|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
posted December 31, 2002 06:56 AM |
|
|
“Those interviews did have a large echo through the international press, the question is: Where did Sherman and Talk magazine get sued for publishing fake interviews??”
Have a large echo? Where?? I read vociferously and until you mentioned these two rag internet mags I had never heard of it. Is there some report about in mainstream media? Maybe you could provide one…I haven’t seen it but there could be some.
Here is a standard way one looks into such things…Has the person made the statement before? Has the person enacted that behavior in question before? Has the person proceeded to voice a change of laws to suit what the allegation says? Since the answer to all of those in both situations you mentioned about Bush and Bush W is a resounding NO that should give anyone great pause in accepting such trash.
As for suing for fake interviews….1. suing over false representation in the USA is a hard thing to do (as mentioned before our justice system is set up to protect the guilty so as to have very little chance of convicting the innocent). 2. Most likely no one cares as no one has heard of those internet mags you state 3. Presidents are maligned all the time 4. To the best of my knowledge no president in the USA has ever sued for defamation. 5. If those mags/internet sites are outside of the USA I don’t think there is anything American law can do.
Quote
“How? Look at the numbers of deaths in Texas. 152 while Bush was governor.
Do you know how big Texas population is? Many of our singular states are bigger than whole nations in Europe and other continents. 152 murder convictions/deaths doesn’t sound high at all given the population of Texas is 21,779,893 (July 1, 2002). While I agree there are downsides to capital punishment (mistakes, expense) there are downsides to every punishment.
Talk about irreversible….you think imprisonment is irreversible? Can you give the guy back his 30 years he served in prison if he is found innocent? Can you give the guy back his innocence when he was gang raped? Can you give the guy back his physical body when he was assaulted in prison? Can you give the guy back his family which left him while he was imprisoned?
Quote
“How many of them do you think had the money to pay a good lawyer?
Do you know what it takes to become a lawyer in the USA? They don’t hand out lawyer licenses once you graduate high school to be sure. You make it sound like there are “good” lawyers and there are lawyers who have hard time tying their shoes.
Quote
“civilised if you tortured them first.”
Ummm we don’t torture our citizens….nice straw man.
Quote
“many studies have shown that it does not prevent any crimes”
First there are studies that show that it is a deterrent…but how a study can determine if it prevented or did not prevent any crimes is questionable…how exactly do they study that…a crystal ball of some sort? Second prevention is a minor issue compared with the real issue…justice.
Quote
“Yes, as gouvernor he´s responsible for 152 executions (i.e. by supporting extreme laws and refusing clemency) and when he becomes presidents, he starts a couple of wars. That´s a man with character.”
Character is seen through a persons actions…how he handles things, how he responds to things, what he gives, how he stands for his principles, how he interacts with people, etc. Yes in fact he has a sterling reputation as a man of honor, dignity, truthfulness, compassion, etc. You see it over and over whatever the man does….even as portrayed by our liberal media here you can see Bush is a man of character.
I love how logic gets twisted till it becomes unrecognizable….let me show:
Myth :Responsible for 152 executions. Reality- the murderer of innocent people is responsible for his own death…additionally again it is the Courts and the citizens that give the findings of guilt and sentence of execution…not the governor.
Myth: Starts a few wars. Reality- First there is no war with Iraq at this point. Second. Saddam broke his terms of surrender for the last 4 years, invaded his neighbor in the last decade for no reason whatsoever, tried to assassinate a president of the USA, has broken 16-18 UN resolutions, is attempting to build WMD, is a ruthless dictator, and has supported Al Qaeda in the past. Afghanistan-dictator rule, blatant support and formation of terrorists, killed 3000 civilians, etc. So no Bush didn’t start a few wars…the people who broke international law on the scale Afghanistan and Saddam have started wars.
Quote
“I´ve heard and read that Bush´s insider trades”
You apparently hear lots of things that are remarkable. Insider trading is a crime. In America you are innocent till proven guilty….please provide the date of Bush’s conviction. Please provide the paper trail of corruption. Lets not be so partisan that we become gullible. We must refrain from fantasy and stick with facts. Here I will even give you a fact ….Bush is a recovering alcoholic. See the difference between a fact and fantasy? The fact is true and verifiable…the fantasy is conjecture and allegation.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted January 07, 2003 04:52 AM |
|
|
DARGON you are a character!
You argue with humor, I like it. I agree with it too.
Bush did NOT start the tension in Iraq and the nonscence in Afghanistan, if they wouldn't do things that they shouldn't like break terms of surrender and violate UN resolutions they wouldn't hve these problems.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 07, 2003 05:19 PM |
|
|
Israel, North Korea, etc etc they all break UN resolutions, no-ones suggested invading them recently........
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted January 07, 2003 10:50 PM |
|
|
I don't see GB doing anything against them either, why does the US have to do it?
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 07, 2003 11:58 PM |
|
|
We have a 5th of your population, a ridiculously small amount of land (and therefore not as much resources), a tiny armed forces, no money, no political clout, not as much UN power, a armed forces in the middle of rebuilding after some........ unwise purchases etc etc
Basically we can't alone, you could, we could with you backing us, but you have other countries to bash first, IF you ever get around to taking on some of the evils within your own alliance against terror like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, neither exactly known for their human rights records being good
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted January 08, 2003 12:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Israel, North Korea, etc etc they all break UN resolutions, no-ones suggested invading them recently........
Just so I know your actual position -- are you saying Israel and North Korea should be invaded/bombed/hit with (further in the case of NK) sanctions/forced to watch videos of Richard Simmons or that Iraq should not be (and, by extension neither should Israel and North Korea).
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 08, 2003 12:07 AM |
|
|
Nope, not falling for that one thank you, I would say you should treat them with the same actions if you consider the breaking of sanctions or the wish to develop nuclear weapons or have terrible regimes. I wouldn't want to bomb any of them including Iraq, but why more importantly does GWB not want to intervene in these cases which are just as, if not more dangerous than the others?
If you MUST take action then you should be fair and balanced. That does not stop me with disagreeing with what that action is though........
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted January 08, 2003 03:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Nope, not falling for that one thank you
Not falling for a request to state clearly what your actual position is? It was not meant as a trick. It's quite difficult to decide whether or not I agree with you if you don't state an actual opinion.
For the record, here is my opinion:
Attack Iraq? No.
Attack North Korea? No.
If one is attacked is it hypocritical/uneven not to attack the other? No.
Because they're different situations:
-- North Korea has powerful neighbors (China/Japan) that have a vested interest in the situation and, especially China have the ability to exert pressure of their own on North Korea (which they have been doing and certainly should be given the chance to try it their way first). Iraq does not.
-- North Korea clearly has the ability to do far more damage in retaliation in the event of an attack than Iraq does. Notably - North Korea may well already have nuclear warheads which would certainly be used in the event that they were invaded and Seoul is well within the range of North Korean artillery.
Consistency is important, but since the situations, while superficially similar are not identical, they should not necessarily be handled identically.
You might point out that the reasons listed for treating North Korea differently from Iraq are purely practical reasons. Bingo. Hole in one. I oppose a war with Iraq for practical, not moral reasons and I oppose a war with North Korea for the same reasons. I also think that it is a valid position to support war with one but not the other for purely practical reasons (although I do not agree with it).
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 08, 2003 06:10 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 8 Jan 2003
|
Quote
“I would say you should treat them with the same actions if you consider the breaking of sanctions or the wish to develop nuclear weapons or have terrible regimes. “
Do you really honestly think the situations are identical?
Of course they aren’t by a long shot. As one writer insightfully stated "North Korea is chess compared to Iraq as checkers".
Iraq toppled a neighbor in the last decade. Iraq has been out of line with terms of surrender/UN resolutions for about a decade. NK has only recently been exposed as breaking their agreements with the US/UN (the good ole USA finding that out once again). NK is a lot more difficult to handle militarily. Any leader who does not consider the casualty rate would be a vain and heartless dictator who puts his own ends above the common good. In NK there are still a lot of diplomatic and non military avenues to explore.
So in conclusion…one situation is pretty recent (NK) and one old (Iraq)…one has more diplomatic measures to apply (NK) the other has exhausted every diplomatic measure (Iraq)…. one has a low threshold of casualties (Iraq) the other would result in a lot of “good guy” casualties (NK). One action is preemptive oriented (Iraq) as they don’t have nukes, the other is reactionary (NK) as they possibly have nukes.
If it is 4 years down the line and things still aren’t working with NK …then I would say you have a stage to stand on…but until then those comparisons are just nonsense. I still haven’t personally made up my mind about NK, but generally I think it unwise and imprudent to take immediate military action.
It is ironic to me that the same people are calling Bush a cowboy in dealing with Iraq (the USA giving them about a decade) and then they call for immediate military action with NC (whose violation has only surfaced in the last few months).
Quote
“If you MUST take action then you should be fair and balanced.”
Umm I think in kindergarten we all learned the world is not fair and definitely not balanced. So to try to make a moral obligation out of an impossibility is crazy. Should we try to be fair…of course....but to demand it and to even think it is possible is missing the boat. Not to mention that your “fair and balanced” demand is not fair and balanced as I pointed out in the above statements about the differences.
Quote
“I also think that it is a valid position to support war with one but not the other for purely practical reasons (although I do not agree with it).”
Bort I salute you. Your ability to see both sides of an issue is great.
|
|
PsYkOtIc-Dra...
Known Hero
Master Thief
|
|
posted January 09, 2003 12:24 AM |
|
|
Dargon
Doesn't he deserve a QP??? lol
____________
Girls=Evil - Here let me show you -> Girl=My Time -> Time=Money -> Money=Root Of All Evil, Therefore -> Girls=Pure Evil 
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 10, 2003 12:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Have a large echo? Where??
The "Talk magazine" interview did have a large echo in German news channels a few years ago. I still remember that quite clearly.
The Sherman interview led to protests from Amercican atheist organisations.
As there was no disclaimer in either case, there´s no reason to assume they are fakes.
Quote:
Here is a standard way one looks into such things…Has the person made the statement before? Has the person enacted that behavior in question before? Has the person proceeded to voice a change of laws to suit what the allegation says?
Please show me where your standard procedure was used in the case of Hertha Däubler Gmelin´s alleged Hitler-Bush comparison.
Quote:
If those mags/internet sites are outside of the USA I don’t think there is anything American law can do.
Nope, Rob Sherman is a fully acredited reporter of Illinois, "Talk magazine" is or has been American, too.
Quote:
Do you know what it takes to become a lawyer in the USA? They don’t hand out lawyer licenses once you graduate high school to be sure. You make it sound like there are “good” lawyers and there are lawyers who have hard time tying their shoes.
Uh, so if O.J. Simpson had been a simple worker and living in the slum, he would be a free man now, too? He just paid them millions of dollars because he liked the colors of their shoes?
Quote:
Talk about irreversible….you think imprisonment is irreversible? Can you give the guy back his 30 years he served in prison if he is found innocent?
What kind of question is that? Of course an imprisonment is partially reversible if the person is being put free and given a large amount of money for compensation. And maybe it´s not 30 years, but only 2, 3 or 5.
Quote:
Can you give the guy back his innocence when he was gang raped?
Unless the guy asked for it, I would assume that he was innocent regarding the gang rape.
Quote:
how exactly do they study that…a crystal ball of some sort
Huh, very funny boy. No, you compare countries/states where death penalty is legal to those where it´s not.
Quote:
Yes in fact he has a sterling reputation as a man of honor, dignity, truthfulness, compassion, etc. You see it over and over whatever the man does….even as portrayed by our liberal media here you can see Bush is a man of character.
LOL. Good to see you have some humor after all. The most funny are dignity and compassion. But truthfulness is a nice one, too.
Quote:
Insider trading is a crime.
It wasn´t a crime back then. A despicable and dishonorable act, but not a crime.
Quote:
Bush is a recovering alcoholic.
I know that Bush is a recovering alcoholic. But as a non-republican, non-Christian and non-fanatic I do not care much about what people do or did in their private live, and even less when it lies in the past.
Quote:
See the difference between a fact and fantasy?
Yes, fact is what fits into your world view and fantasy what doesn´t.
____________
|
|
madmartigan
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
who will never walk alone
|
|
posted January 10, 2003 01:39 AM |
|
|
The difference between North Korea and Iraq is, in my oinion, not the military power of NK.
It is that there is OIL in Iraq.
Who cares about the UN regulations or other traties? As listed above, Iraq is not the first and only country to oppose UN and/or USA.
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted January 10, 2003 04:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But why more importantly does GWB not want to intervene in these cases which are just as, if not more dangerous than the others?
In 1991, during the Gulf War, Colin Powell was very involved with Iraq. Dick Cheney was Sec. of Defence and Bush Senior was the President. Now they are all together again and they want to finish what they started 12 years ago. Is that good enough for you PH?
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 10, 2003 05:18 AM |
|
|
So ... a war against Iraq is the right thing to do now because two members of the gouvernment and Bush´s daddy have been involved there 11 years ago.
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 10, 2003 05:24 AM |
|
|
Added to that, also Donald Rumsfeld has been strongly involved with Iraq. That was a few years earlier when he gave Saddam weapons of mass destruction.
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted January 10, 2003 05:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So ... a war against Iraq is the right thing to do now because two members of the gouvernment and Bush´s daddy have been involved there 11 years ago.
I never said that, PH asked why Iraq is the focal point for tension and not other places on Earth.
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 10, 2003 05:50 AM |
|
|
quote:
“The "Talk magazine" interview did have a large echo in German news channels a few years ago. I still remember that quite clearly.”
Fair enough…we live in different places….all I can say is I never heard about it here or on the internet.
quote:
“Please show me where your standard procedure was used in the case of Hertha Däubler Gmelin´s alleged Hitler-Bush comparison. “
Do you really not see the difference? One (Bush statement) was allegedly by a politically left mag in a private interview. The other (Gmelin´s statement) was a publically made statement at a rally where lots of people heard the comparison. The difference between the two statements is quite clear. One is alleged the other is fact.
quote:
“imprisonment is partially reversible if the person is being put free and given a large amount of money for compensation. And maybe it´s not 30 years, but only 2, 3 or 5.”
When someone is in prison it is completely irreversible..you can never give him the time back…you can never take away the unfortunate consequences that will likely take place…..if you could give them the time back then it would be reversible…but since you can’t it is therefore by definition irreversible..come on.
quote:
“ I would assume that he was innocent regarding the gang rape. “
Exactly so if the guy is gang raped in prison how exactly is that reversible by your standards?
quote:
“No, you compare countries/states where death penalty is legal to those where it´s not.”
Uh that is just bad science…everyone knows that your samples from a study need to be random and equitable. If you are comparing the USA with another country with extremely similar characteristics (population, laws, religion, culture, stressors, crime levels, etc) then it would be scientific…and even then you are only pointing to a correlation which is a far cry from “proof”.
quote:
“It wasn´t a crime back then. A despicable and dishonorable act, but not a crime."
I don’t know about Germany but insider trading has been a crime for quite sometime in the USA so you are mistaken in your allegation against Bush.
quote:
“But as a non-republican, non-Christian and non-fanatic I do not care much about what people do or did in their private live”
Hmmm so if your prime minister was shooting up heroin in his private live…well no concern for you…if was molesting a child in his private life…well no problem for you?
quote:
“Yes, fact is what fits into your world view and fantasy what doesn´t.”
LOL funny one. So lets see as a republican in my world view Nixon’s scandal didn’t really happen…opps my bad I do believe it happened…as a Christian in my world Jimmy Swaggart didn’t really screw prostitues…opps my bad I do believe he did it. Etc etc etc. I guess your theory about “my world view” is pretty weak.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 10, 2003 06:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Do you really not see the difference? One (Bush statement) was allegedly by a politically left mag in a private interview. The other (Gmelin´s statement) was a publically made statement at a rally where lots of people heard the comparison. The difference between the two statements is quite clear. One is alleged the other is fact.
Däubler-Gmelin´s statement is reported by a politically right mag a few days before the elections. What exactly she had said is still unclear today, and you call it "fact". No, an interview is a source more reliable than those reports from an election campaign event.
Quote:
When someone is in prison it is completely irreversible..
If someone is put into prison for 30 years, and found innocent 3 years later, 90% of his punishment has been reverted. Imprisonment is partially reversible, that´s what I said.
Quote:
Exactly so if the guy is gang raped in prison how exactly is that reversible by your standards?
He could be allowed to gang-rape them, too . Heck, what are we talking about? Are you telling me that executions are done for humanitarian purpose, to avoid gang-rapes?
Quote:
If you are comparing the USA with another country with extremely similar characteristics (population, laws, religion, culture, stressors, crime levels, etc) then it would be scientific…
I´m comparing USA with a country which has extremely similar characteristics: USA. Some states of yours don´t use the death penalty.
Quote:
and even then you are only pointing to a correlation which is a far cry from “proof”.
If such studies are made over a long enough time, they are quite reliable. It´s a fact that the death penalty does not deter crime.
Quote:
I don’t know about Germany but insider trading has been a crime for quite sometime in the USA so you are mistaken in your allegation against Bush.
What kind of media do you have if you don´t even know about this allegation? Please inform yourself about it. I hardly know enough about the subject to judge whether Bush should have been guilty by law or not, but it´s fact that he made large amounts of $ with the sale of Harken Energy Corp. stock in 1990. While he sat in Herken´s audit commitee at the same time.
(From mainsteam media) I have heard and read that US laws regarding insider trades have become stricter in the meantime, and that Bush might very well be in prison now if those laws had been valid back then.
Quote:
Hmmm so if your prime minister was shooting up heroin in his private live…well no concern for you…if was molesting a child in his private life…well no problem for you?
Molesting a child and taking Heroin is a crime. Being an alcoholic or being divorced is not.
Quote:
I guess your theory about “my world view” is pretty weak.
Uhm ... even the pope admitted (not a long time ago) that the world is a globe and not disk-shaped. But he still insists that masturbation leads to cancer.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 10, 2003 11:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
But why more importantly does GWB not want to intervene in these cases which are just as, if not more dangerous than the others?
In 1991, during the Gulf War, Colin Powell was very involved with Iraq. Dick Cheney was Sec. of Defence and Bush Senior was the President. Now they are all together again and they want to finish what they started 12 years ago. Is that good enough for you PH?
Nice to know we're making up for the screw-up his father created 12 years ago then, pity we didn't then when the casualties would have been much less 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted January 10, 2003 10:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Uhm ... even the pope admitted (not a long time ago) that the world is a globe and not disk-shaped. But he still insists that masturbation leads to cancer.
Technically, masturbation can help to prevent prostate cancer.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
