PDA

View Full Version : Kudos, Senator (former First Lady, hopeful future President) Clinton


dclary
09-18-2006, 09:55 AM
Hillary, either because she's been a president's wife and knows how bad it would be to agonize over the death of her husbad, or because she wants to be a president and doesn't want stupid people getting dumb ideas, OR because she's just a decent human being (I'm reserving judgement on that one :p)... ANYWAY... She *strongly* denounced the "Death of President" movie that proportedly depicts (in the form of a documentary filmed in the future, a sort of macabre sci-fi fictional documentary) the assassination of G. W. Bush two years from now.

http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060916/UPDATE/609160394

I didn't like Bill Clinton as a president. I never once wanted him killed, and as a true American would have been outraged at the prospect of his assassination. I am truly glad to see Hillary taking the same stand in the opposite scenario.

SeanDSchaffer
09-18-2006, 10:07 AM
Hillary, either because she's been a president's wife and knows how bad it would be to agonize over the death of her husbad, or because she wants to be a president and doesn't want stupid people getting dumb ideas, OR because she's just a decent human being (I'm reserving judgement on that one :p)... ANYWAY... She *strongly* denounced the "Death of President" movie that proportedly depicts (in the form of a documentary filmed in the future, a sort of macabre sci-fi fictional documentary) the assassination of G. W. Bush two years from now.

http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060916/UPDATE/609160394

I didn't like Bill Clinton as a president. I never once wanted him killed, and as a true American would have been outraged at the prospect of his assassination. I am truly glad to see Hillary taking the same stand in the opposite scenario.

Agreed. As much as I don't like Bush, I would never want to see the President assassinated. I would not mind turning back the clock and voting for someone else, but I would never want to see the man assassinated.

To tell about a future assassination, even if it is fictional, is not good for the morale of the people of this country. If someone decided to follow the film's example and actually commit the crime, I think this nation would suffer tremendously....no matter which wing--left or right--a person might be.

deacon
09-18-2006, 10:10 AM
i do not like bush, but i would be just as outraged as anyone if he were assasinated. classy move, hillary!

eta: thanks for the link, dclary.

persiphone_hellecat
09-18-2006, 10:14 AM
Clary, thanks for that. I agree. I think we have enough violent movies that give nutjobs ideas... enough is enough. I don't wish him dead, either and such a movie would offend me. Believe it or not, Hillary Rodham Clinton is a pretty classy lady and only last week, she got my vote ... again.

blacbird
09-18-2006, 10:18 AM
Ditto, and thanks for the moment of clarity, declarity. IMO, whatever you happen to think of Sen. Clinton's political views, it's difficult for me to understand why so many of her amateur political opponents want so desperately to vilify her on a personal level. I can understand people doing that to Ted Kennedy, but I challenge anyone to find anything about the personal conduct of Hilary Clinton that is seriously reproachable. Hell, if anything, there ought to be some degree of admiration for her forbearance in putting up with the conduct of her husband.

She's smart, tough, tough-minded, and stands her ground. Methinks that's one reason she scares the bejesus out of a lot of Repubs. There haven't been all that many Dems of substance lately who meet those criteria.

She's not my fave Dem Presidential candidate for 2008 (Biden is), but if she gets the nomination, she has my vote, even over a couple of Repubs I have some admiration for.

Of course, in the bizarre Presidential electoral system of the United States, my vote is utterly meaningless, as it is for people in about 2/3 of the nation.

caw.

persiphone_hellecat
09-18-2006, 11:42 AM
Ditto, and thanks for the moment of clarity, declarity. IMO, whatever you happen to think of Sen. Clinton's political views, it's difficult for me to understand why so many of her amateur political opponents want so desperately to vilify her on a personal level. I can understand people doing that to Ted Kennedy, but I challenge anyone to find anything about the personal conduct of Hilary Clinton that is seriously reproachable. Hell, if anything, there ought to be some degree of admiration for her forbearance in putting up with the conduct of her husband.

She's smart, tough, tough-minded, and stands her ground. Methinks that's one reason she scares the bejesus out of a lot of Repubs. There haven't been all that many Dems of substance lately who meet those criteria.

She's not my fave Dem Presidential candidate for 2008 (Biden is), but if she gets the nomination, she has my vote, even over a couple of Repubs I have some admiration for.

Of course, in the bizarre Presidential electoral system of the United States, my vote is utterly meaningless, as it is for people in about 2/3 of the nation.

caw. I agree completely. As the Junior Senator from New York, she has done a wonderful job - and her primary results prove it. She has certainly proven herself in her first term. She has my vote, too, should she get the nomination.

I love Declarity ... It shouldnt surprise anyone that such a person would speak out against a movie like this -- no matter who it was about.

Opty
09-18-2006, 12:07 PM
Personally, I'm not a big fan of Hillary. I think she's rather smarmy, transparent, sychophantic, and tends to only support bipartisan legislation when it suits her immediate PR needs. As far as her professional conduct, one need only examine the fishy miasma emanating from her involvement in Whitewater, Filegate, the infamous "I was named after Sir Hillary"/Mt. Everest debacle, etc.

But, I digress...

I do think it is good of her to come out against this piece of hateful video trash (I'm no fan of Bush at all, but there's no place for this type of crap in a supposedly educated, civilized society). Though her pending Presidential bid was no doubt a motivation, it does seem to be a mostly sincere gesture on her part. I think more political leaders should come out on issues like this, without a care as to what their respective parties think.

Tangential topic...out of the Democrats, my two favorites are Obama and Ford, Jr. I'm really pulling for Harold Ford Jr., in particular, to beat Corker in the TN senatorial election in November. That is one of the more important races this year, and one which will no doubt get even nastier over the next month (at least from Corker's side). And, speaking as an independent, I feel that Ford Jr. has exhibited much more character than Corker could ever hope to muster, which is a big factor for influencing my vote.

billythrilly7th
09-18-2006, 12:11 PM
Ditto, and thanks for the moment of clarity, declarity. IMO, whatever you happen to think of Sen. Clinton's political views, it's difficult for me to understand why so many of her amateur political opponents want so desperately to vilify her on a personal level. I can understand people doing that to Ted Kennedy, but I challenge anyone to find anything about the personal conduct of Hilary Clinton that is seriously reproachable.

Actually, she's one or WAS of the most corrupt politicians on the planet(Hillary: You're not gonna believe this, but those billing records that I couldn't find....they were on the coffee table in the Lincoln bedroom this morning!! It was like a miracle!! No idea how they got there!!!) . ....BUT with that said...I have softened on the Clinton's, both Hillary and Billary, and I look forward to the hijinks they will brink back to the White House and of course, no clear thinking person, regardless of politcal party would ever condone the assasination of the President.

Thank you.

persiphone_hellecat
09-18-2006, 12:15 PM
HOLD ON A MINUTE, Future President Thrilly ...

Until Hillary Rodham Clinton became Junior Senator from NY, she NEVER held a politcal office before. Hence, unless you have some incriminating evidence about Junior Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, do not say she is or WAS one of the most corrupt politicians on the planet.

billythrilly7th
09-18-2006, 12:18 PM
I agree completely. As the Junior Senator from New York, she has done a wonderful job - and her primary results prove it. She has certainly proven herself in her first term. She has my vote, too, should she get the nomination.


Wonderful job?

She's done virtually zero for the State of NY.

She's been pretty good for the country though because of her clear minded semi-hawkish stance on the War on Terror and Iraq.

"Her primary results prove it."

Watch the Distinguised Gentlemen and read that thread about 1/3 of Republicans voting for a felon and people voting for dead guys.

She's an American Icon. They do well in polls, especially in the state they represent.

As long as the NY economy, which rolls with the nationwide economy, stays good, she's doing great.

But essentially she's done nothing specifically for the state of NY.

Her poll numbers are equal to Schumer's and there's no talk of him being the candidate for Prez. Of course not. She's Hillary Clinton and he's Chuck.

billythrilly7th
09-18-2006, 12:21 PM
HOLD ON A MINUTE, Future President Thrilly ...

Until Hillary Rodham Clinton became Junior Senator from NY, she NEVER held a politcal office before. Hence, unless you have some incriminating evidence about Junior Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, do not say she is or WAS one of the most corrupt politicians on the planet.

Fair enough. She was one of the most corrupt people on the planet UNTIL her election.

And honestly, I think she's finally chilled out with that type of behavior.

The upstate NY, hasidic quid pro quo scandal was her last demonstratable corrupt move.

So, I give her credit.

She's changed her ways.

I love the movie Primary Colors.

A real inside view of those people who in the 70's were idealistic and wanted to do the right thing for the country but got mixed up in the disgusting world of poltics and sold their souls.

persiphone_hellecat
09-18-2006, 12:23 PM
I am changing your name to Teflon Thrilly. You dodged another bullet huh? Mrs. Clinton was a private citizen until she became a US Senator. Therefore any unless her misconduct in the Lincoln bedroom has to do with midnight visits to Mr. or Mrs. Bush, she was NOT a corrupt politician.

Are you referring to billing issues from her law practice? COME ON now - let's line up all the lawyers who over bill and climb on them all the way to Mars - save the space program some money. Most lawyers dont even know jack about who they bill and for what. That's why they have bookkeepers and accountants.

billythrilly7th
09-18-2006, 12:25 PM
I am changing your name to Teflon Thrilly. You dodged another bullet huh? Mrs. Clinton was a private citizen until she became a US Senator. Therefore any unless her misconduct in the Lincoln bedroom has to do with midnight visits to Mr. or Mrs. Bush, she was NOT a corrupt politician.

I am changing your name to DOESN'T READ POST RESPONSES Persi.

Thank you.

persiphone_hellecat
09-18-2006, 12:26 PM
Personally, I'm not a big fan of Hillary. I think she's rather smarmy, transparent, sychophantic, and tends to only support bipartisan legislation when it suits her immediate PR needs. As far as her professional conduct, one need only examine the fishy miasma emanating from her involvement in Whitewater, Filegate, the infamous "I was named after Sir Hillary"/Mt. Everest debacle, etc.

But, I digress...

I do think it is good of her to come out against this piece of hateful video trash (I'm no fan of Bush at all, but there's no place for this type of crap in a supposedly educated, civilized society). Though her pending Presidential bid was no doubt a motivation, it does seem to be a mostly sincere gesture on her part. I think more political leaders should come out on issues like this, without a care as to what their respective parties think.

Tangential topic...out of the Democrats, my two favorites are Obama and Ford, Jr. I'm really pulling for Harold Ford Jr., in particular, to beat Corker in the TN senatorial election in November. That is one of the more important races this year, and one which will no doubt get even nastier over the next month (at least from Corker's side). And, speaking as an independent, I feel that Ford Jr. has exhibited much more character than Corker could ever hope to muster, which is a big factor for influencing my vote. I'm confused here - is Sporker pro Corker or anti Corker?

persiphone_hellecat
09-18-2006, 12:29 PM
I am changing your name to DOESN'T READ POST RESPONSES Persi.

Thank you.We posted at the same time. Mrs. Clinton was found guilty of NOTHING -- NADA ... no matter how hard Ken Starr tried. Is this America? Is there not the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? Was she charged with any crimes? Was she convicted of any? Therefore she is as innocent as a newborn baby, President Thrilly. You cannot adapt the laws to suit your agenda. Wait, that's BUSH who is doing that!

billythrilly7th
09-18-2006, 12:31 PM
Are you referring to billing issues from her law practice? COME ON now - let's line up all the lawyers who over bill and climb on them all the way to Mars - save the space program some money. Most lawyers dont even know jack about who they bill and for what. That's why they have bookkeepers and accountants.

If you don't know about the Lincoln Bedroom "Miraculous Return of the Supeonaed Billing Records Story," I suggest you research it.

The reason I like Bubba is because he finally got caught.

He dodged and ducked and talked his way out of so much stuff that when he finally got caught lying, it was like ...."ahhhhhhhh...finally. Now the whole world knows what a skunk you are."

Hillary has still not got caught. She's still been able to duck and dodge and talk her way out of stuff.

BUT...every dog has their day.

BUT...I look forward to her being President.

It will be very successful which will be great and I wish for that or just alot of fun on the messageboards.


"Persi, Hillary is invading Iran!!! What say you!!! Invading a soverign country!!!??"

:tumbleweeds emoticon:

:)

billythrilly7th
09-18-2006, 12:32 PM
We posted at the same time. Mrs. Clinton was found guilty of NOTHING -- NADA ... no matter how hard Ken Starr tried. Is this America? Is there not the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? Was she charged with any crimes? Was she convicted of any? Therefore she is as innocent as a newborn baby, President Thrilly.

Just because you didn't get caught and convicted doesn't mean you aren't guilty.

http://www.fatass.com/humor/oj/oj_spy2.jpg

Opty
09-18-2006, 12:34 PM
I'm confused here - is Sporker pro Corker or anti Corker?

I'm not really sure how you could be confused here. I said that I liked Ford Jr. and referred to how much more character he had than Corker, and made reference to how much nastier (in terms of tactics and rhetoric) Corker would likely get over the next month. He's already blatantly lied in some primary ads and also been extremely misleading in some of his recent ads against Ford Jr.

Not really sure how you could think that I might support Corker. He didn't do crap for Chattanooga when he was mayor. I doubt he'll do much good for the state or nation as a Senator.

billythrilly7th
09-18-2006, 12:42 PM
������������������Lets get the Clintons back in the White House!

http://www.therant.us/staff/swirsky/03132006.htm


To see the shocking Scandal Index of the Clinton years, as compiled by the liberal Progressive Review (http://prorev.com) is to appreciate the Clinton's 24/7/365 belief that any progress in their leftist domestic and foreign affairs agenda could only be realized through the most nefarious activity – much of which fit neatly into the criminal category. Under the listing of "Records Set'" by the Clinton administration (read: co-presidency), Progressive Review cites the following, of which I will only list a sampling:

Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates.

Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation.

Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify.

Most number of witnesses to die suddenly.

First president sued for sexual harassment.

First president accused of rape.

First president to be held in contempt of court.

First president to be impeached for personal malfeasance.

First first lady to come under criminal investigation.

Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign-contribution case.

Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions.

Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas to date: one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners: 14.

Number of Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5.

Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine that were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47.

Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33.

Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61.

Number of congressional witnesses who pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122.

Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15; acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6.

Clinton machine crimes for which convictions were obtained: drug trafficking, 3; racketeering, extortion, bribery, 4; tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement, 2; fraud, 12; conspiracy, 5; fraudulent loans, illegal gifts, 1; illegal campaign contributions, 5; money laundering, 6; perjury, et al.

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar: Bill Kennedy, 116; Harold Ickes, 148; Ricki Seidman, 160;*Bruce Lindsey, 161; Bill Burton, 191;*Mark Gearan, 221; Mack McLarty, 233;*Neil Egglseston, 250;*John Podesta, 264;*Jennifer O'Connor, 343;*Dwight Holton 348;*Patsy Thomasson, 420; Jeff Eller, 697; and Hillary Clinton, 250.

Believe it or not, this exhaustive list omits even lengthier lists – on public record – of crimes investigated, public officials and reporters intimidated, threatened and muzzled, and the raft of dead people associated with the Clintons who died by guns, knives, alleged suicides, etc. See http://members.tripod.com/~rcjustice/pres.html and http://prorev.com/legacy.htm.

Hillary's…Um…Character

Throughout her scandal-contaminated eight years in the White House, Hillary – having refined her skills in deflection, dissimulation and denial – became comfortably entrenched in her self-created briar patch. With increasing audacity and a confidence borne of "beating the system," she also displayed behavior that didn't quite rise to the level of scandal but certainly occupied other, rather lowly, categories:

Megalomania: Hillary refused to acknowledge – publicly or in print – the woman who in essence wrote her 1996 book, "It Takes a Village."

Lying: Hillary gave false testimony about her co-defendant Ira Magaziner, who helped her conduct secret meetings about her failed plan to socialize U.S. medicine.

Obstruction of Justice: the "smartest woman in the world" couldn't remember where she placed the Rose law firm billing records that were subpoenaed in 1994, until they magically reappeared two years later in the White House library.


I know... I know...it was allllll part of that Right Wing conspiracy and EVERYTHING that occurred was falsehoods aqnd lies.


It will be fun having them back in charge though.

:)

persiphone_hellecat
09-18-2006, 12:46 PM
I would have to agree, Dr. Spork.

Billy, Billy, Billy ... what secrets are in YOUR closet you have never been convicted of? In order to be convicted of something you must first be charged with something. For EIGHT years, Kenneth Starr played Dick Tracey and tried to come up with something. There was nothing. Had he gone to a Grand Jury, he would have been laughed off the planet. I am fully aware of what went on during the Clinton White House years. Why do you always assume I don't know how to read? Yes yes yes - the billing records. I am really worried about that. They disappeared -- just like George W Bush's MILITARY records.

Wasnt it the other day you told me you didnt want to bring up anything five years old when I tried to discuss Colin Powell's appearance at the UN with 20 pounds of sh!t in a 5 pound bag? Now you want to go back to the Clinton Administration??

You have worn me out tonight, President Thrilly. I am going to take off my tiara (because you see, I truly AM a sovereign) and go to bed.

Just promise me I never have to see Mike Meyers pitch again in my entire LIFE. That was more painful than delivering an 8 pound 4 ounce baby naturally.

I promise to respond to each and every one of those tomorrow.

billythrilly7th
09-18-2006, 01:10 PM
Billy, Billy, Billy ... what secrets are in YOUR closet you have never been convicted of? In order to be convicted of something you must first be charged with something. For EIGHT years, Kenneth Starr played Dick Tracey and tried to come up with something. There was nothing. Had he gone to a Grand Jury, he would have been laughed off the planet. I am fully aware of what went on during the Clinton White House years. Why do you always assume I don't know how to read? Yes yes yes - the billing records. I am really worried about that. They disappeared -- just like George W Bush's MILITARY records.

Wasnt it the other day you told me you didnt want to bring up anything five years old when I tried to discuss Colin Powell's appearance at the UN with 20 pounds of sh!t in a 5 pound bag? Now you want to go back to the Clinton Administration??

A. I have no secrets.
B. I know. The Clinton's due to VERY loyal friends like Susan Mcdougal who went to jail for them were able to Slick Willy their way out of everything.

O.J. Got off.

They did.

And don't get me wrong, there's things that have happened in the Bush administration that might be right up there, but you're right, GREAT COVERUPS and loyal friends can get you through the rough waters.

You brought up Colin Powell in a completely away from the thread issue, op-ed anti Bush speech.

This thread is about Hillary Clinton.

I'm right on point.

The thing that amuses me most is the hypocrisy....Liberals want to rail on about the Plame case(which Bush and his men were vindicated on just last week) and other things and want to say "no evidence or convictions" for the Clintons and vice versa.

People defend their side and attack the other side for the same thing they defend their side for.

It's a sorry state of affairs.

I assure the American people of one thing.

Anyone and I mean anyone commits a crime during my administration and I will have them buried in a Kansas cornfield.

Figuratively of course.

Or maybe literally.

Don't find out.


Thank you.

gromhard
09-18-2006, 01:23 PM
So Hillary is a movie critic now? Why doesn't she shut the F up. She's not a film reviewer. If she's so in to answering questions why not ask her why she voted for the war in Iraq...and don't give me that "we gave the president the authority to go to war" bs...cause what'd the president do, he did exactly what he said he'd do he went to war. Hillary knew that when she voted for it.
100,000 dead iraqis
25,000 dead or maimed US casualties
WRONG CHOICE HILLARY

Hillary needs to go away. She's nothing but a DINO.(democrat in name only) same goes for her loser husband who let Bush steal the election in 2000 without so much as a peep.

No one who voted for the war will EVER get my vote for anything. As far as a movie goes? Oh well...at least this one claims to be fiction...Fox News tries to pass itself off as real news.

billythrilly7th
09-18-2006, 02:02 PM
100,000 dead iraqis


After her husband kept sanctions in place and enforced no fly rules and basically terrorized the entire country and starved and medically deprived around 500,000 Iraqi children to death because of faulty intelligence about a weapons program that had been dismantled do you think she'd really care about another 100,000?

Thank you.

gromhard
09-18-2006, 02:23 PM
After her husband kept sanctions in place and enforced no fly rules and basically terrorized the entire country and starved and medically deprived around 500,000 Iraqi children to death because of faulty intelligence about a weapons program that had been dismantled do you think she'd really care about another 100,000?

Thank you.

Don't give me that. Saddam wasn't starving and could have fed his people. What are you going to blame America for Cubans who die of starvation too?

Shweta
09-18-2006, 02:53 PM
My views on Hillary are complex and ambivalent, but I have got to say, go her on this one. I'm horrified by this film concept.

What were they thinking?

A film about killing a real person is awful right there. Whether or not it purports to be fiction, it's too close. And when that person is the leader of a country -- especially so large and powerful a country -- it's a cheap, mean, demoralizing trick played for shock value. I'm glad she spoke out against it.

I am not fond of Dubya. And I am not American. But I would hate to see him hurt or killed, and I am horrified.

Shweta
09-18-2006, 03:01 PM
Hillary needs to go away. She's nothing but a DINO.(democrat in name only) same goes for her loser husband who let Bush steal the election in 2000 without so much as a peep.

Speaking as a liberal...
I think Hillary is more of a rationalist-democrat and less of a liberal-democrat. The democratic party is kind of... schizo that way. She's surely not a liberal; but she plays well with the party overall, I think.

And I think it's more fair to say that Gore lost the election in 2000 than to say Bush won it, given the appallingly low voter turnout. It seems pretty clear to me that most Americans voted "none of the above".
-- And see, I'm not sure Clinton could have helped Gore by being charismatic at people. He would just have made Gore look worse by comparison. Gore is as charismatic as... well... as your average college professor. Now, I love college professors, but there's a reason a lot of people don't take them seriously (which is a pity, but there ya have it). Standing next to Clinton, he almost disappeared.

I think that is a Bad Reason not to vote for someone, but I do think it was a major one.

No one who voted for the war will EVER get my vote for anything.

I fully understand this sentiment. Part of me wants to cheer you on, and part of me wonders whether you'll shoot your own causes in the foot. Like the environmentalsts who voted for Nader in 2000, which might well have lost Gore the election, and paved the way for the eco-disaster actions of the last six years.

Anyway. :done thread-hijacking:

FatTire
09-18-2006, 06:24 PM
I am changing your name to Teflon Thrilly. You dodged another bullet huh? Mrs. Clinton was a private citizen until she became a US Senator. Therefore any unless her misconduct in the Lincoln bedroom has to do with midnight visits to Mr. or Mrs. Bush, she was NOT a corrupt politician.

Are you referring to billing issues from her law practice? COME ON now - let's line up all the lawyers who over bill and climb on them all the way to Mars - save the space program some money. Most lawyers dont even know jack about who they bill and for what. That's why they have bookkeepers and accountants.

If by private citizen you mean First Lady of the United States, living in White House and flying on Air Force One (called some thing else when she was on it w/o hubby) any time she wanted.

robeiae
09-18-2006, 06:34 PM
Also, she was appointed the chair of the Health-Care Task Force by Bill...hardly a non-politcal appointment.

TheGaffer
09-18-2006, 07:00 PM
Until this thread was hijacked by Thrillster here, we were getting somewhere. I find this movie "Death of a President" really, really icky, and certainly don't see it as provocative. Make a movie like that if you want and hire and actor, and rename him "Herbert W. Treehouse" and give him a nasty VP named "Dick Killpeopleforfun" or something, and go from there. This is too much.

Meanwhile...
Liberals want to rail on about the Plame case(which Bush and his men were vindicated on just last week) and other things and want to say "no evidence or convictions" for the Clintons and vice versa.

Er, they weren't vindicated. Rove, Cheney and Libby were all over leaking this woman's name -- particularly as she was head of the task force on Iraq intelligence (gee, motivation much?). The fact that Armitage leaked it separatedly doesn't mean they didn't leak it either; they ALL leaked it, so they're all guilty. And Libby was indicted for it. No, the guilty hands are all over that one. They talked to plenty of other reporters.

robeiae
09-18-2006, 07:06 PM
I find this movie "Death of a President" really, really icky, and certainly don't see it as provocative.You know, I see this as almost a given, right or wrong. I'll be disappointed in anyone I know that feels differently. So I don't see the need to pat anyone on the back for feeling this way--that would be quite condescending.

I mean really, Gaf--if I said "wow, Gaffer, I'm really impressed that you think this," wouldn't that be kinda snotty? Like saying I'm surprised that you would have that opinion? I'm not surprised; I fully expected it from you; and I hope you expect the same from me.

Shweta
09-18-2006, 07:15 PM
...And yet, someone thought it'd be a good idea to make this movie...

So all of a sudden it becomes much less of a given.
Ugh ugh ick.

TheGaffer
09-18-2006, 07:18 PM
I mean really, Gaf--if I said "wow, Gaffer, I'm really impressed that you think this," wouldn't that be kinda snotty? Like saying I'm surprised that you would have that opinion? I'm not surprised; I fully expected it from you; and I hope you expect the same from me.

Sure, absolutely. But there's also no harm in everyone agreeing once in a while. And no, you saying that wouldn't be snotty. You saying that and then adding, "But I knew about this weeks ago, when I was reading Daily Variety while playing the Rachmaninoff 3 with one hand and eating pate served to me by a very capable (insert name of ethnic group here) servant..." then, well, that would be snotty.

robeiae
09-18-2006, 07:18 PM
...And yet, someone thought it'd be a good idea to make this movie...

So all of a sudden it becomes much less of a given.
Ugh ugh ick.Oh, there are plenty of people I expect will think it's a good idea--but I had zero respect for them to begin with.

robeiae
09-18-2006, 07:19 PM
You saying that and then adding, "But I knew about this weeks ago, when I was reading Daily Variety while playing the Rachmaninoff 3 with one hand and eating pate served to me by a very capable (insert name of ethnic group here) servant..." then, well, that would be snotty.Then I'm glad I didn't say this--and it was a Bach fugue, btw.

TheGaffer
09-18-2006, 07:23 PM
Oh, there are plenty of people I expect will think it's a good idea--but I had zero respect for them to begin with.

But i don't think it's a bad thing to find consensus on that. You may be fairly confident in how others will feel, but I don't know that I am, not all the time, anyway. We had a pretty good discussion on OP a few weeks back about Survivor's "separate by race and watch hilarity ensue" idea, and we were pretty much all kind of agreeing that, well, it's kinda messed up. And yet the hooples are all watching.

TheGaffer
09-18-2006, 07:24 PM
Then I'm glad I didn't say this--and it was a Bach fugue, btw.

Then it doesn't apply. Bach fugues are creepy sounding and therefore not snotty.

robeiae
09-18-2006, 07:25 PM
Okey-dokey. I'm easy. No, really.

MacAllister
09-18-2006, 07:42 PM
Bach fugues are indeed creepy. This movie is seriously ick.

Gee, Rob, I wouldn't have pegged you as easy.

maestrowork
09-18-2006, 08:37 PM
O.J. Got off.


Come on, you can do better than that, to compare Hilary Clinton to OJ Simpson.

Kenneth Starr spent years and over millions and millions and millions of taxpayers' money and still came up with zilch. Not one single piece of evidence to indict. And you're saying you know better than Kenneth Starr?

Either Kenneth Starr was highly incompetent, or Hilary was really, really good -- in that case, she is perfect as President.

Your contempt for the woman is highly emotional and irrational, and can't be backed up by proofs.

It's really okay if you despise the woman. That's your own personal belief. I happen to believe Big Foot exists, too. But don't claim something like "she's the most corrupt politicians" without backing yourself up with facts.

Shweta
09-18-2006, 08:43 PM
Oh, there are plenty of people I expect will think it's a good idea--but I had zero respect for them to begin with.

Call me naive, I guess. I keep overestimating people.

ATP
09-18-2006, 09:06 PM
Initial reviews from the recent Toronto Film Festival of 'Death of a President" were not particularly flattering.

maestrowork
09-18-2006, 09:11 PM
As much as I dislike Bush as President, I will not see this movie or support it in any way (such as shelling out $). An assassination of a fictional president in a fiction is one thing. This is simply going too far.

Jenan Mac
09-18-2006, 09:32 PM
Part of me wants to cheer you on, and part of me wonders whether you'll shoot your own causes in the foot. Like the environmentalsts who voted for Nader in 2000, which might well have lost Gore the election, and paved the way for the eco-disaster actions of the last six years.


That's an overly simplistic view of third party voting, though. For those in strongly red states, voting for pretty much anybody except a third party candidate was throwing away a vote. In SC, for example, either you were one of the teeming masses for Bush, or you were wasting a vote on Gore (because there was no way on the planet he was getting those electoral votes)-- or you could take a shot at helping a third party make their 5% goal for matching funds.
In states that split electoral votes proportionately, or extremely close elections, you have an argument.

maestrowork
09-18-2006, 09:47 PM
That's an overly simplistic view of third party voting, though. For those in strongly red states, voting for pretty much anybody except a third party candidate was throwing away a vote....


Which is true in strong red states, but the elections are won over "swing" states such as Ohio or Florida. One could argue that Gore would have won the election if he had won his own home state of TN, but the fact was he barely lost Florida (and through a huge debacle). So, in these states (OH, FL, PA, etc.) which have substantial electoral votes, every vote count and you know the conservatives mostly vote along party lines. The liberals, however, were all over the place. Didn't Nader consistently got about 2% of the votes?

Now, yes, it's just simplistic way of looking at it, because there was no guarantee that those who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore anyway. They might have just decided to sit out. So Gore would have lost anyway. I think there was some wishful thinking going on when the liberals said, "If not for Nader, Gore would have won."

That's why there was a movement in the 2004 election of "vote swapping" to help defeat Bush but also help the third party. Basically, the Green party voters would vote for Kerry in the swing states in exchange for a Nader vote in the strong red states, where Kerry was going to lose anyway. It might have helped some, but Kerry proved to be a poor candidate for the Dems.

deacon
09-18-2006, 09:53 PM
"Persi, Hillary is invading Iran!!! What say you!!! Invading a soverign country!!!??"

i don't think you have to worry about that, pal. i have a feeling that 'bush the conquerer' is getting ready to deal with the iranian terra'ists. when president hillary takes office, iran will just be a footnote in histoy.

no, i thank you.

SeanDSchaffer
09-18-2006, 10:14 PM
Just because you didn't get caught and convicted doesn't mean you aren't guilty.

http://www.fatass.com/humor/oj/oj_spy2.jpg



Whether you think he's guilty or not, the LAW says that he's not guilty.

The same thing goes for Hillary. The LAW says she's not guilty.

Therefore, she's not guilty....unless you can prove to a jury that she is.

dclary
09-18-2006, 10:31 PM
So Hillary is a movie critic now? Why doesn't she shut the F up. She's not a film reviewer. If she's so in to answering questions why not ask her why she voted for the war in Iraq...and don't give me that "we gave the president the authority to go to war" bs...cause what'd the president do, he did exactly what he said he'd do he went to war. Hillary knew that when she voted for it.
100,000 dead iraqis
25,000 dead or maimed US casualties
WRONG CHOICE HILLARY

Hillary needs to go away. She's nothing but a DINO.(democrat in name only) same goes for her loser husband who let Bush steal the election in 2000 without so much as a peep.

No one who voted for the war will EVER get my vote for anything. As far as a movie goes? Oh well...at least this one claims to be fiction...Fox News tries to pass itself off as real news.

Somehow I knew that if someone could dissent to the OP, it would be Grommy. Thanks for validating my faith in you being nothing more than a nasty contrarian.

dclary
09-18-2006, 10:34 PM
...while playing the Rachmaninoff 3 with one hand...

Is this a euphemism for masturbation?

Shadow_Ferret
09-18-2006, 10:42 PM
I guess I'm missing the outrage here. It's fiction, right? Now we can't write fiction where real people get killed because we're afraid someone might "mimic" it? Should we then not write anything about murder or torture or kidnappings or anything else that might be mimicked?

Or is the outrage because they actually give the President a real identity? What if the movie had been made and the President's name was fictionalized? Would that be acceptable?

(just noticed that Ray said yay to that one)

SeanDSchaffer
09-18-2006, 10:51 PM
I guess I'm missing the outrage here. It's fiction, right? Now we can't write fiction where real people get killed because we're afraid someone might "mimic" it? Should we then not write anything about murder or torture or kidnappings or anything else that might be mimicked?

Or is the outrage because they actually give the President a real identity? What if the movie had been made and the President's name was fictionalized? Would that be acceptable?

(just noticed that Ray said yay to that one)


I think the outrage comes from the fact that they used the President's real name. Also, I think the fact that someone very well might mimic the movie is a major issue. Since the movie uses the present President as the subject matter, I think it would provide an added incentive to a possible assailant, to go after Mr. Bush himself. I'm thinking that is where the outrage is coming from, at least in part.

eldragon
09-18-2006, 10:56 PM
Go Hillary! Go Hillary!


(P.S...................... I didn't read any of this thread and I'm happy that Dclary finally came to his senses that Hillary will make a great president!)

Shadow_Ferret
09-18-2006, 10:59 PM
Oy.

:rolleyes:

persiphone_hellecat
09-18-2006, 11:04 PM
Whether you think he's guilty or not, the LAW says that he's not guilty.

The same thing goes for Hillary. The LAW says she's not guilty.

Therefore, she's not guilty....unless you can prove to a jury that she is. Actually the law never said Hillary Clinton was not guilty - The law didnt HAVE to - she was never charged with anything - never indicted. She was merely investigated in the most outlandish one man witch hunt in history - Ken Starr.

ON the other hand, OJ may not have been convicted in criminal court, but he was found responsible in a civil court.

It seems that under President Thrilly, we will no longer have the presumption of innocent until proven guilty -- if you are a female, liberal Democrat.

To the person who asked about Hillary Clinton's private citizenship - being appointed to a committee is not the same as being elected. Yes, she was a private citizen - First Lady is not an elected post. Just as Laura Bush is a private citizen. That should be fairly clear.

As for this movie, we seem to have a history of making movies like this. I always refer back to Sunday Bloody Sunday -- another movie I refused to see. There are far too many wackos out there like John Karr who just get too damn many ideas from these movies. I admit it - -my idea of a really good movie is Mary Poppins.

Sheryl Nantus
09-18-2006, 11:12 PM
As much as I dislike Bush as President, I will not see this movie or support it in any way (such as shelling out $). An assassination of a fictional president in a fiction is one thing. This is simply going too far.

you Americans are such a violent bunch - I mean, you've already had ENOUGH people shot... not counting those in power.

meanwhile, we Canucks sucked up over a decade of Chretien and didn't do a thing.

Lord, we're a peaceful bunch.

:D

billythrilly7th
09-18-2006, 11:15 PM
Don't give me that. Saddam wasn't starving and could have fed his people. What are you going to blame America for Cubans who die of starvation too?

Obviously, your "Tongue and Cheek to Point out the Hypocrisy of Others" meter is on the fritz.

It usually is with many of the people I direct that towards.

I'm glad to see you don't blame U.S. President's for the death of citizens of other countries when their "leaders" are the one to blame.

Yep.

billythrilly7th
09-18-2006, 11:19 PM
Er, they weren't vindicated.

Yes they were.

Thank you Dick Armitage for being such a wimp and allowing this case to fester when you could have ended it, by admitting your egregious error.

Libby is indicted for what most people get indicted for. The aftermath behavior.

TheGaffer
09-18-2006, 11:21 PM
Yes they were. Thank you Dick Armitage for being such a wimp and allowing this case to fester when you could have ended it, by admitting your egregious error.
Still not getting the concept that two separate parties can be doing the same thing at the same time, eh?

English Dave
09-18-2006, 11:25 PM
Yes they were.

Thank you Dick Armitage for being such a wimp and allowing this case to fester when you could have ended it, by admitting your egregious error.

Libby is indicted for what most people get indicted for. The aftermath behavior.


This post has far too many big words to be a legitimate Thrilly. It's either a forgery or a damn clever original. You hacker scum! No impersonation of Thrilly - ever! Is nothing sacred?

maestrowork
09-18-2006, 11:34 PM
I guess I'm missing the outrage here. It's fiction, right? Now we can't write fiction where real people get killed because we're afraid someone might "mimic" it? Should we then not write anything about murder or torture or kidnappings or anything else that might be mimicked?


Satire is one thing -- South Park uses real people in the most outrageous plots...

However, I think writing fiction about REAL people still alive, especially killing them, would be a no-no for a lot of people. It's not against the law, but I bet most people wouldn't think it's a good idea to have a novel about someone shooting Jodie Foster or raping Mel Gibson or maiming Tony Blair.

maestrowork
09-18-2006, 11:35 PM
you Americans are such a violent bunch - I mean, you've already had ENOUGH people shot... not counting those in power.


Death of a President is a British film.

billythrilly7th
09-18-2006, 11:38 PM
����������Come on, you can do better than that, to compare Hilary Clinton to OJ Simpson.

Kenneth Starr spent years and over millions and millions and millions of taxpayers' money and still came up with zilch. Not one single piece of evidence to indict. And you're saying you know better than Kenneth Starr?

A. Whose comparing Hillary to O.J. other than to point out that jsut because you weren't convicted doesn't mean you weren't guilty.

There isn't a slice of evidence that I jaywalked five times last night. But I did. Thank you.

Not a clear thinking person on the planet, who has seen Primary Colors and looked at all the evidence wouldn't come to the conclusion that Hillary has been a bad bad girl in the past. Just purely on the ONE ISSUE of the billing records miraculously showing up, she should be disqualified from all political office. BUT we live in a country where no one really cares until someone is caught red handed, DNA evidence on a blouse, taped in a hotel room with undercover agents..etc...AND THEN PEOPLE STILL DON'T CARE IN MANY CASES!!! "So what?"



Either Kenneth Starr was highly incompetent

Right now, Greg Anderson, Barry Bond's trainer is sitting in a jail cell for contempt of court because he REFUSES, even know everyone on planet earth knows that Barry Bonds took steroids, roll over on him. And they sill haven't indicted and may never indicted him because of this one witness.

This is the woman, The Clinton's owe dearly.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/16/mcdougal/link.susan.mcdougal.ap.jpg




Your contempt for the woman is highly emotional and irrational, and can't be backed up by proofs.

Right, and I didn't jaywalk last night.


It's really okay if you despise the woman. That's your own personal belief. I happen to believe Big Foot exists, too. But don't claim something like "she's the most corrupt politicians" without backing yourself up with facts.

I did.

Read the list again.

From $1000 investments in Cattle Futures to Travel Office cases to Whitewater to Billing records miraculously showing up to a Quid Pro Qoa NY voting scandal, if it walks like a corrupt person and acts like a corrupt person it is.

I suggest everyone rent the Good Son starring America's sweetheart Macauley Culkin.

Macauley is evil.

He has everybody fooled.

And poor Elijah Wood, a clear thinking young man, is terrorized.

But he can't prove it. And everyone thinks he's the bad one. He's the bad son.

And Macauley is the Good Son.

But's he's evil.

Hillary WAS a bad bad little girl.

BUT...like I said....I haven't seen a continuing of her behavior over the past six years, so maybe she's on the straight and narrow.

And the American public will have to ask themselves, "has she changed her ways" or can we look forward to four or eight more years of hellish scandal.... It will be fun.



Keeping in mind that Hillary – in her own "two for the price of one" pronouncement – told the nation that she would be sharing the presidency with her husband, it would beg the imaginations of even her most fervent acolytes that the tsunami of scandals that inundated the Clinton tenure somehow escaped either the notice or personal involvement of Hillary herself.


To see the shocking Scandal Index of the Clinton years, as compiled by the liberal Progressive Review (http://prorev.com) is to appreciate the Clinton's 24/7/365 belief that any progress in their leftist domestic and foreign affairs agenda could only be realized through the most nefarious activity – much of which fit neatly into the criminal category. Under the listing of "Records Set'" by the Clinton administration (read: co-presidency), Progressive Review cites the following, of which I will only list a sampling:


Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates.


Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation.


Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify.


Most number of witnesses to die suddenly.


First president sued for sexual harassment.


First president accused of rape.


First president to be held in contempt of court.


First president to be impeached for personal malfeasance.


First first lady to come under criminal investigation.


Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign-contribution case.


Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions.


Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas to date: one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners: 14.


Number of Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5.


Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine that were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47.


Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33.


Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61.


Number of congressional witnesses who pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122.


Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15; acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6.


Clinton machine crimes for which convictions were obtained: drug trafficking, 3; racketeering, extortion, bribery, 4; tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement, 2; fraud, 12; conspiracy, 5; fraudulent loans, illegal gifts, 1; illegal campaign contributions, 5; money laundering, 6; perjury, et al.


Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar: Bill Kennedy, 116; Harold Ickes, 148; Ricki Seidman, 160;*Bruce Lindsey, 161; Bill Burton, 191;*Mark Gearan, 221; Mack McLarty, 233;*Neil Egglseston, 250;*John Podesta, 264;*Jennifer O'Connor, 343;*Dwight Holton 348;*Patsy Thomasson, 420; Jeff Eller, 697; and Hillary Clinton, 250.


Believe it or not, this exhaustive list omits even lengthier lists – on public record – of crimes investigated, public officials and reporters intimidated, threatened and muzzled, and the raft of dead people associated with the Clintons who died by guns, knives, alleged suicides, etc. See http://members.tripod.com/~rcjustice/pres.html and http://prorev.com/legacy.htm.

billythrilly7th
09-18-2006, 11:39 PM
Still not getting the concept that two separate parties can be doing the same thing at the same time, eh?

"No conviction, no crime."
persi

billythrilly7th
09-18-2006, 11:40 PM
This post has far too many big words to be a legitimate Thrilly. It's either a forgery or a damn clever original. You hacker scum! No impersonation of Thrilly - ever! Is nothing sacred?

Billy is sick. He'll be back in tomorrow.

I'm Carl.

Pleasure to meet you.

Shadow_Ferret
09-18-2006, 11:43 PM
Satire is one thing -- South Park uses real people in the most outrageous plots...

However, I think writing fiction about REAL people still alive, especially killing them, would be a no-no for a lot of people. It's not against the law, but I bet most people wouldn't think it's a good idea to have a novel about someone shooting Jodie Foster or raping Mel Gibson or maiming Tony Blair.

What about Celebrity Death Match? Huh? Huh?

dclary
09-18-2006, 11:43 PM
I guess I'm missing the outrage here. It's fiction, right? Now we can't write fiction where real people get killed because we're afraid someone might "mimic" it? Should we then not write anything about murder or torture or kidnappings or anything else that might be mimicked?

Or is the outrage because they actually give the President a real identity? What if the movie had been made and the President's name was fictionalized? Would that be acceptable?

(just noticed that Ray said yay to that one)

Ferret, you're aware that they digitally emboss Bush's face on the actor "portraying" him, right?

I don't think anyone's disputing a filmmaker's right to write fiction depicting deadly events to our nation's leaders (how else could Jack Ryan become president?). But yeah, I think the outrage is in specifying a future assassination of an existing, known president. In my mind, a film portraying the fictional assassination of a US president would be fair game. A documentary on why Bush was killed and how world events changed because of it is not.

billythrilly7th
09-18-2006, 11:45 PM
Whether you think he's guilty or not, the LAW says that he's not guilty.

The same thing goes for Hillary. The LAW says she's not guilty.

Therefore, she's not guilty....unless you can prove to a jury that she is.

That's fine.

I just thorougly enjoy political hypocrisy in all it's forms from BOTH sides of the aisle.

"Valerie Plame, Jack Abramoff...Bush is so corrupt!!"

Who you voting for?

"Hillary!!!"

:roll:

It certainly is good stuff.

I enjoy it.

English Dave
09-18-2006, 11:45 PM
Billy is sick. He'll be back in tomorrow.

I'm Carl.

Pleasure to meet you.

Thank you Carl. I've also responsed to your e-mail from your day job asking me to update my bank details.

Thank goodness you guys are on the ball. :)

Shadow_Ferret
09-18-2006, 11:46 PM
Ferret, you're aware that they digitally emboss Bush's face on the actor "portraying" him, right?



I don't think anyone's disputing a filmmaker's right to write fiction depicting deadly events to our nation's leaders (how else could Jack Ryan become president?). But yeah, I think the outrage is in specifying a future assassination of an existing, known president. In my mind, a film portraying the fictional assassination of a US president would be fair game. A documentary on why Bush was killed and how world events changed because of it is not.
No. I was not aware of that. I was simply trying to figure out where the line was. Real people and real events. Or fake people but real events.

dclary
09-18-2006, 11:47 PM
Thank you Carl. I've also responsed to your e-mail from your day job asking me to update my bank details.

Than goodness you guys are on the ball. :)

I'm glad Billy finally stopped using that Indian call center.

His reps NEVER got it right.





Sagar, Billy's sick-day replacement, 2002:

"Federalism is the most impressive of the republican ideals, thank Vishnu. I wish you the utter cow death of a thousand black mambas.

Thank you, come again."

maestrowork
09-18-2006, 11:48 PM
The problem is, Billy, you're presuming Hilary's guilt without even an indictment, even after years and $millions. That's not how it works. You simple DO NOT know -- were you there with Hilary?

The reason why you KNEW you jaywalked was that you were there. But were I to assume that you jaywalked yesterday or the day before or if you did 65 in a 25 zone? I can't. There is no evidence that it happened. Our legal system guarantees that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Despite EVIDENCE (and I emphasize EVIDENCE), OJ was acquitted because of technicality, not because there wasn't evidence to support the case. We still don't really know if he did it or not, but we could deduce from the evidence that was presented to the court. Then again, OJ lost the civil case, proving that there was enough evidence to nail him. Meanwhile, Ken Star had nothing on Hilary, not then, not now.

So you can speculate all you want about Hilary, just as we're free to speculate about Bush/Chaney/Rove being guilty for a lot of things, too. Let's not play that game.

dclary
09-18-2006, 11:49 PM
No. I was not aware of that. I was simply trying to figure out where the line was. Real people and real events. Or fake people but real events.

For me, I can live with fake people, real events. Otherwise you couldn't write anything, could you?

And I've got a soft spot for satire. South Park rocks. Conan O'Brien's interviews with Arnold and Martha are hilarious.

But real people in serious events? I can't condone that.

billythrilly7th
09-18-2006, 11:49 PM
Billy just send me an IM.

Although not posting, he is lurking as he battles the Rocky Mountain Elk Flu.

He says...

:ROFL:

..in regards to the Clary post.

maestrowork
09-18-2006, 11:50 PM
"Valerie Plame, Jack Abramoff...Bush is so corrupt!!"

Who you voting for?

"Hillary!!!"


So you're saying you refuse to think Bush is corrupt, that Libby was just a scapegoat, blah blah, but you would be so eager to paint Hilary Clinton as corrupt? Now who is hypocritical?

TheGaffer
09-18-2006, 11:55 PM
But yeah, I think the outrage is in specifying a future assassination of an existing, known president. In my mind, a film portraying the fictional assassination of a US president would be fair game. A documentary on why Bush was killed and how world events changed because of it is not.

This is where I am on this too. Especially with the "footage" of Bush being shot, as it were. It's too much. Name him Homer Flimpson and give him Whoopi Goldberg's face, or something.

billythrilly7th
09-18-2006, 11:56 PM
You simple DO NOT know -- were you there with Hilary?

So you can speculate all you want about Hilary, just as we're free to speculate about Bush/Chaney/Rove being guilty for a lot of things, too. Let's not play that game.

I agree. That's my whole point.

I just find it enjoyable when people who rail on about speculatory political corruption about one administration then seem to have no problem with the mounds and mounds of heaping speculatory political corruption of a previous one and are considering and welcoming their return.

That's all.

It's very ...amusing.

I'd prefer Dennis Kucinich in the White House over Hillary Clinton IF...IF we're going to be bogged down in corruption again.

Same thing for a Republican administration.

Political corruption really, really pisses me off.

BUT...no evidence, no crime, and we just have to move on.

"If Cheney leaked Plame and broke the law, he's got to go."
Billy Thrilly
2004 or so

I want the most upstanding politicians to be in the White House.

We should demand it.

We don't.

Most protect their sides and rip the other and engage in hypocrisy that quite frankly is an embarresment.

It's our national shame.

Thank you!

persiphone_hellecat
09-18-2006, 11:57 PM
Billy, you surprise me. You are an author. I assumed you would know the difference between fiction and non fiction. Primary Colors was a NOVEL dear. Just as many contemporary novels, it was based on certain real situations but it was a NOVEL and the person who wrote it didnt even have the testicular fortitude to put their own name on it! Let us know use Primary Colors, because most definitely it would not be admissable in any court of law except perhaps one run by the Marx Brothers. The ONLY thing we know that Bill or Hillary Clinton did was what Bill admitted to. The rest is just speculation. If Ken Starr could have indicted them - he would have - if only to justify the billions he spent on the witchhunt. There is no evidence Primary Colors is anything BUT a novel.

TheGaffer
09-18-2006, 11:59 PM
I just find it enjoyable when people who rail on about speculatory political corruption about one administration then seem to have no problem with the mounds and mounds of heaping speculatory political corruption of a previous one and are considering and welcoming their return.

Umm...but are you actually quoting people saying this, or are you quoting the made-up straw men that you perceive to exist? (Forgive me, as I have not read this thread closely). I mean, Jack Abramoff was indicted. So to call him corrupt is not really a stretch.

Again, though, to refer to her as "THE most corrupt" still doesn't hold water. Not even among Democrats when you can include Bob Torricelli and James Traficant in the mix, or Tom Delay if you expand to include everyone.

billythrilly7th
09-18-2006, 11:59 PM
So you're saying you refuse to think Bush is corrupt, that Libby was just a scapegoat, blah blah, but you would be so eager to paint Hilary Clinton as corrupt? Now who is hypocritical?

Not me.

Read my last post.

I don't refuse to think Bush is corrupt.

I DON'T KNOW.

But I believe that you can call him an idiot, a nazi a whatever, but I believe that if someone came to Bush and said "We need to do this illegal thing" he'd say "Get the F out of my office! Don't do it!"

But I DON'T KNOW. At this point, nothing would surprise me with any politician we have.

But I think that Rove might be evil. I'm sure he's done a thing or two in his day.

BUT I DON'T KNOW.

English Dave
09-19-2006, 12:00 AM
There is no evidence Primary Colors is anything BUT a novel.

Apart from the movie. ack ack akc :)

TheGaffer
09-19-2006, 12:00 AM
I assumed you would know the difference between fiction and non fiction. Primary Colors was a NOVEL dear.

Pers, Billy's philosophies and political worldview all come from movies.

maestrowork
09-19-2006, 12:00 AM
Let's be fair, Persi... Ken Starr only spent about $40 million, not billions. ;) Still a pretty high price tag for an investigation that led no where, and enough to feed a lot of hungry children.

BTW, anyone ever figured out how Ken Starr spent that $40 million? Did anyone see an itemized expense report?

maestrowork
09-19-2006, 12:02 AM
I don't refuse to think Bush is corrupt.

I DON'T KNOW.



Then you should say "I DON'T KNOW" if Hilary is corrupt. You may suspect that she's corrupt. You may speculate that she is. You may even call her a cow if you want, but you simply DON'T KNOW if she is corrupt.

Thank you.
:)

persiphone_hellecat
09-19-2006, 12:03 AM
I was being sarcastic - it sure seemed like billions ... and all the time he could have just sat down with Billy and rented Primary Colors for about 5 bucks... They could have rented Battleship Earth and had a John Travolta bad film festival.

billythrilly7th
09-19-2006, 12:06 AM
Billy, you surprise me. You are an author. I assumed you would know the difference between fiction and non fiction. Primary Colors was a NOVEL dear. Just as many contemporary novels, it was based on certain real situations but it was a NOVEL and the person who wrote it didnt even have the testicular fortitude to put their own name on it! Let us know use Primary Colors, because most definitely it would not be admissable in any court of law except perhaps one run by the Marx Brothers. The ONLY thing we know that Bill or Hillary Clinton did was what Bill admitted to. The rest is just speculation. If Ken Starr could have indicted them - he would have - if only to justify the billions he spent on the witchhunt. There is no evidence Primary Colors is anything BUT a novel.

I am not an author.

Primary Colors was a bio hidden as fiction.

I know, persi. You've made it very clear. No indictments, no convictions, means no crime and despite overwhelming coincidences and people going to jail on their behalf and one unbelievable act after another like Hillary Clinton getting 1400 votes to 12 in New Square Hasidic community....

1400 to 12!!!!!

....And why?

Bill Clinton pardoned four of the village leaders for a crime.

I know this is just one of those random mathatmatical aberrations and the fact that Bubba pardoned the four village leaders an amazing coincidence!!!

I know that incident wouldn't bother anyone, expecially a fan of Hillary.

And why should it? No indictments, no convictions, no crimes.

I get it.

I just want that standard applied to all our politicans and end the hypocrisy.

billythrilly7th
09-19-2006, 12:08 AM
Then you should say "I DON'T KNOW" if Hilary is corrupt. You may suspect that she's corrupt. You may speculate that she is. You may even call her a cow if you want, but you simply DON'T KNOW if she is corrupt.

Thank you.
:)

Fair enough.

You're right.

I stand corrected.

Thank you.
:)

Vote Thrilly/Clary
2024
"Getting it done with minimal law breaking"

billythrilly7th
09-19-2006, 12:10 AM
Let's be fair, Persi... Ken Starr only spent about $40 million, not billions. ;) Still a pretty high price tag for an investigation that led no where, and enough to feed a lot of hungry children.

BTW, anyone ever figured out how Ken Starr spent that $40 million? Did anyone see an itemized expense report?

.25 cents a taxpayer.

I certainly got my money's worth.
:)

billythrilly7th
09-19-2006, 12:11 AM
Ray,
I have to go run a few errands.

I'll be back a little later.

Carl
:)

English Dave
09-19-2006, 12:14 AM
I am not an author.

Primary Colors was a bio hidden as fiction.

I know, persi. You've made it very clear. No indictments, no convictions, means no crime and despite overwhelming coincidences and people going to jail on their behalf and one unbelievable act after another like Hillary Clinton getting 1400 votes to 12 in New Square Hasidic community....

1400 to 12!!!!!

....And why?

Bill Clinton pardoned four of the village leaders for a crime.

I know this is just one of those random mathatmatical aberrations and the fact that Bubba pardoned the four village leaders an amazing coincidence!!!

I know that incident wouldn't bother anyone, expecially a fan of Hillary.

And why should it? No indictments, no convictions, no crimes.

I get it.

I just want that standard applied to all our politicans and end the hypocrisy.

I think I speak for the rest of the free world when I say I agree. No conviction, no crime.

Thankyou.

'Course it helps if you remove the law so there can be no conviction. Like Gitmo?

persiphone_hellecat
09-19-2006, 12:16 AM
Gromhard, this isnt about being a film critic. This is about speaking out against a film that should never see the light of day. I disagree with it too -- several here do. Should we shut the fvck up, too? Americans have been fighting for over 200 years for our freedom of speech. Say anything you want here if you have something relevant to contribute - but "shut the fvck up" is simply the response of a person with nothing to contribute. Senator Clinton more than justified her feelings about this movie - which is the subject of this thread. Your comment was rude to all here who have said they oppose this film. We aren't film critics - just people with morals and values who despise such a horrible film. And I don't expect any of us to shut the fvck up about it.

maestrowork
09-19-2006, 12:22 AM
If the Pope could say something negative about Islam, I'm sure our junior Senator could say something about a British film depicting the assassination of our REAL president.

persiphone_hellecat
09-19-2006, 12:23 AM
I am not an author.

Primary Colors was a bio hidden as fiction.



I just read the Amazon.com listing for Primary Colors. I saw NOTHING saying it was a bio hidden as fiction. As most authors do, I believe it tends to be a pastiche of things the author has read about campaigns, put together into one story. That means not every incident in it related to one specific campaign. No, it is not a bio hidden as fiction.

And since when are all bios factual anyway? Ever read anything by Kitty Kelley?

Primary Colors is a work of fiction.

As for pardons, let's go WAY back now and ask ourselves why Nixon needed to be pardoned by Gerald Ford if he wasn't guilty of anything. There are many reasons for pardons and since Bill Clinton doesnt confide in me, I have no idea why he did that.

gromhard
09-19-2006, 12:26 AM
Obviously, your "Tongue and Cheek to Point out the Hypocrisy of Others" meter is on the fritz.

It usually is with many of the people I direct that towards.

I'm glad to see you don't blame U.S. President's for the death of citizens of other countries when their "leaders" are the one to blame.

Yep.

Billy i don't blame Clinton because he didn't directly TRY to kill anyone. The starving could have been stopped at ANY time by the Iraqi people voting out or deposing Saddam. (granted I know 99% voted FOR saddam and the elections were rigged...but they were rigged here too). Or Saddam spreading his personal wealth around...or more importantly fixing their gd farm equipment(something bush hasn't done either.)

I DO blame Bush for sending bombs and bullets into Iraqis.

If I stole my neighbor's food...and he horded what he had left and let his family die, I am NOT guilty of murder. (sure guilty of theft but NOT murder)

Now if I kick down my neighbor's door and shoot his family I AM guilty of murder.

Understand the difference?

TheGaffer
09-19-2006, 12:31 AM
I saw NOTHING saying it was a bio hidden as fiction. As most authors do, I believe it tends to be a pastiche of things the author has read about campaigns, put together into one story. That means not every incident in it related to one specific campaign. No, it is not a bio hidden as fiction.
It was a roman a clef, so to speak, though -- the horndog governor of a southern state running for president, his borderline-crazy political strategist, the wide-eyed political operative, et al.

It is meant to be fiction; Jack Stanton is a fictional character broadly modeled on Bill Clinton, most assuredly, even though he lacked some of the depth that Mr. Clinton has himself. In addition, it was written by Joe Klein, and not an insider like Stephanophoulus, so the ties to real insider dope are a bit more tenuous.

dclary
09-19-2006, 12:32 AM
Vote Thrilly/Clary
2024
"Getting it done with minimal law breaking"

Hoohah!

Oh sweet... If I'm VP I have precedent for shooting people I don't like in the face.

Rock on!

gromhard
09-19-2006, 12:44 AM
Gromhard, this isnt about being a film critic. This is about speaking out against a film that should never see the light of day. I disagree with it too -- several here do. Should we shut the fvck up, too? Americans have been fighting for over 200 years for our freedom of speech. Say anything you want here if you have something relevant to contribute - but "shut the fvck up" is simply the response of a person with nothing to contribute. Senator Clinton more than justified her feelings about this movie - which is the subject of this thread. Your comment was rude to all here who have said they oppose this film. We aren't film critics - just people with morals and values who despise such a horrible film. And I don't expect any of us to shut the fvck up about it.

With all due respect Persi...you guys also didn't vote to send 3,000 soldiers off to their deaths, 25,000 out to be maimed and anywhere from 100,000 - 250,000 Iraqis to their brutal death resulting in a religious civil war.

I'm not mad because Hillary has an opinion of a movie. I'm mad because Hillary chose THIS to break her famous silent streak.
She didn't say JACK in 2000 when Bush stole the election.
Or 2002 When Bush went to war.(she voted for it)
Or in 2004 when Bush stole the election again.
She has f'all to say about the million plus prisoners rotting away over non-violent drug offences.
She has f'all to say anymore about universal healthcare, women's rights, civil rights......

Basically she's a career opportunist and it makes me sick to see her jumping on bandwagons.
Gaffer, You, Dclary, Billy all agree on the same subject...ooh Hillary has got some balls to agree here../sarcasm. We really needed her to speak out on this one???...she knows how to pick her battles for sure.

The ONLY reason Hillary said SH*TE was because her hubby b*tched and moaned when the movie Contact came out because they cut in one of his teleconferences and they made it look like he was commenting on extraterrestrials....and got his jaguar spotted bikini panties all in a bunch.

I am for free speech across the board, sometimes that means making a movie I don't agree with or find tacky, like this one. Gimmicky too come to think of it. But that's the price Bush pays for being a politician .Everyone knows it. This coming just DAYS after the 9/11 movie debacle in which clinton was smeared...and that one didn't purport itself to be fiction.

robeiae
09-19-2006, 12:59 AM
To the person who asked about Hillary Clinton's private citizenship - being appointed to a committee is not the same as being elected. Yes, she was a private citizen - First Lady is not an elected post. Just as Laura Bush is a private citizen. That should be fairly clear.It's not clear at all.

Everyone is a private citizen. Elected officials are certainly public figures, as well. They can be politicians and corrupt ones, at that. What about appointed posts? I think it fair to label appointed officials as politicians if politics is how that got that position. And in such roles, they can be as corrupt as the next guy or gal. Or do you think Rumsfeld is a private citizen and beyond criticism for corruption?

TheGaffer
09-19-2006, 01:03 AM
Gaffer, You, Dclary, Billy all agree on the same subject...ooh Hillary has got some balls to agree here../sarcasm.
Actually, we were mostly agreeing on the movie sounding like it's pretty gross and not worth watching.

robeiae
09-19-2006, 01:08 AM
If I stole my neighbor's food...and he horded what he had left and let his family die, I am NOT guilty of murder. (sure guilty of theft but NOT murder)

Now if I kick down my neighbor's door and shoot his family I AM guilty of murder.

Understand the difference?I don't understand anything about this post, whatsoever. What are you trying to say?

English Dave
09-19-2006, 01:08 AM
Actually, we were mostly agreeing on the movie sounding like it's pretty gross and not worth watching.

I thought it was okay. Emma Thompson is always watchable.

gromhard
09-19-2006, 01:09 AM
Actually, we were mostly agreeing on the movie sounding like it's pretty gross and not worth watching.

Exactly...so it was safe for Hillary to say too. I want to see Hillary go AGAINST the mainstream at least once, stand for something unpopular but right, THAT is what a leader does. A leader doesn't just agree with you and tell you what you want to hear.

gromhard
09-19-2006, 01:10 AM
I don't understand anything about this post, whatsoever. What are you trying to say?

Billy is trying to blame Bill Clinton for the 500,000 dead in iraq due to the sanctions.

I am trying to explain that Clinton's sanctions don't ammount to murder, however Bush's invasion does.

robeiae
09-19-2006, 01:16 AM
I am trying to explain that Clinton's sanctions don't ammount to murder, however Bush's invasion does.It's a war. It's not murder. Or do you believe that the moment U.S. troops entered Iraq, every Iraqi in the country dropped their weapons and put up their hands?

maestrowork
09-19-2006, 01:30 AM
Exactly...so it was safe for Hillary to say too. I want to see Hillary go AGAINST the mainstream at least once, stand for something unpopular but right, THAT is what a leader does. A leader doesn't just agree with you and tell you what you want to hear.

Hilary is not a spiritual leader. She's a politician. She's a Senator, not an activist. If you think saying what people want to hear is bad, then almost every politician in Washington is bad because of that, and because that's what politicians do.

English Dave
09-19-2006, 01:30 AM
It's a war. It's not murder. Or do you believe that the moment U.S. troops entered Iraq, every Iraqi in the country dropped their weapons and put up their hands?

Why would they?

gromhard
09-19-2006, 01:30 AM
It's a war. It's not murder. Or do you believe that the moment U.S. troops entered Iraq, every Iraqi in the country dropped their weapons and put up their hands?

What would you do if Iraqi troops invaded Robeiae's street? Would you just be like "Oh I guess they're the boss now" or would you fight?

All soldiers who kill are murderers. Don't like it then don't fight in war. The notion that there is some excusable murder is both sociopathic and ethically corrupt.

Man invented war...not life, we can't say "Oh it's war so murder is okay." Either life has inherant value or it doesn't.

robeiae
09-19-2006, 01:33 AM
Why would they?I don't know. Did I say they should?

English Dave
09-19-2006, 01:34 AM
What would you do if Iraqi troops invaded Robeiae's street? Would you just be like "Oh I guess they're the boss now" or would you fight?

All soldiers who kill are murderers. Don't like it then don't fight in war. The notion that there is some excusable murder is both sociopathic and ethically corrupt.

Man invented war...not life, we can't say "Oh it's war so murder is okay." Either life has inherant value or it doesn't.

Grom, I think your getting confused between soldiers and politicians. Politicians are murderers. Soldiers are the weapons they use.

gromhard
09-19-2006, 01:35 AM
Hilary is not a spiritual leader. She's a politician. She's a Senator, not an activist. If you think saying what people want to hear is bad, then almost every politician in Washington is bad because of that, and because that's what politicians do.

Yeah maestro and it SUCKS. We shouldn't just become complacent with this. We need to demand more and my little contribution is I won't vote for Hillary so the Democratic party needs to think about me and people like me come primary time. If they make another Howard Dean take a bow for another career politician Kerry or Hillary type, then they're going to lose in Nov -08.
It's too late in the day to overlook a politician's obvious shortcomings simply because she has a known name.
They tricked me in 2004 and I voted for Kerry. I felt dirty afterwards and vowed it'd never happen again. I don't care if all my candidates crash and burn, from now on all politicians I support will have to EARN it by MY standards and no one else's.

robeiae
09-19-2006, 01:38 AM
What would you do if Iraqi troops invaded Robeiae's street? Would you just be like "Oh I guess they're the boss now" or would you fight?Fight, of course.

All soldiers who kill are murderers. Don't like it then don't fight in war. The notion that there is some excusable murder is both sociopathic and ethically corrupt.So according to this defintion, when I take up arms to fight the Iraqis on my street, I become a murderer once I kill one of them. Therefore, killing in self-defense must be murder, as well. Good to know.

Man invented war...not life, we can't say "Oh it's war so murder is okay." Either life has inherant value or it doesn't.Obviously, you're just tossing concepts around without having thought anything through.

gromhard
09-19-2006, 01:40 AM
Grom, I think your getting confused between soldiers and politicians. Politicians are murderers. Soldiers are the weapons they use.

don't give me that. Those soldiers are capable of making choices. The government doesn't own their actions or their consciences. Sure there may be consequences for refusing to fight but there are also consequences of fighting...becoming a murderer.

It's 2006, we have volunteer militaries and national education. There is no longer the "I was just doing my job" excuse. I'm of age, I didn't run off and kill Iraqis or Afghanis. It's a choice and sure what politicians do and say is a problem...but it comes down to that ONE man/woman with their finger on the trigger of the gun.

I may be an American, but first I'm a human being. I will never let my humanity take a back seat to my nationality...the second you do that you're something less than human.

Idealistic? Yes...but true. No one HAS TO ever murder another human being ever again...so it's a tragedy WHENEVER it happens no matter WHAT the circumstances or rhetoric.

gromhard
09-19-2006, 01:46 AM
Obviously, you're just tossing concepts around without having thought anything through.

Well YOU'D know.

Robeiae...why is murder considered "wrong" by most people? Is it because human life has inherant value?

If yes, then that value was placed there by a higher authority/creator/god. If that is the case then no man-made condition or conflict would trump the value of human life. God created and values man...not war.

If human life doesnt' have inherent value, then all of life's value is subjective to the observer. Then the Iraqi's life has no value, your life has no value, my life, any life. Kill anyone you want and it's alright ethically.

Only one can be true logically Rob. (unless you are in possession of some supernatural knowledge that no one else is).

So is murder wrong or isn't it? Now it's YOUR turn to think some things through.

English Dave
09-19-2006, 01:46 AM
don't give me that. Those soldiers are capable of making choices. The government doesn't own their actions or their consciences. Sure there may be consequences for refusing to fight but there are also consequences of fighting...becoming a murderer.

It's 2006, we have volunteer militaries and national education. There is no longer the "I was just doing my job" excuse. I'm of age, I didn't run off and kill Iraqis or Afghanis. It's a choice and sure what politicians do and say is a problem...but it comes down to that ONE man/woman with their finger on the trigger of the gun.

I may be an American, but first I'm a human being. I will never let my humanity take a back seat to my nationality...the second you do that you're something less than human.

Idealistic? Yes...but true. No one HAS TO ever murder another human being ever again...so it's a tragedy WHENEVER it happens no matter WHAT the circumstances or rhetoric.

Grom, I feel you are being a little naive here. Sorry. In order to kill someone on behalf of your country you have to believe that is the only option. Otherwise your country, family, way of life or whatever is in jeapordy. There are very few instances in world history where that was really the case. But propoganda made it seem so in most. And brave men and women faced death on the back of that propoganda throughout the ages.

Personally I would never blame soldiers. The blame lies with the leaders.

robeiae
09-19-2006, 01:47 AM
don't give me that. Those soldiers are capable of making choices. The government doesn't own their actions or their consciences. Sure there may be consequences for refusing to fight but there are also consequences of fighting...becoming a murderer.

It's 2006, we have volunteer militaries and national education. There is no longer the "I was just doing my job" excuse. I'm of age, I didn't run off and kill Iraqis or Afghanis. It's a choice and sure what politicians do and say is a problem...but it comes down to that ONE man/woman with their finger on the trigger of the gun.

I may be an American, but first I'm a human being. I will never let my humanity take a back seat to my nationality...the second you do that you're something less than human.

Idealistic? Yes...but true. No one HAS TO ever murder another human being ever again...so it's a tragedy WHENEVER it happens no matter WHAT the circumstances or rhetoric.So how can you blame Bush for any of the deaths in Iraq, since he didn't pull a trigger? You're destroying your own arguments with every post.

Sheryl Nantus
09-19-2006, 01:48 AM
wow.

I'm glad Grom wasn't around back in the American Revolution.

robeiae
09-19-2006, 01:48 AM
Well YOU'D know.

Robeiae...why is murder considered "wrong" by most people? Is it because human life has inherant value?

If yes, then that value was placed there by a higher authority/creator/god. If that is the case then no man-made condition or conflict would trump the value of human life. God created and values man...not war.

If human life doesnt' have inherent value, then all of life's value is subjective to the observer. Then the Iraqi's life has no value, your life has no value, my life, any life. Kill anyone you want and it's alright ethically.

Only one can be true logically Rob. (unless you are in possession of some supernatural knowledge that no one else is).

So is murder wrong or isn't it? Now it's YOUR turn to think some things through. :ROFL: Hardly. You sidestepped everything. Is killing in self-defense murder? Is defending my family from invaders murder?

maestrowork
09-19-2006, 01:48 AM
Blame Canada.

billythrilly7th
09-19-2006, 01:49 AM
Billy i don't blame Clinton because he didn't directly TRY to kill anyone.

I don't blame Clinton either. Every death is on Saddam's hands.

The starving could have been stopped at ANY time by the Iraqi people voting out Saddam.

"4th most ridiculous thing said in the history of messageboard posting."
Messageboard Magazine
10/12/06 Issue


I DO blame Bush for sending bombs and bullets into Iraqis.

If I stole my neighbor's food...and he horded what he had left and let his family die, I am NOT guilty of murder. (sure guilty of theft but NOT murder)

Now if I kick down my neighbor's door and shoot his family I AM guilty of murder.

Understand the difference?

I see the difference.

I just enjoy when people talk about the faulty intelligence that led to the invasion and 100,000 Iraqi deaths, but could care less about the faulty intelligence that led to sanctions remaining in place that killed 500,000.

The hypocrisy of the American ideologue knows no bounds.

United States policy against Iraq has caused death for their civilians for 15 years. Both were based on apparently faulty intelligence.

But I supported both policies, 'cause it's the dictator's fault when the shiiite reigns down on their country especially when it's his own actions that lead to us having faulty intelligence.

Thank you.

English Dave
09-19-2006, 01:49 AM
wow.

I'm glad Grom wasn't around back in the American Revolution.

You mean 'when you fvckers chucked our tea into the harbour' as we call it.

Sheryl Nantus
09-19-2006, 01:52 AM
hey, I'm Canadian.

I LUV my tea.

:D

billythrilly7th
09-19-2006, 01:54 AM
So how can you blame Bush for any of the deaths in Iraq, since he didn't pull a trigger? You're destroying your own arguments with every post.


"Ahhhh, I'm blaming everybody."
Jerry Seingromfeld
1995

billythrilly7th
09-19-2006, 01:58 AM
What would you do if Iraqi troops invaded Robeiae's street? Would you just be like "Oh I guess they're the boss now" or would you fight?

If Iraqi troops were coming to repay the favor after the Chinese Invasion of 2087 and I was living under a dictator and they were here to help me get my voting rights back, I'd shake their hands and say "Thank you."


Thank you.

gromhard
09-19-2006, 02:00 AM
Grom, I feel you are being a little naive here. Sorry. In order to kill someone on behalf of your country you have to believe that is the only option. Otherwise your country, family, way of life or whatever is in jeapordy. There are very few instances in world history where that was really the case. But propoganda made it seem so in most. And brave men and women faced death on the back of that propoganda throughout the ages.

Personally I would never blame soldiers. The blame lies with the leaders.

So you'd have forgiven the Nazis at Nuremburg? You'd have said "Hey you guys were just doing your job, your leaders told you to gas 6 million innocent people, how were you supposed to realize anything was wrong."
Well I disagree. We're not sending 13 and 14year olds into battle. We're sending (ostensibly) grown men and women with full autonomous controll. If you're so weak minded or trusting that you'd turn your autonomous free will over to an organization and kill for it...well then I don't have any place for you in the 21st century. We can only be responcible for our own actions and if someone isn't...then they're a danger to everyone.

gromhard
09-19-2006, 02:01 AM
:ROFL: Hardly. You sidestepped everything. Is killing in self-defense murder? Is defending my family from invaders murder?

I didn't sidestep anything, YES it's murder.

Shadow_Ferret
09-19-2006, 02:01 AM
You mean 'when you fvckers chucked our tea into the harbour' as we call it.

That was a conspiracy by the coffee council.

English Dave
09-19-2006, 02:02 AM
hey, I'm Canadian.

I LUV my tea.

:D
I've forgotten what the thread was about but suddenly I could murder a cup of Lapsan Suchong. :)

robeiae
09-19-2006, 02:02 AM
But I'm still happy to answer you.
Robeiae...why is murder considered "wrong" by most people? Is it because human life has inherant value?
Murder-The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. (American Heritage Dict.)

That's called a definition. Let's use this one for our dicussion, shall we?

Murder is widely considered 'wrong' for a number of reasons. But the long and short of it is that murder as a concept is a construct of civil society and presupposes a concept of law. It is therefore wrong by definition in any society where it is against the law.

From a philosophical standpoint, murder is once again wrong for many reasons, depending on who you ask. For me, it is wrong because to allow it would be to deny the individual freedom to live--the cornerstone right of any legitimate society. In the absence of society, murder is not a valid concept.

If yes, then that value was placed there by a higher authority/creator/god. If that is the case then no man-made condition or conflict would trump the value of human life. God created and values man...not war.Well, I didn't say yes, did I?

If human life doesnt' have inherent value, then all of life's value is subjective to the observer. Then the Iraqi's life has no value, your life has no value, my life, any life. Kill anyone you want and it's alright ethically.Incorrect. Murder is taking life illegally, so it's wrong. Ethically, it's wrong becuase it violates the Categorical Imperative (my basis for ethics--you need to have one of those, you know).

Only one can be true logically Rob. (unless you are in possession of some supernatural knowledge that no one else is). You've failed miserable to set up a logical either-or proposition. You lose.

billythrilly7th
09-19-2006, 02:02 AM
Robieae asked a question, Hard.

Please answer it.

Will the real murderer please stand up....

Bush or The Soldier?


Thank you.

Robert Toy
09-19-2006, 02:04 AM
That was a conspiracy by the coffee council.
Colombian or Brazilian?

billythrilly7th
09-19-2006, 02:05 AM
You've failed miserable to set up a logical either-or construct. You lose.

http://www.coolhunting.com/giftguide/images/rockem.jpg

Another victory for the Big Red.

:D

gromhard
09-19-2006, 02:05 AM
wow.

I'm glad Grom wasn't around back in the American Revolution.

Why? So I could have helped America recieve the autonomy it wanted to kill indians, subjugate women and enslave blacks?

I could care less about the revolutionary war and a bunch of white males who didn't want to pay their taxes.

billythrilly7th
09-19-2006, 02:07 AM
http://www.killrockstars.com/bands/BandQuestion/pix/oscar-slim.gif

"Separated at Birth: Oscar and Grom."

:D

Good day, everyone!

Robert Toy
09-19-2006, 02:10 AM
There is only one solution, kill them all and let God sort it out!

English Dave
09-19-2006, 02:13 AM
So you'd have forgiven the Nazis at Nuremburg? You'd have said "Hey you guys were just doing your job, your leaders told you to gas 6 million innocent people, how were you supposed to realize anything was wrong."
Well I disagree. We're not sending 13 and 14year olds into battle. We're sending (ostensibly) grown men and women with full autonomous controll. If you're so weak minded or trusting that you'd turn your autonomous free will over to an organization and kill for it...well then I don't have any place for you in the 21st century. We can only be responcible for our own actions and if someone isn't...then they're a danger to everyone.

Well ...several things here. Luckily my grandparents didn't want to live under Nazi rule. That was a conscious free will thought. In order to best defend their way of life against that 'rule' they decided to fight.

We are not just responsible for our own actions. Them fighting alone would have made no difference. There are times when collective action is necessary.

Whether that collective action becomes necessary or not is largely down to politicians. Nazi Germany was only able to come to being because of the discontent that was easly sowed thanks to the prohibitions of the treaty of Verasilles.

Who made that treaty? Not the guys fighting in the trenches from 1914-18, that's for sure. No doubt it was the people who stood to make the most money.

Sheryl Nantus
09-19-2006, 02:14 AM
Why? So I could have helped America recieve the autonomy it wanted to kill indians, subjugate women and enslave blacks?

I could care less about the revolutionary war and a bunch of white males who didn't want to pay their taxes.

oh, you sad sad little man...

please, move to Canada. You'll be happy there.

:D

Robert Toy
09-19-2006, 02:16 AM
oh, you sad sad little man...

please, move to Canada. You'll be happy there.

:D
Sheryl, I thought you liked your country....;)

Sheryl Nantus
09-19-2006, 02:18 AM
so true... but I think a dose of socialist reality would do Grom a world of good.

:D

English Dave
09-19-2006, 02:19 AM
I could care less about the revolutionary war and a bunch of white males who didn't want to pay their taxes.

You lost me at ' and a bunch of white males who didn't want to pay their taxes'


And that's wrong?

gromhard
09-19-2006, 02:19 AM
But I'm still happy to answer you.

Murder-The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. (American Heritage Dict.)

That's called a definition. Let's use this one for our dicussion, shall we?

Murder is widely considered 'wrong' for a number of reasons. But the long and short of it is that murder as a concept is a construct of civil society and presupposes a concept of law. It is therefore wrong by definition in any society where it is against the law.

From a philosophical standpoint, murder is once again wrong for many reasons, depending on who you ask. For me, it is wrong because to allow it would be to deny the individual freedom to live--the cornerstone right of any legitimate society. In the absence of society, murder is not a valid concept.

So your two answers as to why murder is considered "wrong" by most people.
1. Murder breaks the law.
and
2. Because it denies a right SOCIETY has provided?
And without society murder isn't considered wrong?
If you're really doing this for the sake of some semantic arguement about the word murder just stop now. I hate that petty crap. If not:

All those examples you gave point to you not believing human life has any inherant value...as you feel a law can validate or invalidate a life.


Well, I didn't say yes, did I?
Nope, you said 'no.'

Incorrect. Murder is taking life illegally, so it's wrong. Ethically, it's wrong becuase it violates the Categorical Imperative (my basis for ethics--you need to have one of those, you know).

The Catagorical Imperitive states that your actions should consist of what you'd want as a law for everyone. You're using it backwards, that whatever is lawful is inherantly ethical...that is probably the furthest away from Kant's intention as you can take it.
Not only that but the catagorical imperative is crappy in it's own right. It doesn't have any accounting for charity or personal sacrifice or democracy..it's tyrannically bunk, I've never met someone who understood it and doesn't mock it.


You've failed miserable to set up a logical either-or proposition. You lose.

Since you said so Mr. Categorical Imperative.

Does life have inherant value? Yes or no?

Sheryl Nantus
09-19-2006, 02:23 AM
Lord save me from being attacked by a bunch of rabid bikers and having Grom around to try and save me.

he wouldn't even try.

*rolls eyes*

girls, stay away from this one!

:D

gromhard
09-19-2006, 02:24 AM
You lost me at ' and a bunch of white males who didn't want to pay their taxes'


And that's wrong?

Not necessarily...but I'm not about to wave their flag and rep a bunch of mysogynistic slaveholding indian killers just because they didn't want to pay tax on their tea.

Sheryl Nantus
09-19-2006, 02:25 AM
*laughs*

Lord, it's sad when a Canuck knows American history better than an American!

:D

English Dave
09-19-2006, 02:28 AM
So your two answers as to why murder is considered "wrong" by most people.
1. Murder breaks the law.
and
2. Because it denies a right SOCIETY has provided?
And without society murder isn't considered wrong?
If you're really doing this for the sake of some semantic arguement about the word murder just stop now. I hate that petty crap. If not:

All those examples you gave point to you not believing human life has any inherant value...as you feel a law can validate or invalidate a life.

Nope, you said 'no.'

The Catagorical Imperitive states that your actions should consist of what you'd want as a law for everyone. You're using it backwards, that whatever is lawful is inherantly ethical...that is probably the furthest away from Kant's intention as you can take it.
Not only that but the catagorical imperative is crappy in it's own right. It doesn't have any accounting for charity or personal sacrifice or democracy..it's tyrannically bunk, I've never met someone who understood it and doesn't mock it.



Since you said so Mr. Categorical Imperative.

Does life have inherant value? Yes or no?
Grom did you know that the German army belt buckle carried the motto 'God Mit Uns'

Morality and surviving are two different animals. I have what I consider to be my morality. That doesn't mean I wouldn't kill if I thought I had to.

My 'thought I had to' may differ from others.

gromhard
09-19-2006, 02:31 AM
Lord save me from being attacked by a bunch of rabid bikers and having Grom around to try and save me.

he wouldn't even try.

*rolls eyes*

girls, stay away from this one!

:D

WRONG.

I'd save you. I've trained in martial arts for several years. This is why I'm so unforgiving of murder. I can STOP someone(maybe not a group of bikers) but I can stop someone from doing something bad without killing them. Yes, even if they have a gun..what you can't shoot an arm or shoulder if you have to return fire?
There isn't this "kill or be killed" world out there. That's for animals. What if cops acted like that? Instead cops are under mandate to try NOT to kill people while restraining them.
Yes, it's possible while trying to save Sheryl that a biker would end up dead in a violent fight. Is that murder? Well that depends, was I TRYING to kill him...or did my restraining techniques simply go wrong by accident.
Either way one shouldn't be put in JAIL for self defence..but ethically, I know in my heart if I really inteded to kill the guy with my actions.

gromhard
09-19-2006, 02:34 AM
Grom did you know that the German army belt buckle carried the motto 'God Mit Uns'

Morality and surviving are two different animals. I have what I consider to be my morality. That doesn't mean I wouldn't kill if I thought I had to.

My 'thought I had to' may differ from others.

Well yes, the day may come where you feel no other options for protecting your life than to murder someone else. So what? You're guilty of murder, sure you have an excuse but the end result is the same. Should you be put in jail? Probably not..but realistically you are guilty of taking a life. If God values human life, then you've just offended Him.

Sheryl Nantus
09-19-2006, 02:34 AM
you are *so* full of it.

martial artist, my tushie...

and if you think that anyone other than a trained sniper can expertly target an arm or a leg in a crisis situation with a firearm, then you don't know squat about the real world.

Hollywood really *is* another reality...

English Dave
09-19-2006, 02:36 AM
If God values human life, then you've just offended Him.

Like I give a sh1t? I have MY moral values which have nothing to do with religion.

Robert Toy
09-19-2006, 02:37 AM
so true... but I think a dose of socialist reality would do Grom a world of good.

:D
Okay, how about sending him to Cold Lake? Maybe a little fishingmaybe, just maybe Kinosoo is not a myth.....:D

gromhard
09-19-2006, 02:38 AM
Like I give a sh1t? I have MY moral values which have nothing to do with religion.

Then you see human life has having no inherant value. Which is fine but that also means that my life has no value, yours, robs, tom cruise's. I'm fine with this personally. I don't believe in goD.

English Dave
09-19-2006, 02:40 AM
Then you see human life has having no inherant value. Which is fine but that also means that my life has no value, yours, robs, tom cruise's. I'm fine with this personally. I don't believe in goD.

Good fer you. ;)

gromhard
09-19-2006, 02:43 AM
you are *so* full of it.

martial artist, my tushie...

and if you think that anyone other than a trained sniper can expertly target an arm or a leg in a crisis situation with a firearm, then you don't know squat about the real world.

Hollywood really *is* another reality...

You've obviously never target shot.
I'm no sniper or an expert but I can take a .9 and put a hole through a guy's arm or leg at about 30-50 feet. I can also shoot a guy between the eyes who is using a human shield...targets come that way if you didn't know. It's easy and you shouldn't be using a firearm if you can't do the same. Ask any cop.

Is it 100% sure you won't kill the guy? NO but you don't HAVE to TRY to kill him. (not to mention humans are at least 50% leg...if you can't hit a target that big then put down your gun and surrender before you hurt yourself. )

TheGaffer
09-19-2006, 02:44 AM
If they make another Howard Dean take a bow for another career politician Kerry or Hillary type, then they're going to lose in Nov -08.

What's with "they make"?? He lost in the primaries. Period. And he's a politician too, serving as governor of Vermont. (Did a decent job by all accounts, from what I hear.)

So you'd have forgiven the Nazis at Nuremburg? You'd have said "Hey you guys were just doing your job, your leaders told you to gas 6 million innocent people, how were you supposed to realize anything was wrong."

I hereby evoke Godwin's Law and request closure of this board. Next topic.

No need to thank me, Thrillster.

Robert Toy
09-19-2006, 02:46 AM
There are a few that are made mostly of arse.

Sheryl Nantus
09-19-2006, 02:48 AM
You've obviously never target shot.
I'm no sniper or an expert but I can take a .9 and put a hole through a guy's arm or leg at about 30-50 feet. I can also shoot a guy between the eyes who is using a human shield...targets come that way if you didn't know. It's easy and you shouldn't be using a firearm if you can't do the same. Ask any cop.

Is it 100% sure you won't kill the guy? NO but you don't HAVE to TRY to kill him. (not to mention humans are at least 50% leg...if you can't hit a target that big then put down your gun and surrender before you hurt yourself. )

*laughs*

baby, target shooting has *nothing* to do with the real world - I'm sure there's more experienced firearms peeps on the board who can give you a tutorial in what happens when faced with a situation. No cop worth his salt will tell you that he can accurately hit an arm or a leg under pressure in a tense situation.

and I doubt you've had much more serious situations than cutting yourself opening the door to the target range.

:ROFL:

Robert Toy
09-19-2006, 02:49 AM
You've obviously never target shot.
I'm no sniper or an expert but I can take a .9 and put a hole through a guy's arm or leg at about 30-50 feet
Excuse me? A .9, that's one big honking gun there fella. I can tell you're a real expert...:D

Sheryl Nantus
09-19-2006, 02:50 AM
LMAO!

bet he doesn't miss much there, eh?

English Dave
09-19-2006, 02:50 AM
*laughs*

baby, target shooting has *nothing* to do with the real world - I'm sure there's more experienced firearms peeps on the board who can give you a tutorial in what happens when faced with a situation. No cop worth his salt will tell you that he can accurately hit an arm or a leg under pressure in a tense situation.


:ROFL:

I'd shoot for an arm or a leg.







Oh wait, you said real world.




Dammit.

robeiae
09-19-2006, 02:52 AM
So your two answers as to why murder is considered "wrong" by most people.
1. Murder breaks the law.
and
2. Because it denies a right SOCIETY has provided?
And without society murder isn't considered wrong?
If you're really doing this for the sake of some semantic arguement about the word murder just stop now.Ever read Hobbes? You may not like my pointof view or my analysis--but I can present with some measure of consistency.
I hate that petty crap.I don't hate much, but I don't particularly like hearing people offer poorly conceived philosophical opinions. You have a terminology problem--you're using murder and kill interchangably. Sadly, I even gave you a defintion of murder to use. Quite obviously, murder is fundamentally wrong if it is illegal--and if it is not illegal, the term is not meangingful. Barring any system of law, murder cannot be fundamentally wrong because it has no meaning in such a world. Within such, you have to ask whether or not killing is wrong, not murder.
If not:

All those examples you gave point to you not believing human life has any inherant value...as you feel a law can validate or invalidate a life.Silly boy, you're making moral judgements based on a legal point. I never siad what you are implying; I didn't imply it, either.

The Catagorical Imperitive states that your actions should consist of what you'd want as a law for everyone. You're using it backwards, that whatever is lawful is inherantly ethical...that is probably the furthest away from Kant's intention as you can take it.You're confused, again. My ethical postion on murder has nothing to do with the legal reality of murder. The problem is, you conflated the two concepts here:
If human life doesnt' have inherent value, then all of life's value is subjective to the observer. Then the Iraqi's life has no value, your life has no value, my life, any life. Kill anyone you want and it's alright ethically.

I seperated them out for you, but then YOU CONFLATED THEM ONCE AGAIN! :)
Not only that but the catagorical imperative is crappy in it's own right. It doesn't have any accounting for charity or personal sacrifice or democracy..it's tyrannically bunk, I've never met someone who understood it and doesn't mock it.But you don't understand it, so how could you identify sucha person?

Does life have inherant value? Yes or no?*sigh*

Define value and the means of measuring it.

And you never came clean on Bush. How can you hold him responsible for any deaths in Iraq if he never pulled a trigger?

Robert Toy
09-19-2006, 03:11 AM
Okay, I've been nice thus far...go fvck yourself. How's that suite you.
Geethat sounds kind of personal. I guess it could be the shock from firing that 22.8mm hand held cannon.

English Dave
09-19-2006, 03:12 AM
Okay, I've been nice thus far...go fvck yourself. How's that suite you.

And he meant that to sting.

I think.

Robert Toy
09-19-2006, 03:14 AM
And he meant that to sting.

I think.
You think?

Sheryl Nantus
09-19-2006, 03:16 AM
the problem is reality vs the Hollywood idea - for example, anyone who's ever been in a real street fight can tell you that martial arts training doesn't even begin to replicate the conditions - my Jeet Kune Do instructor was adamant in having us work with wooden knives and the like to try and simulate real-life situations where you wouldn't have the chance to put on your uniform and settle down into a proper stance.

the same thing happened with my own firearms training - the instructor laughed when one student asked about taking a shot at the arm or the leg - when you're under stress, having tunnel vision and probably in less-than-perfect lighting you don't get the luxury of choosing carefully where to aim That's why cops are told to aim for the center torso, as it's the largest target and you're more likely to hit it.

as for the rest, well... I think I've made my point.

JennaGlatzer
09-19-2006, 03:17 AM
And that'll be a time-out for gromhard...

gromhard
09-19-2006, 03:18 AM
Ever read Hobbes? You may not like my pointof view or my analysis--but I can present with some measure of consistency.
I don't hate much, but I don't particularly like hearing people offer poorly conceived philosophical opinions. You have a terminology problem--you're using murder and kill interchangably. Sadly, I even gave you a defintion of murder to use. Quite obviously, murder is fundamentally wrong if it is illegal--and if it is not illegal, the term is not meangingful. Barring any system of law, murder cannot be fundamentally wrong because it has no meaning in such a world. Within such, you have to ask whether or not killing is wrong, not murder.

Silly boy, you're making moral judgements based on a legal point. I never siad what you are implying; I didn't imply it, either.

You said murder was the unlawful killing of a person. Implying that there were times when it was lawful and then of course, not wrong(or if I understand you correctly, not MURDER specifically)
Well what law? City? State? Federal? National? Religious?
You're breaking "god's law" to murder someone.


You're confused, again. My ethical postion on murder has nothing to do with the legal reality of murder. The problem is, you conflated the two concepts here:
If human life doesnt' have inherent value, then all of life's value is subjective to the observer. Then the Iraqi's life has no value, your life has no value, my life, any life. Kill anyone you want and it's alright ethically.

I seperated them out for you, but then YOU CONFLATED THEM ONCE AGAIN! :)
But you don't understand it, so how could you identify sucha person?

*sigh*

If I understand you correctly you're saying that the value of life exists in society, correct? Your life has value to society because of the agreement you have with society?

As for the CI are you saying that because YOU don't want to be killed you prefer the law that NO ONE kills? cause that's much closer to the spirit of the CI.


Define value and the means of measuring it.

Can't, I don't believe in right and wrong but that stems from my lack of belief in god or a divine plan or (subsequently) any higher authority.

This is somewhat the point I am making. Murder/Killing, fine you win. I'm not that interested in semantics or legalese when it pertains to ethics. The point I was going for is that we cannot choose to value SOME lives and NOT others without some divine pronouncement otherwise.

The "law" is not a high enough authority to allow killing ethically.


And you never came clean on Bush. How can you hold him responsible for any deaths in Iraq if he never pulled a trigger?

Like Billy said, I blame everyone.
I blame the soldier who pulls the trigger, I blame bush for his part too. There isn't always just ONE guilty party in a crime. Sometimes it's a whole organization that had a hand in it.

English Dave
09-19-2006, 03:23 AM
the problem is reality vs the Hollywood idea - for example, anyone who's ever been in a real street fight can tell you that martial arts training doesn't even begin to replicate the conditions - my Jeet Kune Do instructor was adamant in having us work with wooden knives and the like to try and simulate real-life situations where you wouldn't have the chance to put on your uniform and settle down into a proper stance.

the same thing happened with my own firearms training - the instructor laughed when one student asked about taking a shot at the arm or the leg - when you're under stress, having tunnel vision and probably in less-than-perfect lighting you don't get the luxury of choosing carefully where to aim That's why cops are told to aim for the center torso, as it's the largest target and you're more likely to hit it.

as for the rest, well... I think I've made my point.
Most armies and police forces adopt the 'two tap' system developed by the S.O.E in WW2. Two shots to the torso.

One shot might disable or kill. Two almost certainly will.

Another Brit achievement. Thankyou.

Liam Jackson
09-19-2006, 03:53 AM
Even the venerabe "double-tap" (tips hat to the Brits) is being replaced in some arenas with "triple tap" i.e. two shots to center mass, one to head.

And yes, the head is a helluva lot harder to hit in a firefight, but if some auto-weapon wielding perp (or worse in some ways, a knifer) is wearing body armor, it may be your only chance. That movie-magic 9mm round that hits the bad guy in the thigh and flips him ***-over-tea kettle hasn't made it to the real world yet.

dclary
09-19-2006, 03:56 AM
Not necessarily...but I'm not about to wave their flag and rep a bunch of mysogynistic slaveholding indian killers just because they didn't want to pay tax on their tea.

Those mysogynistic slaveholding indian killers who didn't like taxation bought this internet you're posting on with their blood, buddy. They bought the studio apartment you're sweating in over a starbucks in NoHo. They bought you the right to make such narrowminded, stupid remarks.

Remember that next time you refuse to wave their flag.

dclary
09-19-2006, 03:57 AM
Even the venerabe "double-tap" (tips hat to the Brits) is being replaced in some arenas with "triple tap" i.e. two shots to center mass, one to head.

And yes, the head is a helluva lot harder to hit in a firefight, but if some auto-wielding perp is wearing body armor, it may be your only chance. That movie-magic 9mm round that hits the bad guy in the thigh and flips him ***-over-tea kettle hasn't made it to the real world yet.

Personally, I do the "clip-tap" -- because unless I've emptied a clip into a dude, I'm really not sure he isn't getting up. And if he does, I know I've got an undead or terminator situation to deal with.

Not that that makes things any better.

English Dave
09-19-2006, 03:57 AM
Even the venerabe "double-tap" (tips hat to the Brits) is being replaced in some arenas with "triple tap" i.e. two shots to center mass, one to head.

.

We can't afford the bullets. :)

robeiae
09-19-2006, 04:09 AM
Well, shoot!

Now what?

I mean, it would be bad form to continue my argument with Gromhard, right?

*sigh*

Jean Marie
09-19-2006, 04:18 AM
I guess I have to go back and read...murder, killing...the thread title has something to do w/ Hillary--did Bill kill Hill? Or Hill shot Bill? 'Bout time, if that's what happened--total dorkweed, he is...

Jean Marie
09-19-2006, 04:22 AM
It's a war. It's not murder. Or do you believe that the moment U.S. troops entered Iraq, every Iraqi in the country dropped their weapons and put up their hands?
Now I understand...it's Rob's fault :tongue shoulda known.

TheGaffer
09-19-2006, 05:01 AM
Another Brit achievement. Thankyou.

Yes, another wonderful Brit achievement, like prawns with mayo on toast.

Bravo. (eyes rolling)

robeiae
09-19-2006, 05:07 AM
Eh, I have no willpower...
You said murder was the unlawful killing of a person. Implying that there were times when it was lawful and then of course, not wrong(or if I understand you correctly, not MURDER specifically)
Well what law? City? State? Federal? National? Religious?
You're breaking "god's law" to murder someone.If an act is not against the law, it can't be illegal. Murder is defined as an illegal act. Therefore, no act of murder could ever be legal. Q.E.D.


If I understand you correctly you're saying that the value of life exists in society, correct? Your life has value to society because of the agreement you have with society?You're the only one talking about 'value.' Reply to what I've said, not what you wish I had said.

As for the CI are you saying that because YOU don't want to be killed you prefer the law that NO ONE kills? cause that's much closer to the spirit of the CI.Again, the CI is about ethics, not law--you can't seem to seperate the two. Ethically, you don't commit murder (or a senseless/unjustfied killing) because to do so is to treat a person as less than a person, as a thing to be used. There are two forms of the CI, you know. As to the one you are familar with, you don't commit murder (etc, etc.) because to do so would allow that it could be done by anyone. But this form of the CI is less clear; that's why the other form is more appropriate for this issue. I could prove to you why they are actually the same thing, of course. But that's something you should discover on your own.
Can't, I don't believe in right and wrong but that stems from my lack of belief in god or a divine plan or (subsequently) any higher authority.

This is somewhat the point I am making. Murder/Killing, fine you win. I'm not that interested in semantics or legalese when it pertains to ethics. The point I was going for is that we cannot choose to value SOME lives and NOT others without some divine pronouncement otherwise.

The "law" is not a high enough authority to allow killing ethically.
So you were falsely claiming that murder is wrong because all life has inherent value? I guess you were hoping that I'd appeal to a 'higher power.' Sadly for you, I didn't--thus depriving you of your big coup de grace. So now you're trying to force it in, anyway. Weak.

And law is not an ethical authority. The fact that you don't realize this but want to slam Kant (without any analysis, btw) makes you kind of a poor thinker.
Like Billy said, I blame everyone.
I blame the soldier who pulls the trigger, I blame bush for his part too. There isn't always just ONE guilty party in a crime. Sometimes it's a whole organization that had a hand in it.Too bad you can't do that and remain logically consistent in the positions you have offered. Though apparently, you were intentionally lying. Ethically, that's not so good. But it's not illegal...

English Dave
09-19-2006, 05:17 AM
Yes, another wonderful Brit achievement, like prawns with mayo on toast.

Bravo. (eyes rolling)

Do I sense sarcasm?

TheGaffer
09-19-2006, 05:24 AM
Do I sense sarcasm?

I will give you the fried whiting, Monty Python, Shakespeare, Keith Richards and the accents, especially on the women.

Liam Jackson
09-19-2006, 07:44 AM
Personally, I do the "clip-tap" -- because unless I've emptied a clip into a dude, I'm really not sure he isn't getting up. And if he does, I know I've got an undead or terminator situation to deal with.

Not that that makes things any better.

That cracked me up! Thanks. As for the "clip tap" yeah, there's a time a place for that. The old "shoot to kill" command is dead and stinking. The more recent "shoot to stop" attitude has been around for a few decades and takes into account the bad guy who might ignore the first six or seven rounds. And that happens far more than one might suspect.

blacbird
09-19-2006, 10:01 AM
It's a war. It's not murder. Or do you believe that the moment U.S. troops entered Iraq, every Iraqi in the country dropped their weapons and put up their hands?

Weren't we supposed to be greeted as liberators?

caw.

SeanDSchaffer
09-19-2006, 10:43 AM
Weren't we supposed to be greeted as liberators?

caw.


We were greeted as liberators....just not by the Iraqi military.

blacbird
09-19-2006, 10:50 AM
We were greeted as liberators....just not by the Iraqi military.

Right. I forgot.

caw.

Shadow_Ferret
09-19-2006, 05:52 PM
Wait. I thought we were greeted as liberators. 2 years ago. Remember? When they tore down the statue of Saddam.

But sheesh, I think we've worn out our welcome.

LightShadow
09-21-2006, 09:25 AM
I saw the threads title and was intrigued, and I couldn't help myself. . .Hillary can't be the future President, I thought, she's already termed out. . .

Oh, and Billy Thrilly was right in everything he said . . .

Akiahara
09-21-2006, 06:29 PM
.... but let's not bring up Bush's list of scandals/mock ups....


:poke:


I digress, I digress... I'm kinda shocked the makers haven't been arrested yet. ;)