Home » xyzzy » Tower » BTW ManualBlock...
BTW ManualBlock... [message #54540] Fri, 07 October 2005 05:53 Go to next message
Mr Vinyl is currently offline  Mr Vinyl
Messages: 407
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (1st Degree)
Saying someone is clueless may have been a little much. But what do you think about saying someone is the "master of irrellavency"?

It always seems that Democrats can say any vile thing they want and get a free pass but Republicans must always apologize. Why is that?

Re: BTW ManualBlock... [message #54541 is a reply to message #54540] Fri, 07 October 2005 07:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
Mr V; Please; I would never ask for an apology from you or anyone else. I only brought it up to express my thoughts but under no circumstances would I even want you to think of an apology, thats what I meant in my post; you are what you are and you said what you said and I respect that.
On the political front; you have to reconsider looking at every statement/action/legislation etc. as a response to a partisan philosophy. Comparing every act by the Republican administration that is in charge now to some thing done sometime in the past within an entirely different context and historical imperative is illogical. If you have a complaint about something the Democrats did 20 yrs ago then you should frame that complaint within the historical perspective and compare what they did then with what the Republicans did THEN.
This administration is repsonsible for what it does now and we are suffering the ill effects of their incompetence now. Who cares why Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed; let the past be the past. We need to deal with conditions affecting us now and not linger in some war of comparison with dead issues.


Well, this is the problem... [message #54543 is a reply to message #54541] Fri, 07 October 2005 07:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mr Vinyl is currently offline  Mr Vinyl
Messages: 407
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (1st Degree)
Saying, "who cares what happened in the past" is not logical. History is very important. You want it both ways. The Democrats can't do whatever they want and then bitch when a Republican does the same. It hasn't been twenty years since Ginsburg was appointed. It was the last Administration that appointed her.

Re: Well, this is the problem... [message #54544 is a reply to message #54543] Fri, 07 October 2005 07:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
Yeah but the Democratic administration is not removing my rights as a citizen now and they are not engaged in an illegal war now and they are not allowing terrorists into the country through Mexico now and the list goes on and on. History will explain itself through hindsight; at the time of RBG appopintment there was a tremendous pressure to find a female for the bench. She was qualified; certainly as qualified as Thomas; jeez; ever read one of his opinions?
I don't want anything both ways I want Bush gone. So do we compare every Rep act with every Dem act going back how far?
I gotta run..to be conmtinued.

Making accusations is meaningless unless you back up your statements.. [message #54546 is a reply to message #54544] Fri, 07 October 2005 08:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mr Vinyl is currently offline  Mr Vinyl
Messages: 407
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (1st Degree)
So lets just start with one statement of yours, that the Iraq war is an illegal war. How is it illegal specifically?

Re: Making accusations is meaningless unless you back up your statements.. [message #54553 is a reply to message #54546] Fri, 07 October 2005 14:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
It was predicated on a knowingly false set of provocations. The administration violated not only treaty law but the laws of this country.
Pursuint to the joint resolution cited as the " Authorisation for the use of military force against Iraq." Issued by the Congress there were only two reasons to go to war and neither of them were accomplished.
1) Defend the national security of the United States against the continued threat posed by Iraq.
There was no threat

2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Rsolutions regarding Iraq.

Resolution 1441 was in force and the U.N. observor on the scene responsible for testimony to that effect stated clearly that Iraq had no weapons and was in compliance.

Please don't bombard me with politically suspect websites; or blogs promoting personal or political agendas. These are simple facts that are incontrovertible. I read it and I determined how I feel; no one convinced or coerced me into believing anything but what I believe.


Sorry, but to prove you wrong I would have to show evidence.. [message #54556 is a reply to message #54553] Fri, 07 October 2005 15:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mr Vinyl is currently offline  Mr Vinyl
Messages: 407
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (1st Degree)
Since you won't accept any web sites then the discussion is over. Of course you are wrong. But I will say this. How is the war "illegal"? The president got authority from the congress which he didn't need to begin with and then commenced with the war. Saddam broke numorous resolutions (17 I believe)and was not complying till the end. So how was the war illegal?

Re: Sorry, but to prove you wrong I would have to show evidence.. [message #54557 is a reply to message #54556] Fri, 07 October 2005 16:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
He does need authority from Congress unless he is responding to an immediate threat. Last I looked there was no Iraqi Navy parked off Manhattan.

Why do you need websites? There are plenty of Internet resources that have no political affiliation or commercial interest.

While Saddam might have broken resolutions that was a matter for the U.N.

I prefer not to listen to media outlets that need to fund a business and as such must court a fan base and push an agenda. I would think you would feel the same. I don't mind watching them at leisure but it just seems pointless to quote stuff I can see on TV.

But looking up a legal document would not be unreasonable because I do it. So how could I ask you not to do the same?

I am done with this discussion... [message #54560 is a reply to message #54557] Fri, 07 October 2005 18:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mr Vinyl is currently offline  Mr Vinyl
Messages: 407
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (1st Degree)
I will say one last thing. Tell me if this is wrong ok. After the first Gulf War, you know the one where nice neighborly Saddam invaded a near by country. He signed a peace treaty saying that he would abide by any and all UN resolutions or be removed from power by force. He broke 17 resolutions. We removed him. What was illegal about that?

You still haven't mentioned why it is an illegal war. Specifically which law was broken to make the war illegal? Instead of spouting the liberal talking points how about proving the war is illegal in any way.

Whether or not there were weapons of mass distruction, the president, congress, Clinton and most of the thinking world thought there were. I believe there were. I think he hid them in the year before the war while we were screwing around with the UN. So even if the president, congress, Clinton and most of the world were wrong it still doesn't make the war illegal. So prove your point.

Re: I am done with this discussion... [message #54561 is a reply to message #54560] Fri, 07 October 2005 19:01 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
Mr V do you mean that? Your done; or do you want a reply?
Let me ask you something. Saddam was no threat to us; we knew going in that if he had those weapons he would have used them the first time around. Secondly do you really think that scientists and the scientific supply companies would not know if there was a major weapons producing effort ongoing in a small and porous country like Iraq? Thats just simple logic. Forget the rhetoric; the simple logic would say that there are far more terrible dictators abroad and some with real armies that pose real threats to the world at large. North Korea; building real nuclear weapons. Why Iraq? Why not them?
If you are serious I will offer some more theories of my own. If not well; have a good day.

Previous Topic: Again with the buzzwords Legislation from the bench
Next Topic: Ah,,, what a night
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Dec 22 09:34:56 CST 2024

Sponsoring Organizations

DIY Audio Projects
DIY Audio Projects
OddWatt Audio
OddWatt Audio
Pi Speakers
Pi Speakers
Prosound Shootout
Prosound Shootout
Miller Audio
Miller Audio
Tubes For Amps
TubesForAmps.com

Lone Star Audiofest