VisorCentral.com - Web slowdown caused by Iraq

Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Web slowdown caused by Iraq (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=26443)

Posted by Toby on 09-05-2002 01:15 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike
don't you think the idea of Saddam dumping all his chemicals when he starts to lose scares people.

I'm sure it does. Lots of things scare people when there are other things that should scare them more which they don't even consider.

quote:
I was talking about whose fault it would be.

ITYM 'wasn't' here.

quote:
I was talking about the result.

And I'm talking about the realistic results of not doing anything.

quote:
If you shoot someone in the head accidently, they still end up with a hole in the head. Just like if you did it on purpose.

It's more like someone holding a gun to someone else's head threatening to shoot them if you don't do what they want. There's no guarantee they won't shoot them anyway.

Posted by Yorick on 09-05-2002 01:01 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
Hey, look, the system works.

except when the elected representative does an end-run around the system and does whatever he pleases to help out those special interests he's beholden to.

I mean, just because the unelected sitting president says that a country is part of an Axis of evil and we really ought to go in there and smack the hell out of them for doing nothing directly threatening, doesn't mean it's absolutely necessary. I mean, who or what is going to benefit if our nation, which stretches across wide continent, invades a small mid-east oil-rich nation whose leader "we" don't like because "we" think they might be massing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons? What types of industries usually benefit from modern warfare?

Sigh. I suppose I should stop being bitter about the deathmonger in the White House. It's not like I voted for him.

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by septimus on 09-05-2002 02:08 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
It's not like I voted for him.

Hot diggidedy! Preach it brother!

...and for Toby:

Here is a story about Ritter's original 1998testimony before congress after he resigned as weapons inspector out of sheer disgust. Read through it, seems pretty serious.

...and here is his testimony on the question of lifting sanctions, in 2000.

but read this: an essay by Ritter written on July 30, 2002.

Righty Ron Paul (R) of Texas introduced an article Ritter wrote into the congressional record, see here

...I can't find his most recent testimony, I believe it was last week.. it's probably too soon for it to be publicly available, I can't find it on my university's proprietary networks yet, either. But these should be enough to give you the gist: right winger realizes that war won't solve the problem.

..hopefull Amazon's system will let this link to his new book work.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by Toby on 09-05-2002 02:47 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by septimus
Hot diggidedy! Preach it brother!

I didn't vote for him, and I didn't vote for his predecessor. It didn't make them any less the President (in office regardless of stature), though. Gore lost. Even the new agency recounts supported it. Feel free to continue your delusion, though.

quote:
...and for Toby: [...]
...I can't find his most recent testimony, I believe it was last week.. it's probably too soon for it to be publicly available, I can't find it on my university's proprietary networks yet, either. But these should be enough to give you the gist: right winger realizes that war won't solve the problem. [...]

I've heard it all before, and the gist is still the same: supposed right winger _thinks_ that war won't solve the problem, but diplomatic relations with a known liar will. Supposed right winger (note that hatchet man David Brock was considered a 'right-winger' at one time as well, so being hyped as a 'right-winger' doesn't make it so) thinks that appeasing someone he acknowledges as a liar and taking said liar at their word will somehow make said liar now a trustable person. Supposed right winger is ultimately a fool at the policy level, no matter how good he is at the inspection level. Again, I'm not advocating war on Iraq. However, I _am_ saying that good intentions on our (or the UN's) part will not turn Saddam into a benevolent leader of his people and stop his pursuits on the weapons front.

Posted by yardie on 09-05-2002 03:21 PM:

Yes. Gore lost. But almost half a million votes when to naught. So much for one man (and woman), one vote.

quote:
Originally posted by Toby

I didn't vote for him, and I didn't vote for his predecessor. It didn't make them any less the President (in office regardless of stature), though. Gore lost.

Posted by KRamsauer on 09-05-2002 05:53 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Yes. Gore lost. But almost half a million votes when to naught. So much for one man (and woman), one vote.

One man one vote has never been a principle of this country. We take votes from people all the time. Children, felons, non-citizen immigrants. There is a difference between just a just system and one that counts everyone the same.

For better or for worse, that is the system this country uses. You cannot complain that more people voted for Gore than Bush and therefore Gore should be president. That is not the way our country works. The system is peppered with these oddities (for instance why should someone in Alaska have a vote that counts more than someone in California?). You can push to change it (just remember there is no a priori reason to suspect it favors any particular cause/candidate), but please don't suggest that we shoudl change the rules after the game is played. Think about it this way: a majority of congress thought Clinton should have been kicked out. But the 2/3 majority required to remove someone from office by the Senate wasn't acheived. This doesn't sound fair to many others. I think it's all part of a wonderfully constructed governmental system that has served us well and will continue to do so.

Posted by Toby on 09-05-2002 06:11 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Yes. Gore lost. But almost half a million votes when to naught. So much for one man (and woman), one vote.

The election of the President of the United States has never contained such a concept. Those half a million votes counted in the states they were cast, and that's the only place where they matter. The President is not elected by popular vote. It's a red herring that Gore's supporters created out of whole cloth. Had the election gone the other way (as was originally projected), i.e. Bush winning popularly, but Gore carrying the electoral, you can bet that such ridiculous rhetoric wouldn't have been uttered from their lips.

Posted by Toby on 09-05-2002 06:14 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
[...] You can push to change it (just remember there is no a priori reason to suspect it favors any particular cause/candidate), but please don't suggest that we shoudl change the rules after the game is played. [...]

It's easy to suggest that when one doesn't live in the US.

Posted by KRamsauer on 09-05-2002 06:29 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
It's easy to suggest that when one doesn't live in the US.

It's also easy to suggest that when one does live in the U.S. I know I can vouch for Houston.

Why'd you assume I didn't live in the US?

Posted by Toby on 09-05-2002 06:54 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
It's also easy to suggest that when one does live in the U.S. I know I can vouch for Houston.

Why'd you assume I didn't live in the US?

I didn't. You said "...please don't suggest that we shoudl change the rules after the game is played..." in response to yardie's comment. I'm saying that it's easy for yardie to suggest just that because yardie doesn't live in the US.

Posted by KRamsauer on 09-05-2002 07:08 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
I didn't. You said "...please don't suggest that we shoudl change the rules after the game is played..." in response to yardie's comment. I'm saying that it's easy for yardie to suggest just that because yardie doesn't live in the US.

Oh, my bad. I'm conditioned to think that when someone quotes my posts in their response they are talking to me.

Posted by Toby on 09-05-2002 07:21 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
Oh, my bad. I'm conditioned to think that when someone quotes my posts in their response they are talking to me.

I was. I just wasn't talking _about_ you.

Posted by KRamsauer on 09-05-2002 07:23 PM:

Canadian Elections aren't 1 Vote per person either

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
I didn't. You said "...please don't suggest that we shoudl change the rules after the game is played..." in response to yardie's comment. I'm saying that it's easy for yardie to suggest just that because yardie doesn't live in the US.

Look what I found:
"Canada is divided into 301 electoral districts or ridings. Voters in each riding elect one member of parliament (MP) to send to the House of Commons. (The Senate in Canada is not an elected body.)

The party that wins the most ridings is asked by the Governor General to form the government. The leader of that party becomes the Prime Minister. "

This means that in Canada each vote doesn't count toward the head executive office equally. Think about it, this is the same as if the House of Representatives in the US elected a President. At least we get to vote on our head of state. Canadians don't even get to do that. I guess we're the kettle, and Canada's the pot. :-)

Posted by Toby on 09-05-2002 08:38 PM:

Re: Canadian Elections aren't 1 Vote per person either

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
[...] Think about it, this is the same as if the House of Representatives in the US elected a President. [...]

Effectively, we have exactly the same say about the President as we do in Congress as a whole since the number of electors in each state is equal to the number of Representatives and Senators. BTW, back to the original topic, here's an interesting lawsuit...http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/56401.htm

Posted by septimus on 09-05-2002 11:12 PM:

Toby, I'm beginning to think you are physically incapable of changing your opinion.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by Yorick on 09-06-2002 11:01 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
I guess we're the kettle, and Canada's the pot. :-)

should we be smoking Canada then?

quote:
Originally posted by septimus
Toby, I'm beginning to think you are physically incapable of changing your opinion.

so are you ...
...because an opinion is emotional or mental, not physical.
*beats septimus about the head and shoulders with the logic stick*

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by KRamsauer on 09-06-2002 02:47 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick

should we be smoking Canada then?

Yeah, I realized after I made that post the underhand shot at Canada's push to legalize it. I need to think before using a cliche again. :-)

Posted by yardie on 09-06-2002 03:45 PM:

Re: Canadian Elections aren't 1 Vote per person either

For teh record, I think the U.S system is much better and much more democratic that the Parliamentary system that we adopted from Britain. This doesn't take away from the fact that half a million souls wasted their time to vote for Al Gore.

The arguement you made about children and felons not having the vote does not hold water. Why? They never voted only to have their vote thrown out as irrelevant to begin with.

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer

Look what I found:
"Canada is divided into 301 electoral districts or ridings. Voters in each riding elect one member of parliament (MP) to send to the House of Commons. (The Senate in Canada is not an elected body.)

The party that wins the most ridings is asked by the Governor General to form the government. The leader of that party becomes the Prime Minister. "

This means that in Canada each vote doesn't count toward the head executive office equally. Think about it, this is the same as if the House of Representatives in the US elected a President. At least we get to vote on our head of state. Canadians don't even get to do that. I guess we're the kettle, and Canada's the pot. :-)

Posted by septimus on 09-06-2002 03:48 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
...because an opinion is emotional or mental, not physical.
*beats septimus about the head and shoulders with the logic stick*

The mental is the physical, but that's a discussion for the ramble.
*beats Yorick about the head and shoulders with the materialist stick*

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by yardie on 09-06-2002 03:50 PM:

Re: Re: Canadian Elections aren't 1 Vote per person either

This is ridiculous. Whatsup with all these crazy lawsuits? And how will the victims get Iraq to pay them 1 trillion dollars if they win?

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Effectively, we have exactly the same say about the President as we do in Congress as a whole since the number of electors in each state is equal to the number of Representatives and Senators. BTW, back to the original topic, here's an interesting lawsuit...http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/56401.htm

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:17 PM.

Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page