OT: Election 2004 - Page 12

Lord Chane · #**111** March 26th, 2004, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roanon:
A country or nation cannot be "evil". Whatever this is. Peoples may be, leaders may be, but I don't think you can say USA itself is evil or that every US citizen is evil.

As defined by the dictionary evil, in this context, means "Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant." So I suppose a nation can be evil if it can be said to be morally bad or wrong. The catch, at least from my perspective, is who decides on the morals we use to decide if a person or nation is morally bad? From the point of view of the US Saddam clearly met the definition of evil. Its equally clear though that some Arab nations and sizeable number of Moslem devotees view the US as the evil entity in this equation. I think the best we can say is that a person or country is evil from a given moral perspective.

tesco samoa · #**112** March 26th, 2004, 08:25 PM

Roanan I was commenting on the word evil in this thread...
I was saying

Quote:

Renegade 13. by the def'n of evil in this thread.

USA is evil . The war of ideology / economy cost millions of peoples lives, proped up dictators, overthrown popular movements.

Roanon · #**113** March 26th, 2004, 11:42 PM

Ah, I had misunderstood this one, Tesco.
By Bush's own definition of evil, of course he is. Now I wonder if he will attack himself, go to Guantanamo, and let himself treat in violation of any international laws concerning the treatment of POWs.

Intimidator · #**114** March 26th, 2004, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Amen. I want to see GWB at the least sent to the Hague where he can have Milosovic as a cellmate. And maybe the bulk of his administration should go with him.

Sorry BARON, I do NOT agree with you.
And don't understand me wrong, I'm against GWB.

But I life in Holland (The Hague lies in Holland as you probably know). And The U.S. signed a bill 2 years ago (7 june - 2002) to invade every country where American military personal is kept in prisson for war-crimes, And they we're absolutly refering to Holland.

I'm laughing about it but believe me it's no joke, I'm death serious.

Master Belisarius · #**115** March 27th, 2004, 12:58 AM

Was reading this, and seems hard to believe to me...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...tweaponssearch

From here, can't say if it's a manipulated notice, but make fun about this matter, when many people died for this reason (if we admit the President's good faith), doesn't seems right to me.

narf poit chez BOOM · #**116** March 27th, 2004, 01:28 AM

please shorten that with URL tags.

Master Belisarius · #**117** March 27th, 2004, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
please shorten that with URL tags.

WHY?
Really would you prefer to read my "translated" Version from english to spanish and to english back again? In your case, I would prefer to read article!

narf poit chez BOOM · #**118** March 27th, 2004, 01:51 AM

I don't know what you think I'm talking about, but what I'm talking about is

code:
 blah 

which would produce:
blah

helpfull people here told me about it and now I'm being helpfull.

Wow. there actually is a blah.com. wonder what it means in whatever language that was...

[ March 26, 2004, 23:54: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Master Belisarius · #**119** March 27th, 2004, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
I don't know what you think I'm talking about, but what I'm talking about is
code:
blah
which would produce:
blah

helpfull people here told me about it and now I'm being helpfull.

Wow. there actually is a blah.com. wonder what it means in whatever language that was...

Oh well... I undestood you wanted to say the people should use less URL links on his Posts...
Thanks for clarify!

[ March 26, 2004, 23:59: Message edited by: Master Belisarius ]

geoschmo · #**120** March 27th, 2004, 02:00 AM

Unfortunatly Master B it's true. It was in very poor taste, and it will very likely hurt him politically. There will be those that attempt to defend the comments as being in the tradition of these press dinners. They will mention that previous presidents have made similerly outrageous jokes. They will point to among other things former President Clintons press dinner comments during the Monica Lewinsky debacle.

IMHO they will be wrong to attempt to do so because there is a major difference.

Clinton could make fun of his sexual dalliances and everyone could laugh. This was because for those that opposed him it at worst it reaffirmed their own already negative image of him, and at best could have cast him in a better light as someone that could make fun of himself. And those that suppoorted him felt the whole situation was stupid anyway and needed to be ridiculed.

On the other hand Bush making fun of not finding WMD's is a lose-lose. Those that oppose him are not going to be impressed by his akward attempt at self-depreciating humor. They will say the issue is too serious to joke about, and they will be right. On the other hand those that support the President will be unable to honestly defend these comments because they don't consider the situation to be one that is appropriate to ridicule.