the trailboss abuses his CodeRanch power for his other stuff (power corrupts. absolute power corrupts absolutely is kinda neat!)
permaculture light bulbs permaculture electric heat permaculture cast iron permaculture wood burning stove permaculture solar food dehydrators
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Do you have what it takes to be President? Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Do you have what it takes to be President?" Watch "Do you have what it takes to be President?" New topic
Author

Do you have what it takes to be President?

Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:

Texans are humanitarians.

I hope thats a joke
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
Originally posted by Joe King:

I hope thats a joke

No, Joe it wasn't. It was irony.
Actually there are an whole set of circumstances in which Texans are far more humanitarian than (say) the average Londoner or average Parisian. If I were a Tutsi from Rwanda being hunted down by an enemy tribe bent on genocide I might get help from a Texan, but hell would freeze over before I could expect any help from the UN or the government of France.
They are good at hand-wringing, though. But that would hardly do me any good, would it?


SCJP1.4, SCWCD
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404
Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:

No, Joe it wasn't. It was irony.
Actually there are an whole set of circumstances in which Texans are far more humanitarian than (say) the average Londoner or average Parisian. If I were a Tutsi from Rwanda being hunted down by an enemy tribe bent on genocide I might get help from a Texan, but hell would freeze over before I could expect any help from the UN or the government of France.
They are good at hand-wringing, though. But that would hardly do me any good, would it?

London and Paris are cities.
Would New Yorkers or people living in Dallas help more than Texan ranchers or English farmers ? I'd think perhaps not .
I'm not sure that setting up ranchers and farmers as President / Prime Minister works, though. It should as their occupation is close to Mother Earth. One would hope. Why do all Texans (media) squint ? Bush Snr and Jnr, JR...

regards
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
Originally posted by HS Thomas:

London and Paris are cities.
Would New Yorkers or people living in Dallas help more than Texan ranchers or English farmers ? I'd think perhaps not .
I'm not sure that setting up ranchers and farmers as President / Prime Minister works, though. It should as their occupation is close to Mother Earth. One would hope. Why do all Texans (media) squint ? Bush Snr and Jnr, JR...

Right now I'm not at all pleased with a certain group of Londoners, HS. Those who live in places like Hampsted and whinge on about sub-humans in the White House. Also about how everything in Iraq is turning into shite and the entire rationale for going to war was WMD so therefore the fact that WMD have not appeared means there was and is no reason to go to war.
QED, Bush & Blair lied!
Reductio ad absurdum, with emphasis on the dum....
Having simplified the entire issue out of recognition themselves, they then go on to accuse Bush of being a simplistic simpleton. Look in the mirror, gents!
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Joe King:
I hope thats a joke
Why is it a joke that Texans care more about the victims of crime than the perpetrators of crime? Remember those guys that chained that poor black man to the back of their pickup truck and then dragged him down the street until his body parts started flying off? What punishment do you think would have been appropriate for them? I would say that death by lethal injection is a merciful end to their pitiful lives.


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

Not the most compelling rebuttal ever, Paul. The good news is you're spending a lot less time on this than I am....at least I hope that's the case.

That is true. But you haven't said anything worth rebutting. You did bring up the California utilities crap again. But that dog won't hunt. As James Carville would say.
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404
Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:

Right now I'm not at all pleased with a certain group of Londoners, HS. Those who live in places like Hampsted and whinge on about sub-humans in the White House. !

Hampsted, hey. The rich residential part of London.
Following Kensington. Now why would they be anti Bush.
Mostly rich Middle Eastern neighbours, perhaps ?
QED, Bush & Blair lied!
Well, they did and in a galling fashion.
I really should be out there Anti War Protesting today. But there's very little on the news about where Anti Protestors are gathering.
(coward at heart, me )
regards
[ November 19, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
Originally posted by HS Thomas:

Hampsted, hey. The rich residential part of London.
Following Kensington. Now why would they be anti Bush.
Mostly rich Middle Eastern neighbours, perhaps ?

The inhabitants of the editorial pages of the Guardian, the Independent, and of course the Beeb.
QED, Bush & Blair lied!
Originally posted by HS Thomas:

Well, they did and in a galling fashion.

The Blairites exaggurated a relatively narrow issue, the WMD. What is never mentioned anymore is that there was a fairly general concensus among western intelligence services that Saddam Hussein was between 6 months and 3 years away from getting an atomic bomb.
In the event that information was not good, but whose fault was that? The US and UK, who tried to keep the UN inspectors in Iraq in 1998? Or the French, whose withdrawal of support for UNSCOM was instramental in their withdrawal? Guess what side the Beeb was on in that issue, HS?
Apart from that, the anti-war crowd has seized upon the WMD issue exclusively and completely ignored mountains of evidence about other things. Such as Hussein's treatment of his own people and evidence of collaberation between Hussein and Al-Queda.
Bush isn't a narrow-minded twit and Blair isn't the main liar. The Beeb/Guardian/Independent should look in the mirror to see the true twits and liars....
Originally posted by HS Thomas:

I really should be out there Anti War Protesting today. But there's very little on the news about where Anti Protestors are gathering.
(coward at heart, me )

Don't read the Guardian? They published a map yesterday of the route.
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Why is it a joke that Texans care more about the victims of crime than the perpetrators of crime? Remember those guys that chained that poor black man to the back of their pickup truck and then dragged him down the street until his body parts started flying off? What punishment do you think would have been appropriate for them? I would say that death by lethal injection is a merciful end to their pitiful lives.

James Byrd, Thomas? Three men were sentenced for that crime. Two to the death penalty and one to life in prison. But Bush failed to support a 'hate crimes' bill in Texas and therefore was a co-conspirator in Byrd's murder, at least according to an ad the NAACP ran during the last two weeks of the 2000 election......
I'm not sure what form a 'hate crimes' death penalty would take. Possibly tearing the perp limb from limb, as was once done?
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404
Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:

Don't read the Guardian? They published a map yesterday of the route.

Thanks. These days I just Google! I usually get the Guardian, The Herald Tribune or The New York Times. And watch BBC and CNN and ITV news.
I did get Robert Fisk yesterday but that was too controversial for me. With all respect to the Beeb, Guardian, Independent they don't pile up dead bodies on their front pages to sell news. I wonder if it is possible to separate Anti-War(in general) protests and Bush/Blair.
regards
[ November 19, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
Nixon
Nixon orchestrated felonious criminal acts, lied about it and, when discovered, resigned rather than being impeached. Clinton actually was impeached for directly lying about sexual relations with an intern.
This is better than President Bush how? And if your answer is "he hasn't been caught yet" then all your arguments fall into the "guilty until proven innocent" pile, which is where they might well belong anyway.
And I don't have to name anything, because I'm not the one posting long diatribes lambasting the President. And yes, you have every right to post them - having the right to do something doesn't make it smart, or constructive, it just makes it legal.
Joe
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
Originally posted by HS Thomas:

I did get Robert Fisk yesterday but that was too controversial for me. With all respect to the Beeb, Guardian, Independent they don't pile up dead bodies on their front pages to sell news. I wonder if it is possible to separate Anti-War(in general) protests and Bush/Blair.

What! Fisk too controversial! Amazing. How?
I haven't observed any difference between Anti-War in general and anti- Bush/Blair. Not these days.
Many of the Anti-war crowd seem simple-minded to me. War Bad. Bush dumb/bad/liar/fiend from hell. Blair liar. Me good. Excepting the occasional exception such as Rowan Williams who is able to balance several moral concepts on the head of a pin, of course.
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Why is it a joke that Texans care more about the victims of crime than the perpetrators of crime?

I think the question is whether society as a whole can do any better than the criminals it punishes. I'll agree that taking an eye for an eye can be cathartic and satisfying. It does not, however, follow the principles of justice we adopted or inherited.
Our notion of justice is founded on the principle that violating a citizen of his or her rights is a crime against society, not the individual. The test the accused is supposed to face, in a criminal courtroom, is not whether a murderer deserves to be treated the way the victim was treated, but how society rights itself when its laws and protections have been violated.
This code stipulates that if society takes an eye for an eye, it stoops to little more than organized criminal behavior. When society uses criminal behavior to address criminal behavior, it admits that the only difference between itself and the criminal is the greater degree of force it can exert.
Once it admits to that, the slippery slope of moralizing criminal behavior as a matter of situational ethics is begun. If we only believe in life and liberty under certain conditions, then we do not believe in life and liberty.
This argument has of course nothing to do with problems we have on the street. It speaks just to the ideals of a code of justice, and says very little about redressing the emotions tied to victims and their loved ones because the feelings of victims, strictly speaking, are a civil matter, not a criminal one.
That said, if Texans care more about victims than criminals, therein lies the problem. We should be caring about society as a whole, what is it that is good for all of us. If Texans wish to assert that the whole of society is best served by killing people who kill, so be it. Does make you wonder, though, why the count of state-supported executions is so out of whack compared to other states with the death-penalty.


Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen.
- Robert Bresson
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Response to Michael Ernest:
What a load of psycho-babble!
I think the question is whether society as a whole can do any better than the criminals it punishes.
If society is not better than the criminals then we might as well grab our guns and head for the hills.
It [the death penalty] does not, however, follow the principles of justice we adopted or inherited.
Adopted or inherited from whom? Certainly the death penalty has been part of justice as long as this country has existed.
The test the accused is supposed to face, in a criminal courtroom, is not whether a murderer deserves to be treated the way the victim was treated, but how society rights itself when its laws and protections have been violated.
No one is saying that we should treat the criminal the way the criminal treated the victim. If we did say that then we would be dragging murderers down the street chained to the back of pickup trucks. We are saying that criminals should receive justice, which means that under certain circumstances they should forfeit their life.
This code stipulates that if society takes an eye for an eye, it stoops to little more than organized criminal behavior.
Which code would that be? There is a vast difference between a jury convicting a criminal and sentencing him to death and "organized criminal behavior". If you can't see that then I suggest you grab your guns and head for the hills.
When society uses criminal behavior to address criminal behavior,...
I assume you are talking about the former Soviet Union or perhaps Nazi Germany? Because society in the US does not use criminal behavior to address criminal behavior. Unless you think that executing a criminal is the same as murdering someone. But by this logic wouldn't putting someone in prison against their will be the same as kidnapping?
it admits that the only difference between itself and the criminal is the greater degree of force it can exert.
Huh? I would suggest that the greater degree of force was done by those men who dragged Mr. Byrd from the back of their pickup truck. But, of course, there is a huge difference. Mr. Byrd was not tried by a jury of his peers and given the opoortunity to cross examine witnesses. He wasn't given the protection of the law to insure that he was given every opportunity to save his life.
If we only believe in life and liberty under certain conditions, then we do not believe in life and liberty.
Again, huh? We already have decided that people can lose their liberty under certain conditions? Haven't you ever heard of prisons? The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution is to limit when society can deprive people of their life and liberty! The reason is because we so deeply believe in life and liberty. If we didn't, then we would have just gunned down Mr. Byrd's murderer's in the street and not bothered with a trial.
If Texans wish to assert that the whole of society is best served by killing people who kill, so be it. Does make you wonder, though, why the count of state-supported executions is so out of whack compared to other states with the death-penalty.
Yes, it makes me wonder when the other states are going to wake up and catch up to Texas. It took us 20 years to get the death penalty back in NY. We had to throw out our liberal governor who kept vetoing the bills sent to him every year. We still haven't had an execution yet, but we have them in the pipeline. These things take time.
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404
Well said, Michael.
Alfred, I'm not sure whether you are being sarcastic about Fisk. I normally can tell from your italics and quotes.
But here's the link and Robert Fisk
If you have the stomach for it i.e. Do you have what it takes to be President ?, check out the pictures on this link half-way down "Victims of the Anglo-American Aggression". It's not working for me today.
I saw this note only today "Please note that this is not Robert Fisk's official Website. He is neither connected to it in any way nor does he have an interest in it. All articles and reports by Mr. Robert Fisk on this Website belong to "Independent Newspaper UK" and duly link to original articles on their Website."
I hope Robert Fisk presents his views better than the Independent does.
Well, no wonder "Robert Fisk - Middle East correspondent for Independent Newspaper UK".
regards
[ November 19, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Yes, it makes me wonder when the other states are going to wake up and catch up to Texas. It took us 20 years to get the death penalty back in NY. We had to throw out our liberal governor who kept vetoing the bills sent to him every year. We still haven't had an execution yet, but we have them in the pipeline. These things take time.

And this is precisely why Malvo and Muhammad were extradited to Virginia from Maryland. Maryland has the death penalty, but the citizens of this state had more confidence in Virginia in this regards than our own state.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
While Michael isn't interested in doing his homework before posting something unsourced claiming to present "facts", I have done the two minutes of Googling necessary for him in order to debunk the "resume" for the load of tripe that it is.
http://www.crossbearer.com/resume/The_Truth.pdf
The author of the above paper actually bothers to source his information.
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:

James Byrd, Thomas? Three men were sentenced for that crime. Two to the death penalty and one to life in prison. But Bush failed to support a 'hate crimes' bill in Texas and therefore was a co-conspirator in Byrd's murder, at least according to an ad the NAACP ran during the last two weeks of the 2000 election......
I'm not sure what form a 'hate crimes' death penalty would take. Possibly tearing the perp limb from limb, as was once done?

What a bunch of BS. In my opinion all crimes are hate crimes. By punishing one person differently with different sentencing guidelines for the same crime, the equal protection clause of the constitution is being violated.
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
Originally posted by Paul Stevens:

What a bunch of BS. In my opinion all crimes are hate crimes. By punishing one person differently with different sentencing guidelines for the same crime, the equal protection clause of the constitution is being violated.

Well of course, Paul. I agree with you about 'hate crimes' and on the same basis. Convicted criminals ought to be sentenced within the law based upon their actions, not on their purported motives....
The death penalty is kind of final, so I was speculating on how we could make it more severe to fit the concept of hate crime legislation. The only thing I could come up with is drawing and quartering. Or maybe borrowing some concepts from the Inquisition....
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
Alfred, I'm not sure whether you are being sarcastic about Fisk. I normally can tell from your italics and quotes.
HS, Robert Fisk strikes me as being routinely extremely biased and on occasion, unhinged. I suggest you do a google-search on the term 'Fisked', which is named after him.....
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Of course I didn't "do my homework" before posting my lambaste, but that doesn't mean this PDF isn't full of mere counterclaims. Just because the rebutting passages are sourced does not mean they are authoritative or true.
I'm not planning to read the whole thing. Then again, I don't have to to debunk it. On p. 3 it states: The military does not and cannot by regulation, issue an Honorable Discharge to anyone that has been AWOL or otherwise seriously reprimanded." Which may in fact be true on paper. On other hand, I can think of an Airman and a former Coast Guard cadet both of whom were issued such discharges. One was sent to corrective custody for refusing the anthrax vaccine. The other struck a superior officer. The politics of both were quite interesting, but as in all other facets of life, written regulations are only part of the story.
I decline to reveal details because one is a family member, and the other is a good friend.
Jason conveniently omits that I did not include some facts from "the resume" because I knew they were crap on their face. And then some that are merely overblown charges, well, welcome to politics.
In any event, I don't find authoritative rebuttal on much of the resume as it stands, just rebuttal. Perhaps instead of calling this sincere effort "The Truth" it might better be called "My Research into Opposing Viewpoints and Alternative Explanations."
The deficit "isn't so as big if you include the GDP"? So, either the deficit is as big as it is, but if you look at it another way it's not. That's hardly refutation of a pack of lies, Jason. Loosen your tie a little.
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Nixon
Nixon orchestrated felonious criminal acts, lied about it and, when discovered, resigned rather than being impeached. Clinton actually was impeached for directly lying about sexual relations with an intern.
This is better than President Bush how? And if your answer is "he hasn't been caught yet" then all your arguments fall into the "guilty until proven innocent" pile, which is where they might well belong anyway.

Nixon was the first US president to visit China and begin establishing friendlier diplomatic relations. In the middle of a domestically unpopular war effort, Nixon single-handedly kicked Soviet ass by creating issues of Soviet hegemony with China, threatening to "wake the sleeping giant." That kept the Soviets busy for quite a while.
Nixon had a stormy, unsavory political career. Personally, I don't care for him, but he was nonetheless a formidable statesman. He could at least tell you the names of the political leaders of foreign countries. The results of Nixon's diplomatic efforts are overshadowed by his rampant paranoia, but the man had nothing handed to him.
Thanks for taking the bait too, Joe. I suspect Thomas saw through me the minute he read that line.
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
Michael, you also could stand to loosen your tie......
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Gads no. I'm confirmed type-A.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
That's hardly refutation of a pack of lies, Jason. Loosen your tie a little.

So then you're saying that while you didn't find a couple of the things you read in what I posted to be definitive refutation, you are saying that what you posted was a pack of lies?
As for ties, I'm all about business casual and avoid wearing them whenever possible. In the spirit of compromise though, I will unbutton another shirt button or two and fluff up my chest hair a bit.
[ November 19, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
In the spirit of compromise though, I will unbutton another shirt button or two and fluff up my chest hair a bit.
And the girls are all swooning!
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

I think the question is whether society as a whole can do any better than the criminals it punishes.
TP: If society is not better than the criminals then we might as well grab our guns and head for the hills.
ME: I'll put it another way; we expect society to hold itself to a higher standard. One way to interpret that is that society does not respond to brutal behavior with brutal behavior. This does not necessarily amount to treating criminals "better" than victims, but it might mean refusing to punish criminals by subjecting to the same acts of brutality they perpetrated on others.
It [the death penalty] does not, however, follow the principles of justice we adopted or inherited.
TP: Adopted or inherited from whom? Certainly the death penalty has been part of justice as long as this country has existed.
The same philosophy of justice that we share with much of Western Europe. The death penalty has been largely discredited by those who share that philosophy. I'm not saying the death penalty is outside the code of law. I'm just saying so long as the state can kill people, it remains questionable whether we've risen above that element in society that does the same thing.
The test the accused is supposed to face, in a criminal courtroom, is not whether a murderer deserves to be treated the way the victim was treated, but how society rights itself when its laws and protections have been violated.
TP: No one is saying that we should treat the criminal the way the criminal treated the victim. If we did say that then we would be dragging murderers down the street chained to the back of pickup trucks. We are saying that criminals should receive justice, which means that under certain circumstances they should forfeit their life.
ME: But is it necessary? Protecting society from its criminal element, I will be the first to admit, is an objective with some very real constraints, such as first enforcing our liberties. Once we've removed a criminal from society, thereby protecting it, what requirement is satisfied by the forfeiture of life?
This code stipulates that if society takes an eye for an eye, it stoops to little more than organized criminal behavior.
TP: Which code would that be? There is a vast difference between a jury convicting a criminal and sentencing him to death and "organized criminal behavior". If you can't see that then I suggest you grab your guns and head for the hills.
ME: I acknowledge receipt of your response to my rhetorical posturing.
When society uses criminal behavior to address criminal behavior,...
TP: ...Unless you think that executing a criminal is the same as murdering someone. But by this logic wouldn't putting someone in prison against their will be the same as kidnapping?
ME: The criteria I would apply is above: removing people harmful to a society is the objective, or so I would think. Putting to death such a person is one answer to that. It seems more than what is necessary to achieve that aim.
it admits that the only difference between itself and the criminal is the greater degree of force it can exert.
TP: I would suggest that the greater degree of force was done by those men who dragged Mr. Byrd from the back of their pickup truck. But, of course, there is a huge difference. Mr. Byrd was not tried by a jury of his peers and given the opportunity to cross examine witnesses. He wasn't given the protection of the law to insure that he was given every opportunity to save his life.
ME: There's no dispute that what happened to Mr. Byrd is horrible, and the actions of his killers beyond fathoming. But what societal protection does killing his killers achieve? I am guessing by the repeated use of this graphical example, you mean to suggest that certain reprehensible acts demand the state kill in return?
If we only believe in life and liberty under certain conditions, then we do not believe in life and liberty.
TP: We already have decided that people can lose their liberty under certain conditions? Haven't you ever heard of prisons? The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution is to limit when society can deprive people of their life and liberty! The reason is because we so deeply believe in life and liberty. If we didn't, then we would have just gunned down Mr. Byrd's murderer's in the street and not bothered with a trial.
ME: Well you got me there. I forgot what I had in mind when I wrote that line -- should have stricken it.
If Texans wish to assert that the whole of society is best served by killing people who kill, so be it. Does make you wonder, though, why the count of state-supported executions is so out of whack compared to other states with the death-penalty.
TP: Yes, it makes me wonder when the other states are going to wake up and catch up to Texas. It took us 20 years to get the death penalty back in NY. We had to throw out our liberal governor who kept vetoing the bills sent to him every year. We still haven't had an execution yet, but we have them in the pipeline. These things take time.
ME: Such is the will of the people. They can vote themselves the treasury, and they can vote certain people dead. Last I looked, though, Justice was a philosophy, not a purely democratic exercise.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
ME: But is it necessary? Protecting society from its criminal element, I will be the first to admit, is an objective with some very real constraints, such as first enforcing our liberties. Once we've removed a criminal from society, thereby protecting it, what requirement is satisfied by the forfeiture of life?
TP: Justice! You haven't mentioned it much but that is what our justice system is supposed to be all about. It is right and just that certain criminals forfeit their lives for their henous crimes. Protecting society is only one part of why we punish. We punish for three reasons:
1) to protect society
2) to deter others
3) to serve justice
I am willing to agree that the first two probably are not major reasons for the death penalty. Society can protect us from murderers (although we would need to get much tougher for this to be true). And I doubt that many murderers are deterred by the death penalty. But certain crimes are so heinous that the only way that society can express its revulsion is to execute the criminal. Execution in these cases is justice and society fails if it does not provide justice.
Here is a question for you... do you think ANY crime would be heinous enough that the criminal should be executed if convicted?
Phil Chuang
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 251
Re: Bush not being a formidable Statesman, effusively eloquent, or knocks against his apparent lack of intelligence -
When did a silver tongue, large vocabulary, and genious-level IQ become required attributes of a good leader? The Devil himself has a sly way with words, but does that mean he should be our president? (Please, no Bush=Satan replies). Stephen Hawking is pretty damned smart, but does that mean he would make a good president? Granted, these qualifications certainly would not hurt to have, but in no way should they be the only critera to judge on. Other certain qualities, such as Empathy, Dedication, Honesty, Respect, Honor, Integrity, etc. would go a lot further towards being a good leader. The President is not supposed to be the most intelligent man on the planet - but he is responsible for surrounding himself with the most qualified people he can find in their fields - such as foreign affairs, national defense, intelligence, etc.
Re: criminals
The Bill of Rights, the Constitution, laws, etc. - I would argue that these are societal contracts - stating that if you follow the rules, you can expect us to do likewise. However, if you stray from them or break them, then you can expect your rights to be removed, including your right to belong to a civil society, and even your right to live.
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
Originally posted by Phil Chuang:

The Bill of Rights, the Constitution, laws, etc. - I would argue that these are societal contracts - stating that if you follow the rules, you can expect us to do likewise. However, if you stray from them or break them, then you can expect your rights to be removed, including your right to belong to a civil society, and even your right to live.

You mean that if I wire myself up with 100 pound of plastic explosive and stroll into the US Capitol I've forfeited my right to live? I demand a hearing before the Supreme Court!!!
Assuming someone else hasn't car-bombed or flown a hijacked 757 into it of course. Otherwise there might be a slight delay while we replace the Justices....
[ November 19, 2003: Message edited by: Alfred Neumann ]
Phil Chuang
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 251
Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:

You mean that if I wire myself up with 100 pound of plastic explosive and stroll into the US Capitol I've forfeited my right to live? I demand a hearing before the Supreme Court!!!
[ November 19, 2003: Message edited by: Alfred Neumann ]

Yes, you've forfeited your right to live, but you've inherited the right to be a martyr, revered and beloved throughout the generations.
Congratulations, your 72 virgins are in the mail!
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Phil Chuang:
Re: Bush not being a formidable Statesman, effusively eloquent, or knocks against his apparent lack of intelligence
...
Re: criminals

Very well said on both points.
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404
You mean that if I wire myself up with 100 pound of plastic explosive and stroll into the US Capitol I've forfeited my right to live? I demand a hearing before the Supreme Court!!!
Assuming someone else hasn't car-bombed or flown a hijacked 757 into it of course


Or Acts of Congress striking down the Supreme Court !
Has that ever happened ?
regards
[ November 19, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Here is a question for you... do you think ANY crime would be heinous enough that the criminal should be executed if convicted?

If I thought that it served justice, I would have to answer yes.
On the whole, though, I'd like to think we reserve that sort of option for cases in which we clearly have no other choice.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
If I thought that it served justice, I would have to answer yes.
On the whole, though, I'd like to think we reserve that sort of option for cases in which we clearly have no other choice.

That isn't an answer. Would you assasinate the president? Well, if I thought he was an alien space being here to destroy the earth. Duh!
What else would you say? "If I though it served justice I would still be opposed to it?"
So give me an real example of a crime that you think is heinous enough to deserve the death penalty.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by HS Thomas:
Or Acts of Congress striking down the Supreme Court !
Has that ever happened ?
It can't happen. It would require a constitutional ammendment. Of course we have had at least one case where the president ignored the Supreme Court. Andrew Jackson did that. When the Supreme COurt went against him on a case he retorted, "John Marshall [Chief Justice of the Supreme Court] has made his decision, now let him enforce it."
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
Nixon was the first US president to visit China and begin establishing friendlier diplomatic relations. In the middle of a domestically unpopular war effort, Nixon single-handedly kicked Soviet ass by creating issues of Soviet hegemony with China, threatening to "wake the sleeping giant." That kept the Soviets busy for quite a while.
Nixon went against popular position to destabilize a globally dangerous regime.
Bush went againt popular position to destabilize (hell, eliminate) a globally dangerous regime.

Nixon had a stormy, unsavory political career. Personally, I don't care for him, but he was nonetheless a formidable statesman. He could at least tell you the names of the political leaders of foreign countries. The results of Nixon's diplomatic efforts are overshadowed by his rampant paranoia, but the man had nothing handed to him.
Bush had a powerful political process in place. Nixon for his second term had CREEP, which was pretty powerful in its day. Also criminal. On the other hand, Bush hasn't been officially accused of, much less found guilty of, any of the things that Nixon admitted to.
So what makes Nixon a better President than Bush? Specifically?

Thanks for taking the bait too, Joe. I suspect Thomas saw through me the minute he read that line.
You post something. I question your post, and it was just bait. I see.

Anyway, I'm not taking anything. I'm just trying to figure out what your qualifications are for a "good" President. Considering the fact that all nearly everything you posted was solidly debunked, the only qualification seems to be "not being Bush".

Joe
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
Nixon went against popular position to destabilize a globally dangerous regime.
Bush went againt popular position to destabilize (hell, eliminate) a globally dangerous regime.

And while I realize you were probably talking about Vietnam, Nixon's China visits with Mao were not particularly popular here in the states, if you'll recall, and were largely seen as a re-election stunt.
Joe
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
Hee hee! In doing just a little research on Nixon, it was amazing to be reminded of what happened during that man's tenure!
Invading Cambodia, bombing North Korea.
Woodstock. Kent State. Wounded Knee.
US off the gold standard.
The OPEC embargo.
Agnew resigns for taking bribes!
Watergate and the Saturday Night Massacre.
Good things too, to be sure. Apollo 11, the EPA, ARPANET. But man, to slam Bush in comparison to Nixon... that's an awfully looooooong stretch!
Joe
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
ME: Of course I didn't "do my homework" before posting my lambaste, but that doesn't mean this PDF isn't full of mere counterclaims. Just because the rebutting passages are sourced does not mean they are authoritative or true.
Then rebut them.
ME: I'm not planning to read the whole thing.
Let no facts stand in the way of a good lie, eh?
ME: Then again, I don't have to to debunk it. On p. 3 it states: The military does not and cannot by regulation, issue an Honorable Discharge to anyone that has been AWOL or otherwise seriously reprimanded."
What Michael fails to mention is that the statement he is quoting is from an email reportedly from a military person going into great detail about why the claim that GWB was AWOL is false. Instead Michael chose to point to this single quote and based on his experiences, misinterpret it. Being AWOL is a UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) punishable offense. In order to guilty of an offense under the UCMJ, just like in the civillian world, there is a legal process. This can be in the form of (in order of severity) a Letter of Counceling (LOC), a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), Article 15 (which can be waived for a trial by court martial), or a court martial. There is nothing anywhere that indicates GWB had an LOC, LOR, Article 15, or court martial conviction (or trial for that matter) for anything, never mind being AWOL. I suspect that this whole issue is simply a case of somebody watching A Few Good Men a few too many times. In other words, whoever brought up the issue doesn't seem to have a clue about the military or the military justice system.
ME: Which may in fact be true on paper. On other hand, I can think of an Airman and a former Coast Guard cadet both of whom were issued such discharges. One was sent to corrective custody for refusing the anthrax vaccine. The other struck a superior officer. The politics of both were quite interesting, but as in all other facets of life, written regulations are only part of the story.
Now, going to Michael's examples, if his friends did not have the correct paperwork in their records (such as a UCMJ conviction), then it is probable that their discharges would be honorable. In fact, even if someone has an Article 15, they still receive honorable discharges in more circumstances than not. The military doesn't always jump to discharge somebody if they get into some minor trouble. Regarding your friend who went to correctional custody (or CC as we referred to is), CC is not something that is forced on somebody. It is an option that may be presented to an individual who their commander feels may be rehabilitated and his career salvaged. The individual may walk out of CC at any time with the understanding that doing so will in all likelihood end his military career and that the discharge will not be honorable. An individual who satisfactorally completes his time in CC will be discharged honorably upon completion of their term of enlistment assuming they don't get into trouble after that. Now as I do not know any details specific to his friends' cases I cannot say anything definitively one way or the other. However, every good military supervisor is well versed in the range of judicial and non-judicial punishment available to him and his superiors for dealing with various personnel issues that could arise.
ME: Jason conveniently omits that I did not include some facts from "the resume" because I knew they were crap on their face. And then some that are merely overblown charges, well, welcome to politics.
Well, that's pretty much the entire piece, but it didn't stop you from posting it.
ME: In any event, I don't find authoritative rebuttal on much of the resume as it stands, just rebuttal.
"Spent the US surplus; effectively bankrupted the US Treasury. Shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in US history."
As a quick reading of the Constitution will attest, the President has no power to spend. That power lies with Congress.

Hmm... Seems pretty definitive to me.
"Set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the US
stock market."

Facts on File disagrees:

"The largest stock-market drop in Wall Street history occurred on "Black Monday" -- October 19, 1987 -- when the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 508.32 points, losing 22.6% of its total value."

If you'd like to suggest that the phrase "biggest drop" refers to a period of time and not a single day, then Bush isn't to blame either:

The Ten Worst Stock Market Crashes of All Time (as of 10/28/02)
Source: About.com
Date Started | Date Ended | Number of Days | Total Loss
=======================================================
4/17/1930 | 7/8/1932 | 813 | -86.0%
3/10/1937 | 3/31/1938 | 386 | -49.1%
1/19/1906 | 11/15/1907 | 665 | -48.5%
9/3/1929 | 11/13/1929 | 71 | -47.9%
11/3/1919 | 8/24/1921 | 660 | -46.6%
6/17/1901 | 11/9/1903 | 875 | -46.1%
1/11/1973 | 12/06/1974 | 694 | -45.1%
9/12/1939 | 4/28/1942 | 959 | -40.4%
11/21/1916 | 12/19/1917 | 393 | -40.1%
9/7/1932 | 2/27/1933 | 173 | -37.2%

That also seems pretty definitive. Well anyway, you get the point. There's no use continuing when you could just read the article for yourselves. The article points out that the items Michael has presented as fact are generally either unsubstantiated or outright lies. But read it and judge it for yourself.
ME: Perhaps instead of calling this sincere effort "The Truth" it might better be called "My Research into Opposing Viewpoints and Alternative Explanations."
And what would be a good title for the work you posted?
[ November 19, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: Do you have what it takes to be President?