Well if you are an American, you certainly don't seem to believe in the fundamental reasoning of your Constitution, Civil Liberty, and Justice.
Or is "Innocent until proven guilty" only applicable to people you like. Hell even the detainees in Cuba are being given that.
But for Iraq. They are presumed guilty and must provide proof that they are. What a sick twisted form of Justice some of you seem to have. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Your little trip about the Constitution, Civil Liberty, Justice, and Innocent until proven guilty, is just a tad misplaced.
SDW2001 has already made this point, but here we go again. We know he has these because he has acquired these from us. (Not only from the US specifically, but also the ?West?, Russia included). It?s not a question of if he has these, but a question of where he has these. And if he has destroyed these like he claims, then show us. It?s not trying to prove a negative like so many brain dead dodos are trying to argue, but prove a positive. Where are these destroyed weapons?
Personally, I agree that in the long run the U.N. will/should push countries towards doing that. In the meantime, the only way to be able to exert influence over these other countries is to let them in the U.N. and let them have their say. In time (and time on a global scale is slow) the world should keep moving towards democratic systems.
If we only include those countries now though, the U.N. would be nothing. It would only be able to back up its wants via force and that's exactly the opposite of what it is designed to do. It's designed to prevent and avert war. It's not NATO and shouldn't be.
It's called give and take. The U.N. has to accept everyone in order to exert some control and influence. One day there might be the equivalent of the United States' Civil War, when the U.N. is large and strong enough to force the stray countries under its net. Right now it would be useless to leave, unless you support the idea of one minority exerting its control over the entire world.
I don't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If fascism ever to come to America, it would be under the guise of an anti-fascism. The UN is exactly that Trojan horse. Its record speaks for itself.
What point was that supposed to support or disprove? And why would anyone take that rant seriously?
I thought President Bush had stated himself, repeatedly, that foreigners hated the US because of your freedom etc.
How is dwelling on that hatred in a tabloid manner liberal rather than, say, airing the genuine issues that otherwise allied countries have with US policy.
Like, for example, the issues that your citation dismisses as envy created by Muslim and European laziness.
What liberal agenda is served by airing an ignorant muslim african peasant's opinion that "he hates America because they are 80% jews"?
Your little trip about the Constitution, Civil Liberty, Justice, and Innocent until proven guilty, is just a tad misplaced.
SDW2001 has already made this point, but here we go again. We know he has these because he has acquired these from us. (Not only from the US specifically, but also the “West”, Russia included). It’s not a question of if he has these, but a question of where he has these. And if he has destroys these like he claims, then show us. It’s not trying to prove a negative like so many brain dead dodos are trying to argue, but prove a positive. Where are these destroyed weapons?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wouldn't care if you personally witnessed IRAQ being given weapon technology. The argument that they have to provide proof of anything flies in the face of the American rules of Justice. It is in fact one of the arguments of the NRA, that the knowledge(registration) of a weapon implies that the Government could and will implicate them for some reason just because they own a weapon.
So far you Imperialists have only provided circumstantial evidence, but have not provided any Material facts. American Justice states that a person is not required to incriminate themself. The accuser is the one required to provide Material facts, not the Accused. If America wants to be held up as a model of a Just Democratic government, they are going about it very poorly with their handling of IRAQ.
What point was that supposed to support or disprove? And why would anyone take that rant seriously?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It?s very simple Stupid. One word: Bias.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
I thought President Bush had stated himself, repeatedly, that foreigners hated the US because of your freedom etc.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Among other things.. But I think most of those that hate the US do so not because of its freedoms and wealth (cultural, economic, political, social, etc), but simply because it is not Muslim. And it?s my feeling that those that argue against the US (on whatever issues are) do so because of their cultural background.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
How is dwelling on that hatred in a tabloid manner liberal rather than, say, airing the genuine issues that otherwise allied countries have with US policy.
Like, for example, the issues that your citation dismisses as envy created by Muslim and European laziness.
What liberal agenda is served by airing an ignorant muslim african peasant's opinion that "he hates America because they are 80% jews"?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Liberal agenda: Let?s all become lazy and poor.
The Liberal agenda mingled with some old-fashioned cowardness: If we ARE the lazy and poor, the lazy and poor Muslims won?t hate us as much. This line is plainly apparent. It?s called appeasement, and it will always fail.
"Last week, for instance, a MORI poll in Britain showed that 81 percent of the British "like Americans as people." Only 11 percent expressed dislike. That 81 percent is apparently the highest figure ever-higher than when the U.S. and Britain were allies against the Soviet Union. And one imagines that very few of that 81 percent, or even of the 11 percent hostiles, think that all Americans are Jews or that the Pentagon arranged the September 11 attack on itself. It therefore counts as an opinion rooted in something like reality. And it answers the question "why do they hate us?" with a very definite "they don't." So why haven't you heard about it? "
Please make some sense. Babbling is undignified.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't care about the American case, whatever it may be, you said so yourself. Your emotional investment lies elsewhere, just like the O.J. trial jury. Hope that makes it a little clearer for you.
I wouldn't care if you personally witnessed IRAQ being given weapon technology. The argument that they have to provide proof of anything flies in the face of the American rules of Justice. It is in fact one of the arguments of the NRA, that the knowledge(registration) of a weapon implies that the Government could and will implicate them for some reason just because they own a weapon.
So far you Imperialists have only provided circumstantial evidence, but have not provided any Material facts. American Justice states that a person is not required to incriminate themself. The accuser is the one required to provide Material facts, not the Accused. If America wants to be held up as a model of a Just Democratic government, they are going about it very poorly with their handling of IRAQ.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So why allow testing of athletes for drugs? What happens to those that refuse to give their blood or urine for testing? Now, extrapolate this to Saddam, whom we know has repeatedly used chemical and biological weapons.
<strong>You don't care about the American case, whatever it may be, you said so yourself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have never and never would ever say that I don't care about what America is doing or saying.
You apparently are schizophrenic and read things that aren't really there.
[quote]Originally posted by zMench:
<strong>
Your emotional investment lies elsewhere, just like the O.J. trial jury. Hope that makes it a little clearer.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The O.J. trial was to some a miscarriage of Justice. But to imply that emotion for the application of Justice is somehow misplaced, can only be the babbling thoughts of a fools mind.
So why allow testing of athletes for drugs? What happens to those that refuse to give their blood or urine for testing? Now, extrapolate this to Saddam, whom we know has repeatedly used chemical and biological weapons.
You can be the one that sold a drug to an athlete and than accuse them of winning because they were under the influence. But in the American Justice system that is not germane unless you have supporting Material facts. That is why Athletes ARE Tested. However, if THEY refuse they aren't killed because they didn't want to comply.
<strong>However, if THEY refuse they aren't killed because they didn't want to comply.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They are likely removed from duty at such a juncture, though. In Saddam's case, he probably won't go unless killed, so that is the choice he makes for himself. The US has already offered him the ultimatum to step-down, afterall. No answer, yet...
The O.J. trial was to some a miscarriage of Justice.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting choice of wording. To you, this miscarriage of Justice applies to the first or second trial?
[quote]Originally posted by MrBillData:
<strong>I have never and never would ever say that I don't care about what America is doing or saying.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Work on them reading comprehension skills. Here?s what was said, again:?You don't care about the American case, whatever it may be, you said so yourself?. Translation: It doesn?t matter what the evidence is, because according to you ?the American Imperialists have only provided circumstantial evidence, but have not provided any Material facts? and thus it "flies in the face of the American rules of Justice"
[quote]Originally posted by MrBillData:
<strong>
You apparently are schizophrenic and read things that aren't really there.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, interesting choice of wording. If you?re gonna trade insults, at least be consistent Doc. Cause me thought you were some kinda big shot Lawyer or expert in American law, or maybe an Astronut, 243 miles up. I am rather surprised to learn of your expertise in psychiatric medicine as well.
Now Doc, I openly admit I don?t have the medical qualifications to pronounce *you* a schizophrenic, although it is a definite a possibility given the above. I will take the liberty however, and use your words, to describe your words, as ?the babbling thoughts of a fools mind?.
On second thought, I?ll just call you for what I think you are: a Mohammedian. (This btw, would place *you* in the imperialist camp and NOT the Americans).
God is great. Hope you enjoy his company real soon.
But I think most of those that hate the US do so not because of its freedoms and wealth (cultural, economic, political, social, etc), but simply because it is not Muslim. And it?s my feeling that those that argue against the US (on whatever issues are) do so because of their cultural background. </strong><hr></blockquote>
"Last week, for instance, a MORI poll in Britain showed that 81 percent of the British "like Americans as people." Only 11 percent expressed dislike.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did you not notice that the question was about whether they like Americans as people?
Speaking as a liberal european, I like Americans as people but don't like the actions of the government abroad.
I'm sure the liberal Americans who seek to change US foreign policy like most of their countrymen.
In fact every poll or informal article I've ever read about it says that even the Iraqi people like Americans.
Most polls of the Arab world claim that Arabs like Americans as people, American cultural imports like music and movies and America as a 'brand' i.e. the things it stands for, liberty, democracy etc.
What they don't like is America's continued cack-handedness and double standards when it comes to foreign policy.
Now does any of that, good or bad, sound like typical tabloid fodder.
People actually like us, film at eleven.
We interrupt this program to bring you this special bulletin: Complex geopolitical situations mishandled by the US to favour big business.
It's tabloid TV, it reports sex, death, celebrity, fear and violence. If it can get these in any combination then it hits the ratings jackpot.
So why do liberals get the blame for this? Ignoring the fact that this guy obviously blames them for everything.
It is the belief that the US is hated for what it is, rather than for what it does that supports much of the civil-rights stealing fear-mongering at home and the war-mongering abroad. The liberals want no part of it.
When you see a calm, reasonable foreigner on the evening news discussing how disappointed he is with US tariffs stifling free trade after his country was forced to drop their own by the US then you will know the liberals have taken over.
When you see a calm, reasonable foreigner on the evening news discussing how disappointed he is with US tariffs stifling free trade after his country was forced to drop their own by the US then you will know the liberals have taken over.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh please? Europe is guilty of that 100 times over. Ask the new EU members how they feel about the huge farm payouts to the old EU members. Europe sparks as many trade wars as anyone else. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E
Comments
<strong>
Well if you are an American, you certainly don't seem to believe in the fundamental reasoning of your Constitution, Civil Liberty, and Justice.
Or is "Innocent until proven guilty" only applicable to people you like. Hell even the detainees in Cuba are being given that.
But for Iraq. They are presumed guilty and must provide proof that they are. What a sick twisted form of Justice some of you seem to have. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
Your little trip about the Constitution, Civil Liberty, Justice, and Innocent until proven guilty, is just a tad misplaced.
SDW2001 has already made this point, but here we go again. We know he has these because he has acquired these from us. (Not only from the US specifically, but also the ?West?, Russia included). It?s not a question of if he has these, but a question of where he has these. And if he has destroyed these like he claims, then show us. It?s not trying to prove a negative like so many brain dead dodos are trying to argue, but prove a positive. Where are these destroyed weapons?
[ 01-26-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]</p>
<strong>
That's cool. You could have been clearer earlier.
Personally, I agree that in the long run the U.N. will/should push countries towards doing that. In the meantime, the only way to be able to exert influence over these other countries is to let them in the U.N. and let them have their say. In time (and time on a global scale is slow) the world should keep moving towards democratic systems.
If we only include those countries now though, the U.N. would be nothing. It would only be able to back up its wants via force and that's exactly the opposite of what it is designed to do. It's designed to prevent and avert war. It's not NATO and shouldn't be.
It's called give and take. The U.N. has to accept everyone in order to exert some control and influence. One day there might be the equivalent of the United States' Civil War, when the U.N. is large and strong enough to force the stray countries under its net. Right now it would be useless to leave, unless you support the idea of one minority exerting its control over the entire world.
I don't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If fascism ever to come to America, it would be under the guise of an anti-fascism. The UN is exactly that Trojan horse. Its record speaks for itself.
<strong>
<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/jos120302.asp</strong>"; target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/jos120302.asp[/QB]</a>;
<hr></blockquote>
What point was that supposed to support or disprove? And why would anyone take that rant seriously?
I thought President Bush had stated himself, repeatedly, that foreigners hated the US because of your freedom etc.
How is dwelling on that hatred in a tabloid manner liberal rather than, say, airing the genuine issues that otherwise allied countries have with US policy.
Like, for example, the issues that your citation dismisses as envy created by Muslim and European laziness.
What liberal agenda is served by airing an ignorant muslim african peasant's opinion that "he hates America because they are 80% jews"?
<strong>
Your little trip about the Constitution, Civil Liberty, Justice, and Innocent until proven guilty, is just a tad misplaced.
SDW2001 has already made this point, but here we go again. We know he has these because he has acquired these from us. (Not only from the US specifically, but also the “West”, Russia included). It’s not a question of if he has these, but a question of where he has these. And if he has destroys these like he claims, then show us. It’s not trying to prove a negative like so many brain dead dodos are trying to argue, but prove a positive. Where are these destroyed weapons?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wouldn't care if you personally witnessed IRAQ being given weapon technology. The argument that they have to provide proof of anything flies in the face of the American rules of Justice. It is in fact one of the arguments of the NRA, that the knowledge(registration) of a weapon implies that the Government could and will implicate them for some reason just because they own a weapon.
So far you Imperialists have only provided circumstantial evidence, but have not provided any Material facts. American Justice states that a person is not required to incriminate themself. The accuser is the one required to provide Material facts, not the Accused. If America wants to be held up as a model of a Just Democratic government, they are going about it very poorly with their handling of IRAQ.
<strong>
I wouldn't care if.. So far you Imperialists..
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's a repeat of the O.J. trial. Of course you don?t care. Your emotional investment lies elsewhere.
<strong>
It's a repeat of the O.J. trial. Of course you don’t care. Your emotional investment lies elsewhere.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please make some sense. Babbling is undignified.
<strong>
What point was that supposed to support or disprove? And why would anyone take that rant seriously?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It?s very simple Stupid. One word: Bias.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
I thought President Bush had stated himself, repeatedly, that foreigners hated the US because of your freedom etc.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Among other things.. But I think most of those that hate the US do so not because of its freedoms and wealth (cultural, economic, political, social, etc), but simply because it is not Muslim. And it?s my feeling that those that argue against the US (on whatever issues are) do so because of their cultural background.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
How is dwelling on that hatred in a tabloid manner liberal rather than, say, airing the genuine issues that otherwise allied countries have with US policy.
Like, for example, the issues that your citation dismisses as envy created by Muslim and European laziness.
What liberal agenda is served by airing an ignorant muslim african peasant's opinion that "he hates America because they are 80% jews"?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Liberal agenda: Let?s all become lazy and poor.
The Liberal agenda mingled with some old-fashioned cowardness: If we ARE the lazy and poor, the lazy and poor Muslims won?t hate us as much. This line is plainly apparent. It?s called appeasement, and it will always fail.
[ 01-26-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]</p>
<strong>
It?s very simple Stupid. One word: Bias.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I prefer stupider but... whatever.
You may find it simple, but I still don't see how that link makes a case for liberal bias in the media.
I'm glad I asked though as your answers where much more illuminating.
[ 01-26-2003: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>
<strong>
I prefer stupider but... whatever.
You may find it simple, but I still don't see how that link makes a case for liberal bias in the media.
I'm glad I asked though as your answers where much more illuminating.
[ 01-26-2003: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
From the article:
"Last week, for instance, a MORI poll in Britain showed that 81 percent of the British "like Americans as people." Only 11 percent expressed dislike. That 81 percent is apparently the highest figure ever-higher than when the U.S. and Britain were allies against the Soviet Union. And one imagines that very few of that 81 percent, or even of the 11 percent hostiles, think that all Americans are Jews or that the Pentagon arranged the September 11 attack on itself. It therefore counts as an opinion rooted in something like reality. And it answers the question "why do they hate us?" with a very definite "they don't." So why haven't you heard about it? "
<strong>
Please make some sense. Babbling is undignified.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't care about the American case, whatever it may be, you said so yourself. Your emotional investment lies elsewhere, just like the O.J. trial jury. Hope that makes it a little clearer for you.
[ 01-26-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]</p>
<strong>
I wouldn't care if you personally witnessed IRAQ being given weapon technology. The argument that they have to provide proof of anything flies in the face of the American rules of Justice. It is in fact one of the arguments of the NRA, that the knowledge(registration) of a weapon implies that the Government could and will implicate them for some reason just because they own a weapon.
So far you Imperialists have only provided circumstantial evidence, but have not provided any Material facts. American Justice states that a person is not required to incriminate themself. The accuser is the one required to provide Material facts, not the Accused. If America wants to be held up as a model of a Just Democratic government, they are going about it very poorly with their handling of IRAQ.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So why allow testing of athletes for drugs? What happens to those that refuse to give their blood or urine for testing? Now, extrapolate this to Saddam, whom we know has repeatedly used chemical and biological weapons.
[ 01-26-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]</p>
<strong>You don't care about the American case, whatever it may be, you said so yourself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have never and never would ever say that I don't care about what America is doing or saying.
You apparently are schizophrenic and read things that aren't really there.
[quote]Originally posted by zMench:
<strong>
Your emotional investment lies elsewhere, just like the O.J. trial jury. Hope that makes it a little clearer.
The O.J. trial was to some a miscarriage of Justice. But to imply that emotion for the application of Justice is somehow misplaced, can only be the babbling thoughts of a fools mind.
<strong>
So why allow testing of athletes for drugs? What happens to those that refuse to give their blood or urine for testing? Now, extrapolate this to Saddam, whom we know has repeatedly used chemical and biological weapons.
[ 01-26-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well as usual your argument is twisted.
You can be the one that sold a drug to an athlete and than accuse them of winning because they were under the influence. But in the American Justice system that is not germane unless you have supporting Material facts. That is why Athletes ARE Tested. However, if THEY refuse they aren't killed because they didn't want to comply.
<strong>However, if THEY refuse they aren't killed because they didn't want to comply.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They are likely removed from duty at such a juncture, though. In Saddam's case, he probably won't go unless killed, so that is the choice he makes for himself. The US has already offered him the ultimatum to step-down, afterall. No answer, yet...
<strong>
The O.J. trial was to some a miscarriage of Justice.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting choice of wording. To you, this miscarriage of Justice applies to the first or second trial?
[quote]Originally posted by MrBillData:
<strong>I have never and never would ever say that I don't care about what America is doing or saying.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Work on them reading comprehension skills. Here?s what was said, again:?You don't care about the American case, whatever it may be, you said so yourself?. Translation: It doesn?t matter what the evidence is, because according to you ?the American Imperialists have only provided circumstantial evidence, but have not provided any Material facts? and thus it "flies in the face of the American rules of Justice"
[quote]Originally posted by MrBillData:
<strong>
You apparently are schizophrenic and read things that aren't really there.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, interesting choice of wording. If you?re gonna trade insults, at least be consistent Doc. Cause me thought you were some kinda big shot Lawyer or expert in American law, or maybe an Astronut, 243 miles up. I am rather surprised to learn of your expertise in psychiatric medicine as well.
Now Doc, I openly admit I don?t have the medical qualifications to pronounce *you* a schizophrenic, although it is a definite a possibility given the above. I will take the liberty however, and use your words, to describe your words, as ?the babbling thoughts of a fools mind?.
On second thought, I?ll just call you for what I think you are: a Mohammedian. (This btw, would place *you* in the imperialist camp and NOT the Americans).
God is great. Hope you enjoy his company real soon.
[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]</p>
<strong>
But I think most of those that hate the US do so not because of its freedoms and wealth (cultural, economic, political, social, etc), but simply because it is not Muslim. And it?s my feeling that those that argue against the US (on whatever issues are) do so because of their cultural background. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's because you have a bias. Against Muslims.
<strong>
That's because you have a bias. Against Muslims.</strong><hr></blockquote>
LOL
bunge,
are you openly admitting that you hate the United States?
<strong>
From the article:
"Last week, for instance, a MORI poll in Britain showed that 81 percent of the British "like Americans as people." Only 11 percent expressed dislike.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did you not notice that the question was about whether they like Americans as people?
Speaking as a liberal european, I like Americans as people but don't like the actions of the government abroad.
I'm sure the liberal Americans who seek to change US foreign policy like most of their countrymen.
In fact every poll or informal article I've ever read about it says that even the Iraqi people like Americans.
Most polls of the Arab world claim that Arabs like Americans as people, American cultural imports like music and movies and America as a 'brand' i.e. the things it stands for, liberty, democracy etc.
What they don't like is America's continued cack-handedness and double standards when it comes to foreign policy.
Now does any of that, good or bad, sound like typical tabloid fodder.
People actually like us, film at eleven.
We interrupt this program to bring you this special bulletin: Complex geopolitical situations mishandled by the US to favour big business.
It's tabloid TV, it reports sex, death, celebrity, fear and violence. If it can get these in any combination then it hits the ratings jackpot.
So why do liberals get the blame for this? Ignoring the fact that this guy obviously blames them for everything.
It is the belief that the US is hated for what it is, rather than for what it does that supports much of the civil-rights stealing fear-mongering at home and the war-mongering abroad. The liberals want no part of it.
When you see a calm, reasonable foreigner on the evening news discussing how disappointed he is with US tariffs stifling free trade after his country was forced to drop their own by the US then you will know the liberals have taken over.
<strong>
bunge,
are you openly admitting that you hate the United States?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not at all. Did I imply that? (genuinly curious)
<strong>
When you see a calm, reasonable foreigner on the evening news discussing how disappointed he is with US tariffs stifling free trade after his country was forced to drop their own by the US then you will know the liberals have taken over.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh please? Europe is guilty of that 100 times over. Ask the new EU members how they feel about the huge farm payouts to the old EU members. Europe sparks as many trade wars as anyone else. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E