't matter. If a paedophile with a camera fetish stops a kiddy being raped so he can take photos of her hoo-hoo, apparently you want to give him a medal. Or at least a senior position in the Bush administration.

It's interesting that you think motivations don't matter. No, wait, not interesting, the other one... baffling.

[John Scott]

What I said was, the primary official reason given by the Bush Administration for going into Iraq is because of the WMDs.

Nobody is denying that Bush used the pretext of WMD in order to get into Iraq. But you go beyond that. You say that since there were no WMD, that the war was not just. That's a fallacious appeal to motive.

If a paedophile with a camera fetish stops a kiddy being raped so he can take photos of her hoo-hoo, apparently you want to give him a medal. Or at least a senior position in the Bush administration.

Nope. See, this is called a "straw man". The first clue that you're committing a straw man is when you cannot use the argument or hypotheses provided without drastically changing it. Another clue is the inherent dishonesty in the misrepresentation of my position.

Let's review my position, but use your example. Now as I stated, an action is either justified or unjustified, regardless of the motive.

So, using your example of a pedophile. A child is being raped. I stated that somebody can stop the rape, even with evil ulterior motives, and still commit a just act.

Did I say that he could commit a crime and still be a just act? Because that's how your liar-to-the-core self misrepresented my argument.

Let's see what I said, and see whether or not you really are a liar to the core.

Originally Posted by John Scott

A woman is being raped in the park. I go over and attempt to stop the rape. The rapist fights, and I'm forced to use lethal force.

I could have been stopping the rape to protect the victim. I could have been stopping the rape to get on the news. I could have been stopping the rape because I wanted reward money. I could have been stopping the rape because I wanted a peek at the rapist's willie. Or maybe I wanted to see the victim's hoo-hoo.

Motivation doesn't matter. Either an action is justified or it isn't.

See that? I said he could have evil motives and still commit a just act. I didn't say that committing a crime would be just. Producing child porn would be a crime.

So, an honest representation of my argument would be say that a pedophile could stop a child rape, even with the evil ulterior motive of catching a glimpse at the child's privates, and the act would still be just.

And, yes, it's just. The motive doesn't matter. His actions were identical to the hypothetical saint who stopped the rape with only pure and good intentions.

It's interesting that you think motivations don't matter. No, wait, not interesting, the other one... baffling.

I'm not the only one who thinks motives don't matter. Logic agrees with me.

[Rankenstein]

It's more important to me whether Dubya Bush and his Administration were lying through their teeth, since they are the ones who shaped these actions.

As someone who believes in God, you are clearly rejecting deontology, and this is the first odd thing.Because surely obeying God's laws means you follow 'his' morality - yet you also say that motives don't matter.

When these people are called before the final inquisition, will they say that this kiddie-fiddler's (in the example) motives don't matter? That's what you believe, it seems to me.

Anyway, home time for me. Might post later

[John Scott]

It's more important to me whether Dubya Bush and his Administration were lying through their teeth, since they are the ones who shaped these actions.

Oh, so now it's about lying. The war was justified, but the lying was atrocious. LOL.

As someone who believes in God, you are clearly rejecting deontology, and this is the first odd thing.

I don't reject deontological ethics. I just think ethics and morality should play no role in governments. Let's just say I don't reject deontological ethics any more than any other ethics. They are all subjective meaningless in the context of society. Morality is a personal choice. Saying "this is morally right, that isn't" is the same as saying "I like this, I don't like that".

Because surely obeying God's laws means you follow 'his' morality - yet you also say that motives don't matter.

I didn't know you were a theist. But whatever. Follow whoever's morality you want, as long as you don't try to force it on me.

When these people are called before the final inquisition, will they say that this kiddie-fiddler's (in the example) motives don't matter?

Ah, I see your problem. You're mixing morality with law. That's a no-no. Morality is between you and you're karma, God, Allah or whoever. Law is between men.

Men judge actions. God or whoever can judge motives. That's his problem.